Resection of diaphyseal bone tumors for local tumor control and stabilization often results in an intercalary skeletal defect and presents a reconstructive challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. Although many options for reconstruction have been described, relatively few studies report on the functional outcomes and complications of patients treated with modular intercalary endoprostheses. The objectives of this study were to examine clinical outcomes after reconstruction with a modular intercalary endoprosthesis with a specific focus on (1) the rate of complication or failure; (2) differences in complication rates by anatomic site; (3) functional results as assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society System (MSTS); and (4) differences in complication rate between patients treated with cemented versus noncemented fixation. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients treated with a modular intercalary endoprosthesis from three musculoskeletal oncology centers from 2008 to 2013. The indication for use of this intercalary endoprosthesis was segmental bone loss from aggressive or malignant tumor with sparing of the joint above and below and deemed unsuitable for biologic reconstruction. No other implant was used for this indication during this period. During this period, 41 patients received a total of 44 intercalary implants, which included 18 (40%) humeri, 5 (11%) tibiae, and 21 (48%) femora. There were 27 (66%) men and 14 (34%) women with a mean age of 63 years (range, 18–91 years). Eight patients (20%) had primary bone tumors and 33 (80%) had metastatic lesions. Thirty-five (85%) patients were being operated on as an initial treatment and six (15%) for revision of a previous reconstruction. Twenty-nine (66%) procedures had cemented stem fixation and 15 (34%) were treated with noncemented fixation. The overall mean followup was 14 months (range, 1–51 months). Patients with primary tumors had a mean followup of 19 months (range, 4–48 months) and patients with metastatic disease had a mean followup of 11 months (range, 1–51 months). Causes of implant failure were categorized according to Henderson et al. [19] into five types as follows: Type I (soft tissue failure), Type II (aseptic loosening), Type III (structural failure), Type IV (infection), and Type V (tumor progression). At 2 years of followup, 38 (93%) of these patients were accounted for with three (7%) lost to followup. MSTS functional assessment was available for 39 of 41 patients (95%). At latest followup of these 41 patients, 14 (34%) patients were dead of disease, two patients (5%) dead of other causes, seven (17%) are continuously disease-free, one (2%) shows no evidence of disease, and 17 (41%) are alive with disease. There were 12 (27%) nononcologic complications. Five (11%) of these were Type II failures occurring in noncemented implants between the stem and bone, and six (14%) were Type III failures occurring in cemented implants at the clamp-rod implant interface. One patient developed a deep infection (2%, Type IV failure) and underwent removal of the implant. Additionally, one patient (2%, Type V failure) was treated by amputation after local progression of his metastatic disease. Complications were more common in femoral reconstructions than in tibial or humeral reconstructions. Twelve of 21 patients (57%) with femoral reconstructions had complications versus 0% of tibial or humeral reconstructions (0 of 23; odds ratio [OR], 62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3–1154; p < 0.0001). The mean overall MSTS score was 77%. Implants with cemented fixation (29) had higher mean MSTS scores when compared with implants with noncemented (15) fixation (84% versus 66%, p = 0.0017). The complication rate was 33% in noncemented cases and 21% in cemented cases (p = 0.39); however, Type II failure at the bone-stem interface was associated with noncemented fixation and Type III failure at the clamp-rod interface was associated with cemented fixation (OR, 143; 95% CI, 2.413–8476; p = 0.0022). The results of this study indicate that this modular intercalary endoprosthesis yields equivalent results to other studies of intercalary endoprostheses in terms of MSTS scores. We found that patients treated with intercalary endoprostheses in the femur experienced more frequent complications than those treated for lesions in either the humerus or tibia and that the femoral complication rate of this endoprosthesis is higher when compared with other studies of intercalary endoprostheses for femoral reconstruction. Further studies are still needed to determine the long-term outcomes of this endoprosthesis in patients with primary tumors where longevity of the implant is of more importance than in the metastatic setting. We recommend cemented fixation for this intercalary modular endoprostheses because this provides improved MSTS scores and allows immediate return to weightbearing, which is of advantage to metastatic patients with limited lifespans. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Fracture. Other studies have suggested that subchondral bone grafting may reduce these risks. Questions/purposes Following standard intralesional resection-curettage and adjuvant treatment, is the use of bone graft, with or without supplemental PMMA, (1) associated with fewer nononcologic complications; (2) associated with differences in tumor recurrence between patients treated with versus those treated without bone grafting for GCT; and (3) associated with differences in Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores? Methods Between 1996 and 2014, 49 patients presented with GCT in the epiphysis of a long bone. Six patients were excluded, four who were lost to followup before 12 months and two because they presented with displaced, comminuted, intraarticular pathologic fractures with a nonreconstructable joint surface. The remaining 43 patients were included in our study at a mean followup of 59 months (range, 12-234 months). After resection-curettage, 21 patients were reconstructed using femoral head allograft with or without PMMA (JB) and 22 patients were reconstructed using PMMA alone (FRP, KSB); each surgeon used the same approach (that is, bone graft or no bone graft) throughout the period of study. The primary study comparison was between patients treated with bone graft (with or without PMMA) and those treated without bone graft. Results Nononcologic complications occurred less frequently in patients treated with bone graft than those treated without (10% [two of 21] versus 55% [12 of 22]; odds ratio, 0.088; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.47; p = 0.002). Patients with bone graft had increased nononcologic complication-free survival (hazard ratio, 4.59; 95% CI, 1.39-15.12; p = 0.012). With the numbers available, there was no difference in tumor recurrence between patients treated with bone graft versus without (29% [six of 21] versus 32% [seven of 22]; odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.1936-2.531; p = 0.586) or in recurrence-free survival among patients with bone graft versus without (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.30-2.98; p = 0.920). With the numbers available, there was no difference in mean MSTS scores between patients treated with bone graft versus without (92% ± 2% versus 93% ± 1.4%; mean difference 1.0%; 95% CI, −3.9% to 6.0%; p = 0.675). Conclusions Compared with PMMA alone, the use of periarticular bone graft constructs reduces postoperative complications apparently without increasing the likelihood of tumor recurrence. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study....

