Is Rotationplasty Still a Reasonable Reconstruction Option for Patients With a Femoral Bone Sarcoma? A Comparative Study of Patients With a Minimum of 20 Years of Follow-up After Rotationplasty and Lower Extremity Amputation.

Rotationplasty was first introduced as an alternative to above-the-knee amputation after resection of bone sarcomas of the distal femur by Salzer in 1974. Although the procedure involves a substantial body image issue, it has many advantages such as durability of the reconstruction (compared with limb salvage procedures) and avoidance of phantom pain (compared with amputation). Although several reports have shown intermediate outcomes of rotationplasty, very long-term results in terms of function, activity levels, and quality of life (QoL) in comparison with above-the-knee amputation have not been reported. This work aims to fill this gap left by prior reports. (1) Is there a difference in revision-free survival in very long-term follow-up after rotationplasty and transfemoral amputation or knee disarticulation? (2) Are patient activity levels after rotationplasty comparable with those after transfemoral amputation or knee disarticulation in the very long term? (3) Do activity levels differ in terms of QoL? (4) Within the group of patients who have undergone rotationplasty, is the ROM in the neo-knee associated with QoL 20 to 40 years later? Between 1961 and 1995, a total of 360 patients were treated for bone and soft tissue sarcoma of the lower extremity. Fifty-four patients were treated with A1 rotationplasty, 124 were treated with an amputation, and 182 were treated with a limb salvage procedure. Of those who underwent amputation or rotationplasty, 9% (11 of 124) and 15% (8 of 54), respectively, were lost to follow-up before a period of 20 years without meeting a study endpoint, and another 71% (88 of 124) and 44% (24 of 54), respectively, died prior to 20 years with intact residual limbs, leaving 20% (25 of 124) and 41% (22 of 54), respectively, of the original group who had a follow-up time of at least 20 years. Four patients with amputations declined to participate in the study, while three patients with transtibial amputations and one patient with a complete language barrier after rotationplasty were excluded. These 39 patients with a minimum follow-up time of 20 years (mean [range] 36 years [23 to 55]) were available and gave their consent to this retrospective comparative study at the local orthopaedic department. The decision between rotationplasty and endoprosthetic replacement was made after thorough consultation and according to the patient's choice. As general guidance, Salzer's idea was to provide rotationplasty to patients who had a strong desire for higher levels of activity. Endoprosthetic reconstructions were more likely indicated given a patient's preference for a cosmetically uncompromised limb. Amputation was primarily performed one decade before the availability of rotationplasty and was mostly an alternative to rotationplasty because of patient refusal or surgical limitations. Therefore, the two groups differed in age at follow-up; however, they did not differ in age at surgery, BMI, gender ratio, tumor entities, or tumor localization. All-cause revisions presented in Kaplan-Meier curves, pain sensation, and functional and QoL outcomes, such as ROM, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scores, 5-level EuroQol 5-domain (EQ-5D-5L) scores, and 36-Item Short Form survey scores, were assessed. There was no difference between patients after rotationplasty and amputation in terms of survivorship free from revision of unpredictable events at 20 years (86% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85% to 95%] versus 67% [95% CI 64% to 94%]; p = 0.27). There was no difference in median UCLA activity scores between the groups (rotationplasty 6 versus amputation 5; p = 0.18). Patients treated with a rotationplasty had less pain than those treated with amputation (EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort, p < 0.01). The EuroQol (EQ) index was higher in patients who had rotationplasty in comparison with patients who underwent amputation (0.92 versus 0.81; p = 0.01). A linear regression model that controlled for length of follow-up, gender, age, and type of surgery found that having rotationplasty was associated with a better EQ index than undergoing amputation (R = 0.538, R2 corrected = 0.212; p = 0.011). There were positive correlations between the EQ index and both flexion (ρ = 0.53 [95% CI 0.03 to 0.82]; p = 0.03) and ROM (ρ = 0.54 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.82]; p = 0.03) in the neo-knee. After rotationplasty and amputation, patients show similarities at long-term follow-up in the use of external prostheses and in cosmetic issues after limb loss. Both groups might have benefitted from the advancements in prosthetics that have occurred and will continue to do so; however, in this study, patients seem to have better QoL after rotationplasty compared with those with amputation. This study intentionally did not compare outcomes after an extendible or modular endoprosthesis with outcomes after rotationplasty. However, failures after endoprosthetic reconstructions occur frequently in the long term, whereas they rarely exist after rotationplasty. The use of rotationplasty, therefore, might be a benefit not only to individual patients but also to stakeholders in healthcare systems. Furthermore, this study emphasizes the benefit of rotationplasty as a durable surgical method that enables patients for high physical performance. Therefore, tumor centers around the world should be aware of these benefits, and patients must be given the opportunity to receive information about it. Currently, rotationplasty might be beneficial in certain situations, at least when patients and/or parents accept this kind of reconstruction. Children younger than 5 to 7 years and small in height, patients considered for megaprostheses with borderline or insufficient soft tissue coverage, and even patients who are highly active and feel that sporting activities are most important for their lifestyle are potential candidates for rotationplasty. Furthermore, rotationplasty might be an option after failed limb salvage surgery. Level III, therapeutic study.

Hobusch GM ，Hofer C ，Döring K ，Ellersdorfer F ，Kelaridis T ，Windhager R ... -  《-》

Press-Fit Bone-Anchored Prosthesis for Individuals with Transtibial Amputation.

Frölke JPM ，Atallah R ，Leijendekkers R 《-》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》

What Are the Complications, Reconstruction Survival, and Functional Outcomes of Modular Prosthesis and Allograft-prosthesis Composite for Proximal Femur Reconstruction in Children With Primary Bone Tumors?

