Comparative Outcomes and Failure Rates of Total Femur Replacement in Oncologic and Nononcologic Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY
JBJS Reviews Pub Date : 2024-07-05 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00022
Ali Lari, Ali Esmaeil, Yousef AlSalem, Fahad Alabbad, Maged Shahin, Ahmed Aoude
{"title":"Comparative Outcomes and Failure Rates of Total Femur Replacement in Oncologic and Nononcologic Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Ali Lari, Ali Esmaeil, Yousef AlSalem, Fahad Alabbad, Maged Shahin, Ahmed Aoude","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Total femur replacement (TFR) has become increasingly significant as a salvage procedure for both oncologic reconstruction and complex nononcologic conditions such as revision arthroplasty. Despite its effectiveness in limb salvage, TFR is associated with high complication and failure rates, which vary depending on the underlying indication.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases was conducted, focusing on studies that reported outcomes of TFR in oncologic and nononcologic cases. Primary outcomes included failure mode and rates according to the Henderson classification, functional outcomes scores, and mobility status. Data were analyzed using random-effects models and generalized linear mixed models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 35 studies involving 1,002 patients were included. The majority of TFRs were performed for oncologic reasons (63.7%). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 66%, with a limb salvage rate of 89%. The meta-analysis revealed a combined failure rate of 34%. For type 4 failures (infection), nononcologic patients exhibited a significantly higher rate at 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12%-26%, I2 = 46%, p < 0.01) compared with 8% in oncologic patients (95% CI, 6%-12%, I2 = 0%). Regarding combined types 1 to 4 failures, oncologic patients had a rate of 20% (95% CI, 25%-52%, I2 = 60%), whereas nononcologic patients faced a higher rate of 37% (95% CI, 12%-26%, I2 = 63%) (p < 0.05), indicating a significant difference. There were no significant differences in the MSTS score. In addition, there were no notable differences when comparing failure modes 1, 2, and 3 independently. Mobility analysis showed that approximately 70% of patients required walking aids after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TFR offers a valuable limb salvage option in both oncologic and nononcologic scenarios, despite its high failure rates. Although functional outcomes were similar between groups, the higher failure rate in nononcologic cases and the poor overall quality of evidence warrant further comprehensive assessments into predictors of outcomes to optimize results.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47098,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Reviews","volume":"12 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11221795/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Total femur replacement (TFR) has become increasingly significant as a salvage procedure for both oncologic reconstruction and complex nononcologic conditions such as revision arthroplasty. Despite its effectiveness in limb salvage, TFR is associated with high complication and failure rates, which vary depending on the underlying indication.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases was conducted, focusing on studies that reported outcomes of TFR in oncologic and nononcologic cases. Primary outcomes included failure mode and rates according to the Henderson classification, functional outcomes scores, and mobility status. Data were analyzed using random-effects models and generalized linear mixed models.

Results: A total of 35 studies involving 1,002 patients were included. The majority of TFRs were performed for oncologic reasons (63.7%). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 66%, with a limb salvage rate of 89%. The meta-analysis revealed a combined failure rate of 34%. For type 4 failures (infection), nononcologic patients exhibited a significantly higher rate at 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12%-26%, I2 = 46%, p < 0.01) compared with 8% in oncologic patients (95% CI, 6%-12%, I2 = 0%). Regarding combined types 1 to 4 failures, oncologic patients had a rate of 20% (95% CI, 25%-52%, I2 = 60%), whereas nononcologic patients faced a higher rate of 37% (95% CI, 12%-26%, I2 = 63%) (p < 0.05), indicating a significant difference. There were no significant differences in the MSTS score. In addition, there were no notable differences when comparing failure modes 1, 2, and 3 independently. Mobility analysis showed that approximately 70% of patients required walking aids after surgery.

Conclusion: TFR offers a valuable limb salvage option in both oncologic and nononcologic scenarios, despite its high failure rates. Although functional outcomes were similar between groups, the higher failure rate in nononcologic cases and the poor overall quality of evidence warrant further comprehensive assessments into predictors of outcomes to optimize results.

Level of evidence: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

肿瘤和非肿瘤适应症下全股骨置换术的疗效和失败率比较:系统回顾与元分析》。
背景:全股骨置换术(TFR)作为肿瘤重建和复杂的非肿瘤性疾病(如翻修关节置换术)的一种挽救手术,其重要性与日俱增。尽管全股骨置换术在肢体救治方面非常有效,但其并发症和失败率也很高,具体情况因适应症而异:本系统综述和荟萃分析符合《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》指南。我们对 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Web of Science 和 Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature 数据库进行了全面检索,重点检索了报告肿瘤和非肿瘤病例 TFR 结果的研究。主要结果包括根据亨德森分类法得出的失败模式和失败率、功能结果评分和活动能力状况。数据采用随机效应模型和广义线性混合模型进行分析:结果:共纳入了 35 项研究,涉及 1002 名患者。大多数TFR是因肿瘤原因而实施的(63.7%)。肌肉骨骼肿瘤协会(MSTS)的平均评分为66%,肢体挽救率为89%。荟萃分析显示综合失败率为34%。就第 4 类失败(感染)而言,非肿瘤患者的失败率为 18%(95% 置信区间 [CI],12%-26%,I2 = 46%,P <0.01),显著高于肿瘤患者的 8%(95% CI,6%-12%,I2 = 0%)。关于 1 至 4 型合并失败,肿瘤患者的失败率为 20%(95% CI,25%-52%,I2 = 60%),而非肿瘤患者的失败率更高,为 37%(95% CI,12%-26%,I2 = 63%)(P < 0.05),显示出显著差异。MSTS 评分无明显差异。此外,单独比较失败模式 1、2 和 3 也没有明显差异。行动能力分析表明,约 70% 的患者术后需要使用助行器:结论:尽管TFR的失败率较高,但它为肿瘤和非肿瘤患者提供了一种有价值的肢体挽救方案。虽然各组之间的功能结果相似,但非肿瘤病例的失败率较高,而且证据的总体质量较差,因此需要进一步对结果预测因素进行全面评估,以优化结果:证据等级:三级。有关证据等级的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JBJS Reviews
JBJS Reviews SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: JBJS Reviews is an innovative review journal from the publishers of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. This continuously published online journal provides comprehensive, objective, and authoritative review articles written by recognized experts in the field. Edited by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, and a distinguished Editorial Board, each issue of JBJS Reviews, updates the orthopaedic community on important topics in a concise, time-saving manner, providing expert insights into orthopaedic research and clinical experience. Comprehensive reviews, special features, and integrated CME provide orthopaedic surgeons with valuable perspectives on surgical practice and the latest advances in the field within twelve subspecialty areas: Basic Science, Education & Training, Elbow, Ethics, Foot & Ankle, Hand & Wrist, Hip, Infection, Knee, Oncology, Pediatrics, Pain Management, Rehabilitation, Shoulder, Spine, Sports Medicine, Trauma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信