Megaprosthetic reconstruction of segmental bone defects following sarcoma resection is a frequently chosen surgical approach in orthopedic oncology. While the use of megaprostheses has gained popularity over the last decades and such implants are increasingly used for metastatic reconstructions and in non-tumor cases, there still is a high risk of long-term complications leading to revision surgery. This article investigates current implant survivorship, frequency and types of complications as well as functional outcomes of upper and lower limb megaprosthetic reconstructions.

Purpose: Megaprosthetic distal femoral reconstruction (DFR) is a limb‐salvage procedure to address bone loss following two‐stage revision for periprosthetic knee joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to analyze the survival of DFR compared to hinged total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It was hypothesized that DFR was associated with a poorer survival.Methods: In this retrospective single‐center study, 97 subjects who underwent two‐stage revision of chronic knee PJI were included. Among these, 41 were DFR. The diagnosis of PJI was established using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Implant survival was calculated using Kaplan–Meier method and compared with the log‐rank test as well as multivariate Cox regression at a minimum follow‐up period of 24 months.Results: The median follow‐up period was 59 (interquartile range (IQR) 45–78) months. Overall, 24% (23/97) of patients required revision surgery for infection. The infection‐free survival of rotating hinge revision TKA was 93% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 86–100%) at five years compared to 50% (95% CI 34–66%) for DFR. In multivariate analysis, the risk factors for reinfection were DFR reconstruction (HR 4.7 (95% CI 1–22), p = 0.048), length of megaprosthesis (HR 1.006 (95% CI 1.001–1.012), p = 0.032) and higher BMI (HR 1.066, 95% CI 1.018–1.116), p = 0.007). 10% (4/41) of patients undergoing DFR underwent amputation to treat recurrent infection. Conclusion: Megaprosthetic DFR as part of a two‐stage exchange for PJI is a salvage treatment that has a high risk for reinfection compared to non‐megaprosthetic TKA. Patients must therefore be counseled accordingly. Level of evidence: Retrospective observational study, Level IV.

Background: Differentiation between traumatic osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic vertebral fractures is crucial for optimal therapy planning. We postulated that the morphology of the posterior edge of the cranial fragment of A3 vertebral fractures is different in these entities. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop and validate a simple method to differentiate between osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic A3 vertebral fractures by morphological analysis. Methods: A total of 86 computer tomography scans of AO Type A3 (cranial burst) vertebral body fractures (52 non-osteoporotic, 34 osteoporotic) were included in this retrospective study. Posterior edge morphology was analyzed using the sagittal paramedian slice with the most prominent shaped bulging. Later, the degree of bulging of the posterior edge fragment was quantified using a geometric approach. Additionally, the Hounsfield units of the broken vertebral body, the vertebra above, and the vertebra below the fracture were measured. Results: We found significant differences in the extent of bulging comparing osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic fractures in our cohort. Using the presented method, sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 96%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 94%. In contrast, by evaluating the Hounsfield units, sensitivity was 94%, specificity 94% and the PPV was 91%. Conclusions: Our method of analysis of the bulging of the dorsal edge fragment in traumatic cranial burst fractures cases allows, in our cases, a simple and valid differentiation between osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic fractures. Further validation in a larger sample, including dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements, is necessary.

(1) Background: Modular megaprosthetic reconstruction using a proximal humerus replacement has emerged as a commonly chosen approach after bone tumor resection. However, the long-term risk for revision surgery is relatively high. One factor that might be associated with mechanical failures is periprosthetic osteolysis around the stem, also known as stress shielding. The frequency, potential risk factors, and the effect on implant survival are unknown. (2) Methods: A retrospective single-center study of 65 patients with sarcoma who underwent resection of the proximal humerus and subsequent reconstruction with a modular endoprosthesis. Stress shielding was defined as the development of bone resorption around the prosthesis stem beginning at the bone/prosthesis interface. The extent of stress shielding was measured with a new method quantifying bone resorption in relation to the intramedullary stem length. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 12 months with conventional radiographs available and the median follow-up amounted to 36 months. (3) Results: Stress shielding was observed in 92% of patients (60/65). The median longitudinal extent of stress shielding amounted to 14% at last follow-up. Fifteen percent (10/65) showed bone resorption of greater than 50%. The median time to the first radiographic signs of stress shielding was 6 months (IQR 3–9). Patients who underwent chemotherapy (43/65) showed a greater extent of stress shielding compared to those without chemotherapy. Three percent (2/65) of patients were revised for aseptic loosening, and one patient had a periprosthetic fracture (1/65, 1.5%). All these cases had >20% extent of stress shielding (23–57%). (4) Conclusions: Stress shielding of the proximal humerus after shoulder reconstruction with modular megaprosthesis is common. It occurs within the first year of follow-up and might be self-limiting in many patients; however, about one third of patients shows progression beyond the first year. Still, mechanical complications were rare, but stress shielding might be clinically relevant in individual cases. The extent of stress shielding was increased in patients who underwent perioperative chemotherapy. Stress shielding can be quantified with an easy method using the stem length as a reference.

