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

112. FUNCTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF FIXED-HINGE VERSUS ROTATING-HINGE KNEE COMPONENTS FOR TOTAL FEMORAL ENDOPROSTHETIC REPLACEMENT FOLLOWING ONCOLOGIC RESECTIONS



Abstract

Purpose: Few functional outcomes of total femoral endoprosthetic replacement (TFEPR) using contemporary modular systems are available. We compared functional results between TFEPR patients receiving fixed- and rotating-hinge knee componentry following oncologic resections.

Method: Eighteen TFEPR patients were identified from a prospectively gathered sarcoma database. Six were secondary procedures and 12 primary. Four patients had metastatic carcinoma, 8 osteosarcoma, 4 non-osteogenic spindle cell sarcomas of bone, 1 Ewing’s sarcoma, and 1 femur-invading soft-tissue sarcoma. All reconstructions used modular implants from a single company. Proximally, all were bipolar hip hemiarthoplasties, 12 including abductor reattachment. Distally, 8 had fixed- and 10 had rotating-hinge knee componentry. Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), and both Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scores (MSTS) were compared between fixed- and rotating-hinge groups using the Mann-Whitney test.

Results: Complications included 1 hip dislocation, 1 femoral malrotation, and wound problems requiring 3 debridements and 1 amputation. One metastatic carcinoma patient developed local relapse. Follow-up averaged 4 years (range 1 month to 14 years). At latest follow-up, 10 patients had died of disease. Eight remained alive, 6 disease-free, 2 with distant disease. Among patients surviving 6 months, 6 used no assistive devices, 5 used a single cane, and 4 were wheelchair bound, each at least partly due to distant disease progression. TESS averaged 74.5±17.4, MSTS1987 25.2±4.4; and MSTS1993 58.6±22.9 among the 12 patients for whom functional results were available from latest follow-up. No statistically significant differences or even trends were detected between fixed-hinge and rotating-hinge patients (lowest p = 0.755), but both instability problems were in the rotating-hinge group.

Conclusion: While both rotating- and fixed-hinge TFEPR reconstructions may function well, consideration should be given to fixed-hinge knee reconstruction when massive myectomies or poorer conditioning make hip and knee stability a primary concern in the short-term.

Correspondence should be addressed to CEO Doug C. Thomson. Email: doug@canorth.org