Preview

Research and Practical Medicine Journal

Advanced search

Endoprosthetic replacement in patients with tumors of proximal humerus

https://doi.org/10.17709/2409-2231-2015-2-2-15-23

Abstract

Introduction

Currently the organ-preserving surgical treatment (oncological arthroplasty) may be provided in 90% of patients with malignant lesions of the long bones and large joints. Due to the development and improvement of surgical techniques, the application of new antibacterial drugs, the development of new systems of modular endoprosthesis managed to achieve a meaningful reduction of complications, such as infection, instability of the endoprosthesis, and receive good and excellent functional results after surgery, mainly in lesions of the bones of the lower extremities. The risk of complications in conducting oncoloicaly arthroplasty upper extremity is also low, but functional performance after these operations is significantly lower.

Objective.To analyze and evaluate the results of applying the "Anatomical" and "Reverse" shoulder replacements in patients with neoplastic lesions of the proximal humerus.

Materials and methods. Depending on the type of metal implants patients were divided into two groups. "Anatomical" implant was installed in 28 patients (13 men and 15 women) and "Reverse" prosthesis in 14 patients (6 men and 8 women). The average age was in the first group 32±4 years and the second 38±3 years, respectively. Primary bone tumors were diagnosed in 19 (68%) patients first and 12 (86%) patients of the second group.

Results. The average follow-up period was 42 months. 4 patients with primary malignant bone tumors had the progression of the disease during the period from 6 to 14 months. In 2 of them they diagnosed the metastatic lung disease, in one case – the recurrence of tumor and also in one patient there was the relapse with metastases to the lungs. In the group of patients with "Anatomical" arthroplasty of the shoulder joint functional status after surgery was assessed according to the scale MSTS (Musculo-skeletal tumor standing System) in the range of 60-80 points - 3, 40-60 points - 6 and less than 40 points in 19 patients, respectively. Patients who selected "Reverse" prosthesis of functional status on a scale MSTS were in the range of from 80 to 100 points in 6 patients , 60-80 points - 6, 40-60 points - 2 patients, respectively. They marked the improvement in functional status with Reverse arthroplasty in 75% of cases.

Conclusion. The use of modular "Return" implants in organ-preserving treatment of patients with neoplastic lesions of the proximal humerus, compared to the "Anatomical" arthroplasty, is a more promising technique, because it allows significantly improved functional outcome and social adaptation after surgery.

About the Authors

V. Yu. Karpenko
P. Hertsen MORI 2-y Botkinskiy proezd, d.3, Moskva, 125284, Russia
Russian Federation

PhD, senior researcher of group of bone and soft tissue tumors, division of surgical treatment of tumors of the central nervous and musculoskeletal systems  P. Hertsen MORI – branch of NMRRC



V. A. Derzhavin
P. Hertsen MORI 2-y Botkinskiy proezd, d.3, Moskva, 125284, Russia
Russian Federation

PhD, senior researcher of group of bone and soft tissue tumors, division of surgical treatment of tumors of the central nervous and musculoskeletal systems  P. Hertsen MORI – branch of NMRRC



A. V. Buharov
P. Hertsen MORI 2-y Botkinskiy proezd, d.3, Moskva, 125284, Russia
Russian Federation

PhD, senior researcher of group of bone and soft tissue tumors, division of surgical treatment of tumors of the central nervous and musculoskeletal systems  P. Hertsen MORI – branch of NMRRC



References

1. Damron T.A. Orthopedic Surgery Essentials: Onology and Basic Science. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins; 2008.

2. Gosheger G., Gebert C., Ahrens H. et al. Endoprosthetic Reconstruction in 250 Patients with Sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 450:164-171.

3. Некачалов В.В. Патология костей и суставов: Руководство. // СПб.: Сотис, 2000 г.

4. Aliev M.D., Teplyakov V., Sicheva L., Karpenko V. Modern orthopaedical treatment of metastatic lesion of long bones. 17th Annual Meeting of the EMSOS, Oslo, Norway, 9-11 June 2004.

5. Asavamongkolkul A, Eckardt J.J., Eilber F.R., Dorey F.J., Ward W.G., Kelly C.M., et al. Endoprosthetic reconstruction for malignant upper extremity tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999; 360: 207-220.

