Modular megaprostheses are now the most common method of reconstruction after segmental resection of the long bones in the lower extremities. Previous studies reported variable outcome and failure rates after knee megaprosthetic reconstructions. The objectives of this study were to analyze the results of a modular tumor prosthesis after resection of bone tumor around the knee with respect to (1) survivorship; (2) failure rate; (3) comparative survivorship against different sites of reconstructions and of primary and revision implants; and (4) functional results on the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system. Between 2003 and 2010, 247 rotating-hinge Global Modular Reconstruction System (GMRS) knee prostheses were implanted in our institute for malignant and aggressive benign tumors. During this time, that group represented 23% of the patients who had oncologic megaprosthesis reconstruction about the knee after resection of primary or metastatic bone tumors (247 of 1086 patients). In the other 77% of cases we used other types of oncologic prostheses. Before 2003 we used the older Howmedica Modular Resection System and Kotz Modular Femur/Tibia Replacement from 2003 we used mostly the GMRS but we continued to use the HMRS in some cases such as patients with poor prognoses, elderly patients, or metastatic patients. Sites included 187 distal femurs and 60 proximal tibias. Causes of megaprosthesis failure were classified according to Henderson et al. in five types: Type 1 (soft tissue failure), Type 2 (aseptic loosening), Type 3 (structural failure), Type 4 (infection), and Type 5 (tumor progression). Followup was at a minimum oncologic followup of 2 years (mean, 4 years; range, 2–8 years). Kaplan-Meier actuarial curves of implant survival to major failures were done. Functional results were analyzed according to the MSTS II system; 223 of the 247 were available for functional scoring (81%). At latest followup, among 175 treated patients for primary reconstruction, 117 are continuously disease-free, 26 have no evidence of disease after treatment of relapse, eight are alive with disease, and 24 died from disease. The overall failure rate of the megaprostheses in our series was 29.1% (72 of 247). Type 1 failure occurred in 8.5% (21 of 247) cases, Type 2 in 5.6% (14 of 247), Type 3 in 0%, Type 4 in 9.3% (23 of 247), and Type 5 in 5.6% (14 of 247). Kaplan-Meier curve showed an overall implant survival rate for all types of failures of 70% at 4 years and 58% at 8 years. Prosthetic survivorship for revisions was 80% at 5 years and for primary reconstructions was 60% at 5 years (p = 0.013). Survivorship to infection was 95% at 5 years for revision patients and 84% at 5 years for primary patients (p = 0.475). The mean MSTS score was 84 (25.2; range, 8–30) with no difference between sites of localization (24.7 in proximal tibia versus 25.4 in distal femur reconstruction; p = 0.306). Results at a minimum of 2 years with this modular prosthesis are satisfactory in terms of survivorship (both oncologic and reconstructive) and causes and rates of failure. Although these results seem comparable with other like implants, we will continue to follow this cohort, and we believe that comparative trials among the available megaprosthesis designs are called for. Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Spinal infection poses a demanding diagnostic and treatment problem for which a multidisciplinary approach with spine surgeons, radiologists, and infectious disease specialists is required. Infections are usually caused by bacterial microorganisms, although fungal infections can also occur. The most common route for spinal infection is through hematogenous spread of the microorganism from a distant infected area. Most patients with spinal infections diagnosed in early stages can be successfully managed conservatively with antibiotics, bed rest, and spinal braces. In cases of gross or pending instability, progressive neurological deficits, failure of conservative treatment, spinal abscess formation, severe symptoms indicating sepsis, and failure of previous conservative treatment, surgical treatment is required. In either case, close monitoring of the patients with spinal infection with serial neurological examinations and imaging studies is necessary.

Mal sacral resections are associated with substantial perioperative morbidity. Questions/purposes We considered survivorship related to local recurrence in terms of surgical margins, level of resection, and previous surgery. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 56 patients with sacral chordomas treated with surgical resection. Thirty-seven were resected above S3 by a combined anterior and posterior approach and 19 at or below S3 by a posterior approach. Nine of these had had previous intralesional surgery elsewhere. The minimum followup was 3 years (mean, 9.5 years; range, 3-28 years). Results Overall survival was 97% at 5 years, 71% at 10 years, and 47% at 15 years. Survivorship to local recurrence was 65% at 5 years and 52% at 10 years. Thirty percent of patients developed metastases. Wide margins were associated with increased survivorship to local recurrence. We found no differences in local recurrence between wide and wide-contaminated margins (that is, if the tumor or its pseudocapsule was exposed intraoperatively, but further tissue was removed to achieve wide margins). Previous intralesional surgery was associated with an increased local recurrence rate. We observed no differences in the recurrence rate in resections above S3 or at and below S3. Conclusions Surgical margins affect the risk of local recurrence. Previous intralesional surgery was associated with a higher rate of local recurrence. Intraoperative contamination did not affect the risk of local recurrence when wide margins were subsequently attained. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence....

Oses We wished to (1) evaluate the frequency of infection after limb salvage surgical resection for bone tumors in the pelvis; (2) determine whether infection after these resections is associated with particular risk factors, including pelvic reconstruction, radiotherapy or chemotherapy, type of resection, and age; and (3) analyze treatment of these infections, particularly with respect to the need of additional surgery or hemipelvectomy. Methods From 1975 to 2010, 270 patients with pelvic bone tumors (149 with chondrosarcoma, 40 with Ewing’s sarcoma, 27 with osteosarcoma, 18 with other primary malignant tumors, 11 with metastatic tumors, and 25 with primary benign tumors) were treated by surgical resection. Minimum followup was 1.1 years (mean, 8 years; range, 1-33 years). The resection involved the periacetabular area in 166 patients. In 137 patients reconstruction was performed; in 133 there was no reconstruction. Chart review ascertained the frequency of deep infections, how they were treated, and the frequency of resection arthroplasty or hemipelvectomies that occurred thereafter. Results A total of 55 patients (20%) had a deep infection develop at a mean followup of 8 months. There were 20 infections in 133 patients without reconstruction (15%) and 35 infections in 137 patients with reconstruction (26 %). Survivorship rates of the index procedures using infection as the end point were 87%, 83%, and 80% at 1 month, 1 year, and 5 years, respectively. Infection was more common in patients who underwent pelvic reconstruction after resection (univariate analysis, p = 0.0326; multivariate analysis, p = 0.0418; odds ratio, 1.7718; 95% CI, 1.0243-3.0650); no other risk factors we evaluated were associated with an increased likelihood of infection. Despite surgical débridements and antibiotics, 16 patients (46%) had the implant removed and five (9%) underwent external hemipelvectomy (four owing to infection and one as a result of persistent infection and local recurrence). Conclusions Infection is a common complication of pelvic resection for bone tumors. Reconstruction after resection is associated with an increased risk of infection compared with resection alone, without significant difference in percentage between allograft and metallic prosthesis. When infection occurs, it requires removal of the implant in nearly half of the patients who have this complication develop, and external hemipelvectomy sometimes is needed to eradicate the infection. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence....