Bukowski, Brandon R.

AbstractIntroductionAll‐polyethylene (AP) tibial components have demonstrated equivalent or improved long‐term survivorship and reduced cost compared with metal‐backed (MB) components in primary total knee arthroplasty; however, there is a lack of data comparing these outcomes in the setting of an oncologic endoprosthetic reconstruction.MethodsA total of 115 (88 AP:27 MB) patients undergoing cemented distal femur endoprosthetic reconstruction following oncologic resection were reviewed. Mean age was 40 years and 51% were females. Cumulative incidences of all‐cause revision, tibial component revision, reoperation, and infection were calculated utilizing a competing risk analysis with death as the competitor. Mean follow‐up was 14 years.ResultsThe 10‐year cumulative incidence of all‐cause revision was 19.9% in the AP group and 16.3% in the MB group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93, p = 0.88). The cumulative incidence of tibial component revision was significantly lower in AP compared with MB at 10 years (1.1% vs. 12.5%, HR = 0.18, p = 0.03). There was no difference in infection‐free survival when comparing the two groups (p = 0.72).ConclusionsReconstruction utilizing an MB or AP tibia component resulted in equivalent overall outcome; however, the tibial component in the AP group was less likely to be revised. AP tibial component should be considered for all primary oncologic reconstructions in the distal femur.Level of EvidenceLevel III Therapeutic.

AbstractIntroductionThe proximal humerus is a common site of primary and metastatic disease in the upper extremity. Historically, the goal of a hemiarthroplasty reconstruction was to provide a stable platform for hand and elbow function, with limited shoulder function. Techniques utilizing a reverse endoprosthesis (endoprosthetic replacement [EPR]) and allograft‐prosthetic composite (APC) have been developed; however, there is a paucity of comparative studies.MethodsA total of 83 (42 females, 41 males) patients undergoing an intraarticular resection of the humerus were reviewed. Reconstructions included 30 reverse and 53 hemiarthroplasty; including hemiarthroplasty EPR (n = 36) and APC (n = 17), and reverse EPR (n = 20) and APC (n = 10).ResultsReverse reconstructions had improved forward elevation (85° vs. 44°, p < .001) and external rotation (30° vs. 21°; p < .001) versus a hemiarthroplasty. Reverse reconstructions had improved American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (65 vs. 57; p = .01) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 93 scores (72 vs. 63; p < .001) versus hemiarthroplasty. Subluxation of the reconstruction was a common (n = 23, 27%), only occurring in hemiarthroplasty patients (EPR [n = 13, 36%] and APC [n = 10, 59%]).ConclusionThe current series highlights the improved functional outcome in patients undergoing reconstruction with a reverse arthroplasty compared to the traditional hemiarthroplasty. Currently reverse shoulder arthroplasty (APC or EPR) is our preferred methods of reconstruction in this patient population.