6. Карпенко В.Ю. «Хирургичское лечение метастатического поражения длинных трубчатых костей как этап комбинированной терапии». Диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата медицинских наук. РОНЦ им. Н.Н.Блохина. Москва 2005 г.

7. Berruti A., Dogliotti L., Gorzegno G. et al. Differential Patterns of Bone Turnover in Relation to Bone Pain and Disease Extent in Bone in Cancer Patients with Skeletal Metastases. Clinical Chemistry. 1999; 45(8 Pt 1):1240-1247.

8. Iwamoto Y. Diagnosis and Treatment of Ewing’s Sarcoma. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007; 37(2): 79–89.

9. Rougraff B.T., Simon M.A., Kneisl J.S., et al. Compared with Amputation for Osteosarcoma of the Distal End of the Femur. A long-term oncological, functional, and quality-of-life study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994; 76 (5): 649-656.

10. Mittermayer F., Krepler P., Dominkus M., et al. Long-term followup of uncemented tumor endoprostheses for the lower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; 388: 167–177.

11. Sluga M., Windhager R., Lang S., et al. Local and systemic control after ablative and limb sparing surgery in patients with osteosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999; 358: 120–127.

12. Gosheger G., Goetze C., Hardes J., et al. The influence of the alloy of megaprostheses on infection rate. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23(6): 916–920.

13. Hardes J., Ahrens H., Gebert C., et al. Lack of toxicological sideeffects in silver-coated megaprostheses in humans. Biomaterials, 2007; 28(18): 2869–2875.

14. Hardes J., von Eiff C., Streitbuerger A., et al. Reduction of periprosthetic infection with silver-coated megaprostheses in patients with bone sarcoma. J Surg Oncol. 2010: 101(5): 389–395.

15. Балберкин А.В., Шавырин Д.А. Клиническое обоснование конструкции модульной эндосистемы коленного сустава, дистального отдела бедренной кости и проксимального отдела большеберцовой кости. Саркомы костей, мягких тканей и опухоли кожи. 2011; № 4: 12–20.

16. Dieckmann R., Liem D., Gosheger G., et al. Evaluation of a reconstruction reverse shoulder for tumour surgery and tribological comparision with an anatomical shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop (SICOT). 2013; 37(3): 451–456.

17. Gupta G.R., Yasko A.W., Lewis V.O., et al. Risk of local recurrence after deltoid-sparing resection for osteosarcoma of the proximal humerus. Cancer. 2009; 115(16): 3767–3773.

18. Gosheger G., Hardes J., Ahrens H., et al. Endoprosthetic replacement of the humerus combined with trapezius and latissimus dorsi transfer: a report of three patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005 125 (1): 62–65.

19. Flury M.P., Frey P., Goldhahn J., et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a salvage procedure for failed conventional shoulder replacement due to cuff failure–midterm results. Int Orthop. 2011; 35(1): 53–60.

20. Boileau P., Watkinson D., Hatzidakis A.M., Hovorka I. Neer award 2005: the grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006; 15(5): 527–540.

21. Canale T.S., Beaty J.H., Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics 12th Edition. Elsevier. 2012: 2004-2067.

22. Enneking W.F., Dunham W., Gebhardt M.C., Malawar M., Pritchard D.J. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumours of the musculoskeletal system. Clin. Orthop. 1993; 286: 241–246.

23. Мачак Г.Н. «Современные возможности и перспективы комбинированного лечения остеосаркомы» автореферат диссертации на соискание ученой степени доктора медицинских наук. РОНЦ им. Н.Н.Блохина. Москва 2007г.

24. Wodajo F.M., Bickels J., Wittig J., Malawer M. Complex reconstruction in the management of extremity sarcomas. Curr Opin Oncol. 2003; 15(4): 304-312, 2003.

25. Raiss P., Kinkel S., Sauter U., et al. Replacement of the proximal humerus with MUTARS tumor endoprostheses. Eur J Surg Oncol. 20010; 36(4): 371-377.


Review

For citations:


Karpenko V.Yu., Derzhavin V.A., Buharov A.V. Endoprosthetic replacement in patients with tumors of proximal humerus. Research and Practical Medicine Journal. 2015;2(2):15-23. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17709/2409-2231-2015-2-2-15-23

Views: 2476


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2410-1893 (Online)