Proximal femur reconstruction after bone tumor resection in children is a demanding surgery for orthopaedic oncologists because of the small bone size and possible limb-length discrepancy at the end of skeletal growth owing to physis loss. The most commonly used reconstruction types used for the proximal femur are modular prostheses and allograft-prosthesis composites. To our knowledge, there are no previous studies comparing the outcomes after modular prosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction of the proximal femur in children with primary bone tumors. (1) What was the cumulative incidence of reoperation for any reason after allograft-prosthesis composite and modular prosthesis reconstructions of the proximal femur in children with primary bone tumors? (2) What was the cumulative incidence of reconstruction removal or revision arthroplasty in those two treatment groups? (3) What complications occurred in those two treatment groups that were managed without further surgery or with surgery without reconstruction removal? Between 2000 and 2021, 54 children with primary bone tumors underwent resection and reconstruction of the proximal femur at a single institution. During that time, allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction was used in very young children, in whom we prioritize bone stock preservation for future surgeries, and children with good response to chemotherapy, while modular prosthesis reconstruction was used in older children and children with metastatic disease at presentation and poor response to chemotherapy. We excluded three children in whom limb salvage was not possible and 11 children who underwent either reconstruction with free vascularized fibular graft and massive bone allograft (n = 3), an expandable prosthesis (n = 3), a massive bone allograft reconstruction (n = 2), a rotationplasty (n = 1), standard (nonmodular) prosthesis (n = 1), or revision of preexisting reconstruction (n = 1). Further, we excluded two children who were not treated surgically, three children with no medical or imaging records, and three children with no follow-up. All the remaining 32 children with reconstruction of the proximal femur (12 children treated with modular prosthesis and 20 children treated with allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction) were accounted for at a minimum follow-up time of 2 years. Children in the allograft-prosthesis group were younger at the time of diagnosis than those in the modular prosthesis group (median 8 years [range 1 to 16 years] versus 15 years [range 9 to 17 years]; p = 0.001]), and the follow-up in the allograft-prosthesis composite group was longer (median 5 years [range 1 to 23 years] versus 3 years [range 1 to 15 years]; p = 0.37). Reconstruction with hemiarthroplasty was performed in 19 of 20 children in the allograft-prosthesis composite group and in 9 of 12 children in the modular prosthesis group. A bipolar head was used in 16 of 19 children, and a femoral ceramic head without acetabular cup was used in 3 of 19 children in the allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction group. All 9 children in the modular prosthesis group were reconstructed with a bipolar hemiarthroplasty. Reconstruction with total arthroplasty was performed in one child in the allograft-prosthesis composite group and in three children in the modular prosthesis group. For both groups, we calculated the cumulative incidence of reoperation for any reason and the cumulative incidence of reconstruction removal or revision arthroplasty; we also reported qualitative descriptions of serious complications treated nonoperatively in both groups. The cumulative incidence of any reoperation at 10 years did not differ between the groups with the numbers available (36% [95% confidence interval 15% to 58%] in the allograft-prosthesis composite group versus 28% [95% CI 5% to 58%] in the modular proximal femoral replacement group). The cumulative incidence of reconstruction removal or revision arthroplasty at 10 years likewise did not differ between the groups with the numbers available (10% [95% CI 2% to 28%] versus 12% [95% CI 0% to 45%], respectively). In the allograft-prosthesis composite group (20 children), hip instability (n = 3), nonunion (n = 2), fracture of the greater trochanter (n = 1), screw loosening (n = 1), limb-length discrepancy (n = 1), and coxalgia due to acetabular wear (n = 1) were treated surgically without reconstruction removal. Complications treated without surgery included resorption of the allograft at the trochanteric region (n = 4), fracture of the greater trochanter (n = 4), limb-length discrepancy (n = 6), and coxalgia due to acetabular wear (n = 2). In the modular prosthesis group (12 children), hip instability (n = 1), coxalgia due to acetabular wear (n = 1), and limb-length discrepancy (n = 1) were treated surgically without reconstruction removal. Complications treated without surgery included hip instability (n = 2), stress shielding (n = 6), infection (n = 1), sciatic nerve palsy (n = 1), and limb-length discrepancy (n = 3). Although the two groups of children were not directly comparable due to differences in age and clinical characteristics, both modular prosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions of the proximal femur after bone tumor resection appear to be reasonable options with similar revision-free survival and complications. Therefore, the type of reconstruction following proximal resection in children with bone sarcoma should be chosen taking into consideration factors such as patient age, bone size, implant availability, technical expertise, and the surgeon's preference. Although children treated with expandable prostheses were not included in this study, such prostheses may be useful in bridging the surgical defect while correcting residual limb-length discrepancies even though they face limitations such as small intramedullary diameter, short residual bone segments, as well as stress shielding, loosening, and breakage. Level III, therapeutic study.

Atherley O'Meally A ，Rizzi G ，Cosentino M ，Aiba H ，Aso A ，Solou K ，Campanacci L ，Zuccheri F ，Bordini B ，Donati DM ，Errani C ... -  《-》

Mortality impact, risks, and benefits of general population screening for ovarian cancer: the UKCTOCS randomised controlled trial.

Menon U ，Gentry-Maharaj A ，Burnell M ，Ryan A ，Kalsi JK ，Singh N ，Dawnay A ，Fallowfield L ，McGuire AJ ，Campbell S ，Skates SJ ，Parmar M ，Jacobs IJ ... -  《-》