Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction
A review of 33 patients who underwent proximal femoral resection for primary bone tumor and reconstruction with an allograft-prosthesis composite or a megaprosthesis is presented to consider the relative merits of the 2 procedures. Clinical function, reconstruction survival, and associated complicat...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical orthopaedics and related research 1996, Vol.322 (322), p.207-223 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 223 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 322 |
| container_start_page | 207 |
| container_title | Clinical orthopaedics and related research |
| container_volume | 322 |
| creator | ZEHR, R. J ENNEKING, W. F SCARBOROUGH, M. T |
| description | A review of 33 patients who underwent proximal femoral resection for primary bone tumor and reconstruction with an allograft-prosthesis composite or a megaprosthesis is presented to consider the relative merits of the 2 procedures. Clinical function, reconstruction survival, and associated complications were analyzed. Eighteen composites in 16 patients and 18 megaprosthesis in 17 patients were analyzed. Infection in the composite group and instability in the megaprosthesis group were the common causes of failure and removal of reconstructions. The average functional evaluation in 14 surviving patients with composites was 87% of normal. In 10 surviving patients with megaprostheses, the average function was 80% when complications were avoided. Survival analysis of the patients with reconstructions showed a 10 year survival of 76% for the patients with composites and 58% for those with megaprostheses. Both composite and megaprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur seem to function equally well from the perspective of function and survival because no statistically significant difference could be shown by this review. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1097/00003086-199601000-00026 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77983791</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>77983791</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-7afb8a8a062e181553ccbbf45e3ebc655744f58fc384e856e285dd9595ae74033</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkF1LwzAUhoMoc05_gtAL8S6ajyZNLsfwCwbeKHpX0uxkVtpmJq3ovzdzdRgIh5P3fZOTB6GMkitKdHFN0uJESUy1loSmDqfN5AGaUsEUppSzQzRNZxprRl-P0UmM79tQLtgETZTImdRqil7mTePXwbgeb4KP_RvEOmbWtxsf6x6yTwhxiFkLa_NPr7ssdV91a5rMQetDqgGs72IfBtvXvjtFR840Ec7GOkPPtzdPi3u8fLx7WMyX2OZE9LgwrlJGGSIZUEWF4NZWlcsFcKisFKLIcyeUs1zloIQEpsRqpYUWBoqccD5Dl7t70zwfA8S-bOtooWlMB36IZVFoxQtNk1HtjDZ9IwZw5Sak-cN3SUm5ZVr-MS33TMtfpil6Pr4xVC2s9sERYtIvRt1EaxoXTGfruLcxLSWRnP8AHlyA7Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>77983791</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>ZEHR, R. J ; ENNEKING, W. F ; SCARBOROUGH, M. T</creator><creatorcontrib>ZEHR, R. J ; ENNEKING, W. F ; SCARBOROUGH, M. T</creatorcontrib><description>A review of 33 patients who underwent proximal femoral resection for primary bone tumor and reconstruction with an allograft-prosthesis composite or a megaprosthesis is presented to consider the relative merits of the 2 procedures. Clinical function, reconstruction survival, and associated complications were analyzed. Eighteen composites in 16 patients and 18 megaprosthesis in 17 patients were analyzed. Infection in the composite group and instability in the megaprosthesis group were the common causes of failure and removal of reconstructions. The average functional evaluation in 14 surviving patients with composites was 87% of normal. In 10 surviving patients with megaprostheses, the average function was 80% when complications were avoided. Survival analysis of the patients with reconstructions showed a 10 year survival of 76% for the patients with composites and 58% for those with megaprostheses. Both composite and megaprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur seem to function equally well from the perspective of function and survival because no statistically significant difference could be shown by this review.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-921X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-1132</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199601000-00026</identifier><identifier>PMID: 8542698</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CORTBR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Biological and medical sciences ; Bone Cements ; Bone Transplantation - methods ; Female ; Femoral Neoplasms - surgery ; Follow-Up Studies ; Hip Prosthesis - adverse effects ; Humans ; Infection - etiology ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Muscle, Skeletal - surgery ; Orthopedic surgery ; Postoperative Complications ; Prosthesis Design ; Prosthesis Failure ; Reoperation ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Survival Analysis ; Transplantation, Homologous - adverse effects</subject><ispartof>Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 1996, Vol.322 (322), p.207-223</ispartof><rights>1996 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-7afb8a8a062e181553ccbbf45e3ebc655744f58fc384e856e285dd9595ae74033</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-7afb8a8a062e181553ccbbf45e3ebc655744f58fc384e856e285dd9595ae74033</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4010,27900,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=2966063$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8542698$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>ZEHR, R. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ENNEKING, W. F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCARBOROUGH, M. T</creatorcontrib><title>Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction</title><title>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</title><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><description>A review of 33 patients who underwent proximal femoral resection for primary bone tumor and reconstruction with an allograft-prosthesis composite or a megaprosthesis is presented to consider the relative merits of the 2 procedures. Clinical function, reconstruction survival, and associated complications were analyzed. Eighteen composites in 16 patients and 18 megaprosthesis in 17 patients were analyzed. Infection in the composite group and instability in the megaprosthesis group were the common causes of failure and removal of reconstructions. The average functional evaluation in 14 surviving patients with composites was 87% of normal. In 10 surviving patients with megaprostheses, the average function was 80% when complications were avoided. Survival analysis of the patients with reconstructions showed a 10 year survival of 76% for the patients with composites and 58% for those with megaprostheses. Both composite and megaprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur seem to function equally well from the perspective of function and survival because no statistically significant difference could be shown by this review.