The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 26, Issue 5 , Pages 744-750, August 2011

Surgical Difficulties Encountered With Use of Modular Endoprosthesis for Limb Preserving Salvage of Failed Allograft Reconstruction After Malignant Tumor Resection

Received 24 February 2010; accepted 18 June 2010. published online 09 August 2010.

Abstract 

We reviewed outcomes and discussed surgical difficulties encountered in 10 patients who had modular endoprosthesis for limb preserving salvage of failed allograft reconstruction after malignant tumor resection. Mean allograft survival time before failure was 127.4 months (range, 14-264 months). Mean length of follow-up since endoprosthesis revision surgery was 62.8 months (range, 16-132 months). There was one endoprosthesis failure, resulting in a mean endoprosthesis survival time of 56.9 months (range, 16-132). Complications included arterial laceration, nerve injury, periprosthetic crack fracture, aseptic loosening, and infection. Modular endoprosthesis remain a viable option that should be considered in any limb preserving salvage of failed allograft reconstructions. However, altered anatomy, poor/short remnant host bone, periprosthetic fractures, inadequate soft tissue coverage and infection remain important difficulties encountered.

Keywords: endoprosthesis, limb salvage, allograft failure, allograft reconstruction, tumor

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 No benefits or funds were received in support of the study.

PII: S0883-5403(10)00356-6

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.06.011

The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 26, Issue 5 , Pages 744-750, August 2011