(1) Background: Giant Cell Tumor of the spine remains a difficult tumor to treat. Recent advances in adjuvant therapy such as denosumab and innovations in surgical technique in the last 5 years have given providers new options for treatment after a successful diagnosis of the tumor. (2) Methods: Articles published between 1927 and 2021 were selected from PubMed and Scopus searches using key words “Giant Cell Tumor” AND “Lumbar Spine” AND “Treatment”. Relevant articles were reviewed and selected by the authors. (3) Results: A total of 191 articles were discovered. Complete en bloc spondylectomy remains the most definitive treatment option; however, this surgery is challenging and carries a high rate of complication. New adjuvant therapies including denosumab offer a viable alternative to surgery. (4) En bloc spondylectomy remains the gold standard treatment for Giant Cell Tumor of the spine with the lowest published recurrence rate. The use of (neo)adjuvant denosumab improves recurrence rates. More data are needed to determine if denosumab alone is a viable standalone definitive treatment.

Limb-salvage for primary malignant bone tumors in pediatric patients presents a unique challenge when resection includes an active physis. Early expandable prostheses required open surgical procedures to achieve lengthening. Newer prostheses are capable of achieving expansion without open procedures through the use of an electromagnetic field. This study reports our results with 90 consecutive expansion procedures using the Repiphysis® prosthesis. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 20 patients (22 limbs) who underwent limb-salvage using the Repiphysis® prosthesis from 2003 to 2015. There were 9 males and 11 females with a mean age of 9 years and 9 months (6–16 years). Reconstruction included the distal femur in 11 cases, total femur in four, proximal tibia in three, proximal humerus in three, and total humerus in one. Complications were reviewed and functional scores were recorded using the MSTS/ISOLS system. Five patients had a second prosthesis implanted during the course of the study for a total of 27 prostheses. The mean follow-up was 57 (6–148) months. Four patients have not been expanded: three due to death prior to lengthening, and one patient who has not yet developed a leg length discrepancy. Ninety consecutive expansion procedures were performed in 18 limbs in 16 patients. A mean of 9 (5–20) mm was gained per expansion and 4.8 cm per patient who has undergone expansion to date. Seven patients have reached skeletal maturity and have been converted to an adult endoprosthesis. These patients averaged 8 expansions per patient and a mean of 7.4 (1.8–12.9) cm in length gained. There were 15 complications in 11 patients including one dislocation, one contracture, four cases of aseptic loosening, five structural failures (three expansion mechanism failures and two tibial fractures), three deep infections, and one case of local recurrence. The mean MSTS score was 80 % (37–97 %) and the limb retention rate was 95 %. The results of this study are comparable to previous studies involving non-invasive prostheses. This study hopefully provides additional data for clinicians to consider when faced with limb threatening sarcomas in the immature skeleton.

Fungal prosthetic joint infection (fPJI) is one of the orthopaedic pathologies where there is no clear evidence, guidelines or algorithm to guide the surgeon in its management. This is in addition to the difficulty with which these infections are diagnosed, isolated and treated. Fungi form notorious biofilms that are difficult to eradicate once formed and that display resistance to antimicrobial agents. These biofilms have been shown to act synergistically with biofilms of bacteria, further adding to medical treatment resistance. We have reviewed the literature for reports that describe the results of different methods in surgically treating fPJI. We found that surgical management with two stages remains the gold standard for treatment of fPJI, as is the case for bacterial PJI (bPJI). We have investigated medical treatment, debridement with implant retention (DAIR) and staged revisions and whether a reasonable recommendation can be made based on the best knowledge and practice available. From the data on bPJI, there exists a role for conservative management of acute PJI with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR). While fPJI and bPJI both represent infections, the differences in our ability to detect these infections clinically, culture the pathogens and treat them with proper antimicrobial agents, along with the difference in the reported results of the surgical treatment, make us believe that these two types of infections should not be treated in the same manner. With all this in mind, we reviewed several reports in the literature on fPJI to determine the efficacy of current treatment modalities, including DAIR, which followed current guidelines for PJI. Data show an overall treatment success rate of 64.4% [range 17.4–100%]. Subgroup analysis revealed a success rate of 11.6% [range 0–28.7%] in patients treated with DAIR. There is no doubt that DAIR should not be encouraged as it consistently has a bad record. Although there are not enough studies or numbers of patients to show an evidence-based preference over one- or two-staged revisions, the two-stage revision of fPJI consistently shows better results and should be considered as the gold standard of management in cases of revision fPJI. This should also be coupled with proper expertise, follow-ups and recommended lengths of medical treatment, which should not be less than six months. From the review of these data, we have developed reasonable recommendations for the management of fPJI. These recommendations center on staged surgical debridement along with medical management. Medical treatment should be for at least 6 months under the guidance of an infectious disease team and based on intraoperative cultures. In the case of local antimicrobial treatment reported in the literature, many patients with fPJI were found to have a polymicrobial infection. As a result, it is our recommendation that antifungals as well as antibacterials should be incorporated into the cement spacer mix of these cases. Fungal PJI remains an exceedingly difficult pathology to treat and should be managed by experienced surgeons in a well-equipped institution.