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Bone Cements</subject><subject>Bone Transplantation - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Femoral Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Hip Prosthesis - adverse effects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infection - etiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Muscle, Skeletal - surgery</subject><subject>Orthopedic surgery</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Reoperation</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Survival Analysis</subject><subject>Transplantation, Homologous - adverse effects</subject><issn>0009-921X</issn><issn>1528-1132</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkF1LwzAUhoMoc05_gtAL8S6ajyZNLsfwCwbeKHpX0uxkVtpmJq3ovzdzdRgIh5P3fZOTB6GMkitKdHFN0uJESUy1loSmDqfN5AGaUsEUppSzQzRNZxprRl-P0UmM79tQLtgETZTImdRqil7mTePXwbgeb4KP_RvEOmbWtxsf6x6yTwhxiFkLa_NPr7ssdV91a5rMQetDqgGs72IfBtvXvjtFR840Ec7GOkPPtzdPi3u8fLx7WMyX2OZE9LgwrlJGGSIZUEWF4NZWlcsFcKisFKLIcyeUs1zloIQEpsRqpYUWBoqccD5Dl7t70zwfA8S-bOtooWlMB36IZVFoxQtNk1HtjDZ9IwZw5Sak-cN3SUm5ZVr-MS33TMtfpil6Pr4xVC2s9sERYtIvRt1EaxoXTGfruLcxLSWRnP8AHlyA7Q</recordid><startdate>1996</startdate><enddate>1996</enddate><creator>ZEHR, R. J</creator><creator>ENNEKING, W. F</creator><creator>SCARBOROUGH, M. T</creator><general>Springer</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>1996</creationdate><title>Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction</title><author>ZEHR, R. J ; ENNEKING, W. F ; SCARBOROUGH, M. T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-7afb8a8a062e181553ccbbf45e3ebc655744f58fc384e856e285dd9595ae74033</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Bone Cements</topic><topic>Bone Transplantation - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Femoral Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Hip Prosthesis - adverse effects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infection - etiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Muscle, Skeletal - surgery</topic><topic>Orthopedic surgery</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Reoperation</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Survival Analysis</topic><topic>Transplantation, Homologous - adverse effects</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>ZEHR, R. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ENNEKING, W. F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCARBOROUGH, M. T</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>ZEHR, R. J</au><au>ENNEKING, W. F</au><au>SCARBOROUGH, M. T</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction</atitle><jtitle>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><date>1996</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>322</volume><issue>322</issue><spage>207</spage><epage>223</epage><pages>207-223</pages><issn>0009-921X</issn><eissn>1528-1132</eissn><coden>CORTBR</coden><abstract>A review of 33 patients who underwent proximal femoral resection for primary bone tumor and reconstruction with an allograft-prosthesis composite or a megaprosthesis is presented to consider the relative merits of the 2 procedures. Clinical function, reconstruction survival, and associated complications were analyzed. Eighteen composites in 16 patients and 18 megaprosthesis in 17 patients were analyzed. Infection in the composite group and instability in the megaprosthesis group were the common causes of failure and removal of reconstructions. The average functional evaluation in 14 surviving patients with composites was 87% of normal. In 10 surviving patients with megaprostheses, the average function was 80% when complications were avoided. Survival analysis of the patients with reconstructions showed a 10 year survival of 76% for the patients with composites and 58% for those with megaprostheses. Both composite and megaprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur seem to function equally well from the perspective of function and survival because no statistically significant difference could be shown by this review.</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>8542698</pmid><doi>10.1097/00003086-199601000-00026</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0009-921X |
| ispartof | Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 1996, Vol.322 (322), p.207-223 |
| issn | 0009-921X 1528-1132 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77983791 |
| source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Biological and medical sciences Bone Cements Bone Transplantation - methods Female Femoral Neoplasms - surgery Follow-Up Studies Hip Prosthesis - adverse effects Humans Infection - etiology Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Muscle, Skeletal - surgery Orthopedic surgery Postoperative Complications Prosthesis Design Prosthesis Failure Reoperation Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases Survival Analysis Transplantation, Homologous - adverse effects |
| title | Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T16%3A44%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Allograft-prosthesis%20composite%20versus%20megaprosthesis%20in%20proximal%20femoral%20reconstruction&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20orthopaedics%20and%20related%20research&rft.au=ZEHR,%20R.%20J&rft.date=1996&rft.volume=322&rft.issue=322&rft.spage=207&rft.epage=223&rft.pages=207-223&rft.issn=0009-921X&rft.eissn=1528-1132&rft.coden=CORTBR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00003086-199601000-00026&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E77983791%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=77983791&rft_id=info:pmid/8542698&rfr_iscdi=true |