Abstract
Aims
We retrospectively report our experience of managing 30 patients with a primary malignant tumour of the distal tibia; 25 were treated by limb salvage surgery and five by amputation. We compared the clinical outcomes of following the use of different methods of reconstruction.
Patients and Methods
There were 19 male and 11 female patients. The mean age of the patients was 19 years (6 to 59) and the mean follow-up was 5.1 years (1.25 to 12.58). Massive allograft was used in 11 patients, and autograft was used in 14 patients. The time to union, the survival time of the reconstruction, complication rate, and functional outcomes following the different surgical techniques were compared. The overall patient survival was also recorded.
Results
Out of 14 patients treated with an autograft, 12 (86%) achieved union at both the proximal and distal junctions. The time to union at both junctions of the autograft was significantly shorter than in those treated with an allograft (11.1 vs 17.2 months, p = 0.02; 9.5 vs 16.2 months, p = 0.04). The complication rate of allograft reconstruction was 55%. The five patients treated with an amputation did not have a complication. Out of the 25 patients who were treated with limb salvage, three (12%) developed local recurrence and underwent amputation. The mean functional Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score after autograft reconstruction was higher than after allograft reconstruction (81% vs 67%; p = 0.06), and similar to that after amputation (81% vs 82%; p = 0.82). The two- and five-year overall rates of survival were 83% and 70%, respectively.
Conclusions
This consecutive case series supports the safety of limb salvage and the effectiveness of biological reconstruction after the resection of a primary tumour of the distal tibia. Autograft might be a preferable option. In some circumstances, below-knee amputation remains a valid option.
