Surgical management of metastatic lesions of the proximal femur with pathological fractures using intramedullary nailing or endoprosthetic replacement

Yu,Zeping; Xiong,Yan; Shi,Rui; Min,Li; Zhang,Wenli; Liu,Hongyuan; Fang,Xiang; Tu,Chongqi; Duan,Hong

doi:10.3892/mco.2017.1503

Surgical management of metastatic lesions of the proximal femur with pathological fractures using intramedullary nailing or endoprosthetic replacement

Authors:
- Zeping Yu
- Yan Xiong
- Rui Shi
- Li Min
- Wenli Zhang
- Hongyuan Liu
- Xiang Fang
- Chongqi Tu
- Hong Duan
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610064, P.R. China
Published online on: November 15, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2017.1503
Pages: 107-114

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) are the two most commonly applied surgical methods used to treat proximal metastatic lesions; however, indication of the above procedures remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical, functional and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent EPR compared to IMN for the treatment of proximal femur metastases to investigate the surgical indication for patients. The records of patients (n=88) with pathological fractures secondary to metastatic tumors of the proximal femur admitted between January 2005 and December 2014 to West China Hospital, Sichuan University (Chengdu, China) were retrospectively studied. A total of 57 patients were treated with EPR (34 males and 23 females; mean age, 62.5 years) and 31 patients were stabilized with IMN (19 males and 12 females; mean age, 60.2 years). Patients were analyzed regarding surgery time, blood loss, hospital stay, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, survival, recurrence and complications. The median follow‑up period was 12.9 (range, 3‑98) months. The median survival time in EPR was 10.0 months and 7.5 months in IMN. The surgery time was 142.6±22.7 min in the EPR group and 98.7±19.5 min in the IMN group (P=0.001). Significantly less blood loss was observed in the IMN group (345.2±66.4 ml) than in the EPR group (631.5±103.6 ml; P=0.001). The median hospital stay in the EPR group was 8 (quartile range, 7‑9) days and 5 (quartile range, 5‑6) days in the IMN group (P=0.001). Local recurrence rate was 10.5% (6/57) in the EPR group and 25.8% (8/31) in the IMN group (P=0.074). The complication rates were 10.5% (6/57) in the EPR group and 29.0% (9/31) in the IMN group (P=0.038). MSTS‑93 score was higher in IMN compared with EPR at 6 weeks postoperatively (P=0.001), while the EPR group demonstrated a higher score at 6 months postoperatively (P=0.001). EPR has the advantage of better functional outcomes and higher life quality in the long term, with lower complication rates in treating metastatic lesions of the proximal femur with pathological fractures. EPR is recommended for patients with relatively good general condition and prognosis. IMN is best indicated when the patient's life expectancy is extremely limited.