There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal surgical treatment method for patients with recurrent patella instability. Our goal was to evaluate the long-term results of combined arthroscopic medial reefing and lateral release, to identify possible risk factors for recurrent dislocations and residual complaints after surgical treatment and to assess functional outcome. We performed a retrospective study of 38 patients (43 knees) treated with all-inside technique between 2001 and 2010. The functional outcome was evaluated with the Kujala score, while pain intensity was scored on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Contingency tables were analysed with Fisher’s exact test. Non-parametric analyses were carried out with the Mann-Whitney U and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Survival curves were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. The median age at surgery was 16 years (range, 9–44 years) and the median follow-up amounted to 9.7 years (range, 4.7–14.7 years). Residual complaints were present in 34 cases (79%). Patients with residual complaints had a trend for a higher body mass index (BMI) at surgery (25.7 vs. 21.6, P = .086). Twenty-two cases had recurrent dislocation after a median interval of 30 months. The probability of recurrent dislocations amounted to 16% after 1 year and 52% after 10 years. There were no significant differences in the presence of residual complaints (P = .721) and median VAS score (P = .313) between patients with or without recurrent dislocation. Patients with recurrent dislocations had a trend towards younger age at surgery (15 vs. 18 years, P = .076). The median Kujala score of the affected knee was 81. Patients with recurrent dislocations had a significantly lower score compared to patients without recurrent dislocations (67 vs. 91, P < .001). The combined arthroscopic lateral release with medial reefing does not appear to be an adequate treatment for patients with chronic patellar instability in long-term follow-up. Younger patients might be at a higher risk for recurrent dislocations, while a higher BMI at surgery might be associated with residual complaints.

Background: Periprosthetic shoulder infections are devastating complications after shoulder arthroplasty. A potential treatment concept is a two-stage prosthesis exchange. Data are sparse in terms of clinical outcome, including infection-free survival and patient satisfaction after this procedure. In the present study, we investigated recurrence of infection, revision-free survivorship and clinical outcome following two-stage revision due to periprosthetic shoulder infection. Furthermore, reasons for poor outcome were analyzed. Methods: Sixteen patients undergoing two-stage revision after shoulder joint infection were retrospectively identified. Recurrence of infection was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier survival curve. Clinical outcome was quantified with subjective shoulder value (SSV), “quick” Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) and Rowe score. Range of motion (ROM) was measured pre- and postoperatively. Postoperative scores and ROM were compared in a subgroup analysis according to different reimplanted prosthesis types. Results: The reinfection-free implant survival was 81% after one year and at final follow-up (FU; mean of 33.2 months). The overall revision-free survival amounted to 56% after one year and at final FU. Patients who received reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as part of reimplantation had less disability and long-term complications. This group demonstrated better subjective stability and function compared to patients revised to megaprostheses or large-head hemiarthroplasties. Conclusions: Two-stage revision following periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder allows appropriate infection control in the majority of patients. However, the overall complications and revision rates due to mechanical failure or reinfection are high. Reimplantation of RSA seem superior to alternative prosthesis models in terms of function and patient satisfaction. Therefore, bone-saving surgery and reconstruction of the glenoid may increase the likelihood of reimplantation of RSA and potentially improve outcome in the case of infection-related two-stage revision of the shoulder.