header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

‘ENDOPROSTHETIC REPLACEMENT FOR PROXIMAL FEMORAL METASTASES – COST EFFECTIVE OR NOT?



Abstract

Introduction: Modular tumour prosthetic replacement is especially useful in the region of proximal femur following pathological fractures and failed fixation. The aim of the study was to assess the clinical and functional outcomes following modular tumour prosthesis reconstruction of the proximal femur in 100 consecutive patients with metastatic tumours and to assess its cost effectiveness.

Methods: The study was a retrospective review of 100 consecutive patients who underwent modular tumour prosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur using the METS prosthesis [Stanmore Implants Worldwide] for metastatic tumours from 2001 to 2008.

Results and conclusion: There were 45 male and 55 female patients. The mean age was 60.2 years. The indications were metastasis [23renal ca, 28 breast ca, 11 ca bronchus, 5 ca prostate and 31 others]. 75 patients presented with pathological fracture or with failed fixation and 25 patients were at a high risk of developing fracture. The mean follow up was 24.6 months [range0–74]. Three patients died within 2 weeks following surgery. Of the 60 patients who were dead 58 did not need revision surgery indicating that the implant provided single definitive treatment which outlived the patient. 1 patient had revision surgery. There were 2 dislocations. 6 patients had deep infections. The implant survival was 98% with revision or amputation as end point. The hospital cost of an endoprosthetic replacement is estimated to be £12,000. This procedure becomes cost effective when compared with no treatment if the patients’ life expectancy is more than 40 days and when compared with internal fixation if the patients’ life expectancy is more than 2 years.

We conclude that METS modular tumour prosthesis for proximal femur provides versatility; low implant related complications and acceptable function lasting the lifetime of the patients with metastatic tumours of the proximal femur providing a cost effective solution.

Correspondence should be addressed to BOOS c/o British Orthopaedic Association, 35-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England