Patients suffering from a pathological fracture or painful bony lesion because of metastatic bone disease often benefit from a total joint replacement. However, these are large operations in patients who are often weak. We examined the patient survival and complication rates after total joint replacement as the treatment for bone metastasis or hematological diseases of the extremities. 130 patients (mean age 64 (30-85) years, 76 females) received 140 joint replacements due to skeletal metastases (n = 114) or hematological disease (n = 16) during the period 2003-2008. 21 replaced joints were located in the upper extremities and 119 in the lower extremities. Clinical and survival data were extracted from patient files and various registers. The probability of patient survival was 51% (95% CI: 42-59) after 6 months, 39% (CI: 31-48) after 12 months, and 29% (CI: 21-37) after 24 months. The following surgical complications were seen (8 of which led to additional surgery): 2-5 hip dislocations (n = 8), deep infection (n = 3), peroneal palsy (n = 2), a shoulder prosthesis penetrating the skin (n = 1), and disassembly of an elbow prosthesis (n = 1). The probability of avoiding all kinds of surgery related to the implanted prosthesis was 94% (CI: 89-99) after 1 year and 92% (CI: 85-98) after 2 years. Joint replacement operations because of metastatic bone disease do not appear to have given a poorer rate of patient survival than other types of surgical treatment, and the reoperation rate was low.

Aims The purpose of this study was to develop a prognostic model for predicting survival of patients undergoing surgery owing to metastatic bone disease (MBD) in the appendicular skeleton. Methods We included a historical cohort of 130 consecutive patients (mean age 64 years, 30 to 85; 76 females/54 males) who underwent joint arthroplasty surgery (140 procedures) owing to MBD in the appendicular skeleton during the period between January 2003 and December 2008. Primary cancer, pre-operative haemoglobin, fracture versus impending fracture, Karnofsky score, visceral metastases, multiple bony metastases and American Society of Anaesthesiologist’s score were included into a series of logistic regression models. The outcome was the survival status at three, six and 12 months respectively. Results were internally validated based on 1000 cross-validations and reported as time-dependent area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC) for predictions of outcome. Results The predictive scores obtained showed AUC values of 79.1% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 65.6 to 89.6), 80.9% (95% CI 70.3 to 90.84) and 85.1% (95% CI 73.5 to 93.9) at three, six and 12 months. Discussion In conclusion, we have presented and internally validated a model for predicting survival after surgery owing to MBD in the appendicular skeleton. The model is the first, to our knowledge, built solely on material from patients who only had surgery in the appendicular skeleton. Take home message: Applying this prognostic model will help determine whether the patients’ anticipated survival makes it reasonable to subject them to extensive reconstructive surgery for which there may be an extended period of rehabilitation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:271–7.

Background: Survival predictions before surgery for metastatic bone disease in the extremities (based on statistical models and data of previous patients) are important for choosing an implant that will function for the remainder of the patient’s life. The 2008-SPRING model, presented in 2016, enables the clinician to predict expected survival before surgery for metastatic bone disease in the extremities. However, to maximize the model’s accuracy, it is necessary to maintain and update the patient database to refit the prediction models achieving more accurate calibration. Questions/purposes: The purposes of this study were (1) to refit the 2008-SPRING model for prediction of survival before surgery for metastatic bone disease in the extremities with a more modern cohort; and (2) to evaluate the performance of the refitted SPRING model in a population-based cohort of patients having surgery for metastatic bone disease in the extremities. Methods: We produced the 2013-SPRING model by adding to the 2008-SPRING model (n = 130) a cohort of patients from a consecutive institutional database of patients who underwent surgery for bone metastases in the extremities with bone resection and reconstruction between 2009 and 2013 at a highly specialized surgical center in Denmark (n = 140). Currently the model is only available as the nomogram fully available in the current article, which is sufficient to use in daily clinical work, but we are working on making the tool available online. As such, the 2013-SPRING model was produced using a consecutive cohort of patients (n = 270) treated during an 11-year period (2003-2013) called the training cohort, all treated with bone resection and reconstruction. We externally validated the 2008-SPRING and the 2013-SPRING models in a prospective cohort (n = 164) of patients who underwent surgery for metastatic bone disease in the extremities from May 2014 to May 2016, called the validation cohort. The validation cohort was identified from a cross-section of the Danish population who were treated for metastatic lesions (using endoprostheses and internal fixation) in the extremities at five secondary surgical centers and one highly specialized surgical center. This cross-section is representative of the Danish population and no patients were treated outside the included centers as a result of public healthcare settings. The indications for surgery for training and the validation cohort were pathologic fracture, impending fracture, or intractable pain despite radiation. Exact date of death was known for all patients as a result of the Danish Civil Registration System and no loss to followup existed. In the training cohort, 150 patients (out of 270 [56%]) and in the validation cohort 97 patients (out of 164 [59%]) died of disease within 1 year postoperatively. The 2013 model did not differ from the 2008 model and included hemoglobin, complete fracture/impending fracture, visceral and multiple bone metastases, Karnofsky Performance Status, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists score and primary cancer. The models were evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC ROC) and Brier score (the lower the better). Results: The 2013-SPRING model was successfully refitted with a cohort using more patients than the 2008-SPRING model. Comparison of performance in external validation between the 2008 and 2013-SPRING models showed the AUC ROC was increased by 3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-5%; p = 0.027) and 2% (95% CI, 0%-4%; p = 0.013) at 3-month and 6-month survival predictions, respectively, but not at 12 months at 1% (95% CI, 0%-3%; p = 0.112). Brier score was improved by -0.018 (95% CI, -0.032 to -0.004; p = 0.011) for 3-month, -0.028 (95% CI, -0.043 to -0.0123; p < 0.001) for 6-month, and -0.014 (95% CI, -0.025 to -0.002; p = 0.017) for 12-month survival prediction. Conclusions: We improved the SPRING model’s ability to predict survival after surgery for metastatic bone disease in the extremities. As such, the refitted 2013-SPRING model gives the surgeon a tool to assist in the decision-making of a surgical implant that will serve the patient for the remainder of their life. The 2013-SPRING model may provide increased quality of life for patients with bone metastasis because potential implant failures can be minimized by precise survival prediction preoperatively and the model is freely available and ready to use from the current article. Level of Evidence: Level I, diagnostic study.

