Afrim Iljazi, Mads Sten Andersen, Stig Brorson, Michael Mørk Petersen, Michala Skovlund Sørensen
{"title":"Surgical management of metastatic lesions in the proximal femur: a systematic review.","authors":"Afrim Iljazi, Mads Sten Andersen, Stig Brorson, Michael Mørk Petersen, Michala Skovlund Sørensen","doi":"10.1530/EOR-24-0138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The proximal femur is a frequent site of cancer dissemination in the extremities. Patients treated surgically for skeletal metastases have poorer overall health compared to other orthopedic patients, with only one-third expected to survive two years post-surgery. Choosing a treatment that minimizes revision risk and ensures the implant outlives the patient is therefore crucial. We conducted a systematic review to assess the revision rate following internal fixation (IF) or endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) of the proximal femur for metastatic bone disease (MBD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase were searched, identifying 10,299 records. After removing duplicates, 7731 unique records were screened, 334 of which were retrieved for full-text screening. We included 34 studies in the qualitative synthesis. The MINORS instrument was used for quality assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The quality of the included studies was low to moderate, with median scores of 6/16 for non-comparative studies and 10/24 for comparative studies. We therefore refrained from a comparative analysis. Revision rates varied between 0 and 12.4% following EPR (25 studies) and between 0 and 26.7% following IF, while implant removal rates ranged between 0 and 8.3% and 0 and 26.7%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Revision and implant removal rates for various methods of EPR and IF are satisfactory. However, a meta-analysis or comparison between IF and EPR is not feasible due to a lack of prospective studies, randomized trials and high-quality studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":48598,"journal":{"name":"Efort Open Reviews","volume":"10 2","pages":"104-114"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11825154/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Efort Open Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-24-0138","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The proximal femur is a frequent site of cancer dissemination in the extremities. Patients treated surgically for skeletal metastases have poorer overall health compared to other orthopedic patients, with only one-third expected to survive two years post-surgery. Choosing a treatment that minimizes revision risk and ensures the implant outlives the patient is therefore crucial. We conducted a systematic review to assess the revision rate following internal fixation (IF) or endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) of the proximal femur for metastatic bone disease (MBD).
Methods: This study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase were searched, identifying 10,299 records. After removing duplicates, 7731 unique records were screened, 334 of which were retrieved for full-text screening. We included 34 studies in the qualitative synthesis. The MINORS instrument was used for quality assessment.
Results: The quality of the included studies was low to moderate, with median scores of 6/16 for non-comparative studies and 10/24 for comparative studies. We therefore refrained from a comparative analysis. Revision rates varied between 0 and 12.4% following EPR (25 studies) and between 0 and 26.7% following IF, while implant removal rates ranged between 0 and 8.3% and 0 and 26.7%, respectively.
Conclusions: Revision and implant removal rates for various methods of EPR and IF are satisfactory. However, a meta-analysis or comparison between IF and EPR is not feasible due to a lack of prospective studies, randomized trials and high-quality studies.
期刊介绍:
EFORT Open Reviews publishes high-quality instructional review articles across the whole field of orthopaedics and traumatology. Commissioned, peer-reviewed articles from international experts summarize current knowledge and practice in orthopaedics, with the aim of providing systematic coverage of the field. All articles undergo rigorous scientific editing to ensure the highest standards of accuracy and clarity.
This continuously published online journal is fully open access and will provide integrated CME. It is an authoritative resource for educating trainees and supports practising orthopaedic surgeons in keeping informed about the latest clinical and scientific advances.
One print issue containing a selection of papers from the journal will be published each year to coincide with the EFORT Annual Congress.
EFORT Open Reviews is the official journal of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) and is published in partnership with The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.