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.

Despite very good prosthesis retention times, the growing numbers of primary implantations of hip endoprostheses are leading to increasing numbers of revision operations. Periprosthetic infection, particularly in revision implants, often leads to a massive loss of bone stock, so that in a two-stage exchange the only option left is implantation of a megaendoprosthesis. This retrospective study investigated the clinical and functional outcome for patients who received megaendoprostheses in the proximal femur in two-stage exchange procedures. Forty-nine patients were treated between 1996 and 2014 (mean age 71 years, mean follow-up period 52 months). Microorganisms were isolated intraoperatively in 44 patients (89.9%). The reinfection rate was documented in patients who did not undergo any further revision surgery due to mechanical failure (primary) and in patients who had subsequent revisions after reimplantation and subsequent reinfection (secondary). The mean C-reactive protein level at the time of reimplantation was 1.25 mg/dL (range 0.5–3.4). The primary success rate with curative treatment for prosthetic joint infection was 92% (four of 49 patients). The secondary success rate with infection revision cases was 82% (three of 17 revision cases). The mean Harris hip score was 69 (range 36–94). The majority of patients needed different types of walking aid or even wheelchairs, and only 50% of the patients were able to walk outside. Reinfections occurred in only 8% of patients who underwent two-stage exchanges with a proximal femur replacement. When revision surgery for the proximal femur replacement was required for mechanical reasons, however, the associated reinfections increased the reinfection rate to 18%. Proximal femur replacement achieves a clear reduction in pain, maintenance of leg length, and restoration of limited mobility, and the procedure thus represents a clear alternative to the extensive Girdlestone procedure, which is even more immobilising, or mutilating amputation.

Introduction: D-dimer is a diagnostic criterion for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) in 2018. The aim of this study was to evaluate the serum D-dimer values in comparison to C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) for the diagnosis of PJI. Materials and Methods: We included 119 patients (50 women, 69 men; 71 knees, 48 hips) undergoing revision arthroplasty with preoperative assessment of CRP, IL-6, and serum D-dimer. Cases were classified as infected or aseptic based on the MSIS criteria of 2018. Receiver operating curves and Youden’s index were used to define an ideal cut-off value and sensitivity and specificity for the individual parameters, and respective combinations were calculated using cross-tables. Results: The median D-dimer level (2320 vs. 1105 ng/mL; p < 0.001), the median CRP level (4.0 vs. 0.5 mg/dL; p < 0.001), and the median IL-6 level (21.0 vs. 5.0 pg/mL; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the group of PJI compared to the group with aseptic failure. The calculated optimal cut-off values were 2750 ng/mL (AUC 0.767) for D-dimer, 1.2 mg/dL (AUC 0.914) for CRP, and 10.0 pg/mL (AUC 0.849) for IL-6. D-dimer showed a sensitivity of 38% and specificity of 94%, whereas the CRP and IL-6 had sensitivities of 88% and 76%, and specificities of 87% and 92%, respectively. Conclusion: In comparison with CRP and IL-6, serum D-dimer showed low sensitivity and specificity in our cohort. While CRP and IL-6 combination had the highest sensitivity, a combination of Il-6 and D-dimer or CRP and IL-6 had the highest specificity.