Endoprosthesis is considered a durable implant for treating metastatic bone disease of the proximal femur (MBDf). • What is the revision risk after surgery for MBDf using endoprosthesis versus internal fixation?• When do patients with MBDf treated with endoprosthesis restore quality of life (QoL) and how long time does it take to rehabilitate functional outcome? A prospective, population-based, multicentre study of 110 patients. Patients were followed for a minimum of two years after surgery. No patients were lost to implant failure nor survival follow-up. Forty-four patients were treated with internal fixation and 66 patients received endoprostheses. Two-year implant failure risk for internal fixation was 7% (95CI: 0-14%) versus 2% (95CI: 0-5%) for endoprostheses (p = 0.058).Eq-5D improved to the same level as one month prior to surgery six-weeks after surgery, and the score improved further six months after surgery (median score from 0.603 to 0.694, p = 0.007). MSTS score increased from 12 points after surgery to 23 points six-months after surgery (p<0.001). Endoprosthesis for treatment of MBDf results in low implant failure rate. Patients are satisfied with the functional outcome. QoL is restored six-weeks after surgery. Authors advocate for caution using internal fixation for MBDf due to findings of a possible high early postoperative revision risk.

Aims: Dislocation is a major concern following total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis (OA). Both dual-mobility components and standard acetabular components with large femoral heads are used to reduce the risk of dislocation. We investigated whether dual-mobility components are superior to standard components in reducing the two-year dislocation and revision risk in a propensity-matched sample from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register (DHR).Methods: This population-based cohort study analyzed data from the DHR and the Danish National Patient Register. We included all patients undergoing primary THA for OA from January 2010 to December 2019 with either dual-mobility or standard acetabular components with metal-on-polyethylene or ceramic-on-polyethylene articulations with a 36 mm femoral head. The samples were propensity score-matched on patient and implant characteristics. The primary outcome was the difference in the absolute risk of dislocation within two years, with a secondary outcome of the difference in the absolute risk of revision surgery of any cause within the same timeframe. The cumulative incidence of dislocation was calculated using the Aalen-Johansen estimator, while the difference in absolute risk was estimated using absolute risk regression (ARR).Results: We included 4,499 patients with dual-mobility components and 4,499 patients with standard components after propensity score-matching. Both groups had a mean age of 75 years (SD 8.5), included approximately 60% females, and had a two-year survival of 95.3% (95% CI 94.6 to 95.9). The dual-mobility group was 80% less likely to dislocate within two years (ARR 0.20 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.28); p < 0.001), with no significant difference in the risk of revision compared to standard components (ARR 1.15 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.48); p = 0.293).Conclusion: Dual-mobility components are associated with a reduced risk of dislocation and with no significant difference in the risk of revision for any cause within two years of THA when compared to standard acetabular components with 36 mm femoral heads.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(1):50–57.