View Figures

View References

1	Camnasio F, Scotti C, Peretti GM, Fontana F and Fraschini G: Prosthetic joint replacement for long bone metastases: Analysis of 154 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 128:787–793. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Hage WD, Aboulafia AJ and Aboulafia DM: Incidence, location and diagnostic evaluation of metastatic bone disease. Orthop Clin North Am. 31:515–528. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Clarke HD, Damron TA and Sim FH: Head and neck replacement endoprosthesis for pathologic proximal femoral lesions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1–217. 1998.PubMed/NCBI
4	Steensma M, Boland PJ, Morris CD, Athanasian E and Healey JH: Endoprosthetic treatment is more durable for pathologic proximal femur fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 470:920–926. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Harvey N, Ahlmann ER, Allison DC, Wang L and Menendez LR: Endoprostheses last longer than intramedullary devices in proximal femur metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 470:684–691. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Gainor BJ and Buchert P: Fracture healing in metastatic bone disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1–302. 1983.
7	Sarahrudi K, Greitbauer M, Platzer P, Hausmann JT, Heinz T and Vecsei V: Surgical treatment of metastatic fractures of the femur: A retrospective analysis of 142 patients. J Trauma. 66:1158–1163. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Selek H, Basarir K, Yildiz Y and Sağlik Y: Cemented endoprosthetic replacement for metastatic bone disease in the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty. 23:112–117. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Gao H, Liu Z, Wang B and Guo A: Clinical and functional comparison of endoprosthetic replacement with intramedullary nailing for treating proximal femur metastasis. Chin J Cancer Res. 28:209–214. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Wedin R and Bauer H: Surgical treatment of skeletal metastatic lesions of the proximal femur: Endoprosthesis or reconstruction nail? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 87:1653–1657. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Lane JM, Sculco TP and Zolan S: Treatment of pathological fractures of the hip by endoprosthetic replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 62:954–959. 1980. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Sarahrudi K, Hora K, Heinz T, Millington S and Vécsei V: Treatment results of pathological fractures of the long bones: A retrospective analysis of 88 patients. Int Orthop. 30:519–524. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Xing Z, Moon BS, Satcher RL, Lin PP and Lewis VO: A long femoral stem is not always required in hip arthroplasty for patients with proximal femur metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 471:1622–1627. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Tanaka T, Imanishi J, Charoenlap C and Choong PF: Intramedullary nailing has sufficient durability for metastatic femoral fractures. World J Surg Oncol. 14:802016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Steensma M and Healey JH: Trends in the surgical treatment of pathologic proximal femur fractures among musculoskeletal tumor society members. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 471:2000–2006. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Mirels H: Metastatic disease in long bones: A proposed scoring system for diagnosing impending pathologic fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1–264. 1989.
17	Van Acker HH, Anguille S, Willemen Y, Smits EL and Van Tendeloo VF: Bisphosphonates for cancer treatment: Mechanisms of action and lessons from clinical trials. Pharmacol Ther. 158:24–40. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M and Pritchard DJ: A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1–246. 1993.PubMed/NCBI
19	Jacofsky DJ and Haidukewych GJ: Management of pathologic fractures of the proximal femur: State of the art. J Orthop Trauma. 18:459–469. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Algan SM and Horowitz SM: Surgical treatment of pathologic hip lesions in patients with metastatic disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1–231. 1996.PubMed/NCBI
21	Damron TA: Management of metastatic carcinoma to the hip and proximal femurMenendez LR: Orthopaedic Knowledge Update: Musculoskeletal Tumors. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; pp. 363–371. 2002
22	Talbot M, Turcotte RE, Isler M, Normandin D, Iannuzzi D and Downer P: Function and health status in surgically treated bone metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 438:215–220. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Katagiri H, Takahashi M, Wakai K, Sugiura H, Kataoka T and Nakanishi K: Prognostic factors and a scoring system for patients with skeletal metastasis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 87:698–703. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Tsuya A, Kurata T, Tamura K and Fukuoka M: Skeletal metastases in non-small cell lung cancer: A retrospective study. Lung Cancer. 57:229–232. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Body JJ: New developments for treatment and prevention of bone metastases. Curr Opin Oncol. 23:338–342. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Coluzzi F, Di Bussolo E, Mandatori I and Mattia C: Bone metastatic disease: Taking aim at new therapeutic targets. Curr Med Chem. 18:3093–3115. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Schneiderbauer MM, von Knoch M, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS, Sim FH and Scully SP: Patient survival after hip arthroplasty for metastatic disease of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 86-A:1–1689. 2004.PubMed/NCBI
28	Manoso MW, Frassica DA, Lietman ES and Frassica FJ: Proximal femoral replacement for metastatic bone disease. Orthopedics. 30:384–388. 2007.PubMed/NCBI
29	Yazawa Y, Frassica FJ, Chao EY, Pritchard DJ, Sim FH and Shives TC: Metastatic bone disease. A study of the surgical treatment of 166 pathologic humeral and femoral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1–219. 1990.
30	Dijstra S, Wiggers T, van Geel BN and Boxma H: Impending and actual pathological fractures in patients with bone metastases of the long bones. A retrospective study of 233 surgically treated fractures. Eur J Surg. 160:535–542. 1994.PubMed/NCBI
31	Narazaki DK, de Alverga Neto CC, Baptista AM, Caiero MT and de Camargo OP: Prognostic factors in pathologic fractures secondary to metastatic tumors. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 61:313–320. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI