medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2014, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2014; 28 (1)

Treatment and reconstruction of bone tumors of the with a rimag unconventional prosthesis

Linares-González LM, Rico-Martínez G, Domínguez-Hernández VM, Araujo-Monsalvo V, Delgado-Cedillo EA, León-Hernández SR

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 3-11
PDF size: 344.53 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Conservative surgery and reconstruction with an unconventional prosthesis are indicated for tumors of the humerus without neurovascular compromise, as they help preserve shoulder, elbow and hand function. The humerus is the third most frequent site of benign, aggressive, malignant and metastatic tumors that cause functional limitation or limb loss. Material: Patients with a bone tumor of the humerus without neurovascular involvement that met the inclusion criteria. Unconventional, uncemented RIMAG prosthesis with diaphyseal fit and locking bolts. Methods: 39 patients with intraarticular type I tumors according to the Malawer and Enneking classification were treated with tumor resection and reconstruction with an unconventional prosthesis and soft tissues. Results: Patients enrolled included 18 females and 21 males ages 12-72 years with tumors such as: giant cell tumors (14), osteosarcomas (7), metastasis (7), chondrosarcomas (6), Ewing’s sarcomas (2), chondroblastoma (2) and aneurysmatic bone cyst (1). Twelve patients died due to systemic disease and the remaining patients survived. Surgical margins were broad, with humeral resection between 100 and 230 mm. Functional results were assessed according to the Muscoloskeletal Tumor Society score as 13 excellent, 16 good, 5 failures and 5 poor. Discussion: The resection level does not restrict the placement of this prosthesis, which permits future revisions. An appropriate result depends on the resection size and the preserved shoulder musculature and it is not limited by the size of resection, thus improving patients’ disability.


REFERENCES

  1. Wodajo F, Bickels J, Wittig J, Malawer M: Advances in reconstruction for bone sarcomas. Curr Opin Oncol. 2003; 15: 304-12.

  2. Ross AC, Wilson JN, Scales JT: Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987; 69-B(4): 656-61.

  3. Johnston JO: Limb salvage procedures for primary sarcomas of the humerus. In: Yamamuro Takao, editor. New development in limb salvage. Tokio: Springer Verlag; 989: pp. 543-6.

  4. Moreno H, Tecualt G, Morfín P, Padilla L, Amaya Z, Moreno W: Tumores del húmero. Acta Ortop Mex. 2002; 16(6): 296-306.

  5. Toro F, Baar A, Paulos J, Calvo R: Cirugía reconstructiva en tumores del extremo proximal del húmero. Rev Chilena Ortop y Traum. 1999; 40: 171-8.

  6. Malawer M, Meller I, Dunham: Shoulder girdle resection for bone and soft tissue tumors. In: Yamamuro Takao, editor. New development in limb salvage. Tokio: Springer Verlag; 1989. pp. 519-30.

  7. Menéndez LR: Orthopaedic knowledge update. Musculoskeletal tumors. Am Acad Orthop Surg. Rosemont Illinois 2002. Cap. 7.

  8. Gebhardt M, Roth Y, Mankin H: Osteoarticular allografts for reconstruction in the proximal part of the humerus after excision of a musculoskeletal tumor. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990; 72: 334-5.

  9. Frassica F, Chao E, Shives T, Sim F: Resection of malignant bone tumors about the shoulder. A preliminary report of reconstruction with a new modular spacer. Clin Orthop. 1991; 267: 56-64.

  10. Limberg BE: Interescapulothoracic resection for malignant tumors of the shoulder joint region. J Bone Joint Surg. 1928; 10A: 344-9.

  11. Enneking WF: A system of staging musculoskeletal neoplasms. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986; 204: 9-24.

  12. Malawer MM: Tumors of the shoulder girdle: technique of resection and description of the surgical classification system. Orthop Clin North Am. 1991; 22: 7-35.

  13. Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawer M, Pitchard DJ: A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1993; 286: 241-6.

  14. Valencia R: Análisis biomecánico de una prótesis tumoral no convencional de hombro mediante el método de elemento finito [Tesis de grado en Ingeniería]. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 2006.

  15. Sharma S, Turcotte RE, Isler MH, Wong C: Experience with cemented large segment endoprosthesis for tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 459: 54-9.

  16. Wittig J, Bickels J, Kellar-Graney K, Kim FH, Malawer M: Osteosarcoma of the proxima humerus: long-term results with limb-sparing surgery. Clin Orthop. 2002; 397: 156-76.

  17. Wittig J, Kellar-Graney K, Bickels J, Meller I, Wodajo F, Malawer M: Utilitarian shoulder approach for malignant tumor resection; in tips and techniques. Orthopedics [Internet] 2002; (5): 479-84. Disponible en: www.orthobluejournal.com

  18. Rödl RW, Gosheger G, Gebert C, Linder N, Ozaki T, Winkelmann W: Reconstrucción de la porción proximal del húmero tras la resección amplia de tumores. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2002; 84-B: 1004-8.

  19. García R: Endoprosthetic reconstruction following bone sarcoma resection. Curr Opin Orthop. 2006; 17: 545-50.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com