Rose, Peter S.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesChordomas of the mobile spine (C1–L5) are rare malignant tumors. The purpose of this study was to review the outcome of surgical treatment for patients with primary mobile spine chordomas.MethodsThe oncologic outcomes and survival of 26 patients undergoing surgical resection for a primary mobile spine chordoma were assessed over a 25‐year period. The mean follow‐up was 12 ± 6 years.ResultsThe 2‐, 5‐, and 10‐year disease‐free survivals were 95%, 61%, and 55%. The local recurrence‐free survival was improved in patients receiving en bloc resection with negative margins (83% vs. 35%, p = 0.02) and similar in patients receiving adjuvant radiation therapy (43% vs. 45%, p = 0.30) at 10 years. Debulking of the tumor (hazard ratio [HR] = 6.41, p = 0.01) and a local recurrence (HR = 9.52, p = 0.005) were associated with death due to disease. Complications occurred in 19 (73%) patients, leading to reoperation in 9 (35%) patients; this rate was similar in intralesional and en bloc procedures.ConclusionSurgical resection of mobile spine chordomas is associated with a high rate of complications; however, en bloc resection can provide a hope for cure and appears to confer better oncologic outcomes for these tumors without an increase in complications compared to lesser resections.

AimsHip reconstruction after resection of a periacetabular chondrosarcoma is complex and associated with a high rate of complications. Previous reports have compared no reconstruction with historical techniques that are no longer used. The aim of this study was to compare the results of tantalum acetabular reconstruction to both historical techniques and no reconstruction.MethodsWe reviewed 66 patients (45 males and 21 females) with a mean age of 53 years (24 to 81) who had undergone acetabular resection for chondrosarcoma. A total of 36 patients (54%) underwent acetabular reconstruction, most commonly with a saddle prosthesis (n = 13; 36%) or a tantalum total hip arthroplasty (THA) (n = 10; 28%). Mean follow-up was nine years (SD 4).ResultsThere was no difference in the mean age (p = 0.63), sex (p = 0.110), tumour volume (p = 0.646), or type of resection carried out (p > 0.05) between patients with and without reconstruction. Of the original 66 patients, 61 (92%) were ambulant at final follow-up. There was no difference in the proportion of patients who could walk in the reconstruction and 'no reconstruction' groups (p = 0.649). There was no difference in the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score between patients who were reconstructed and those who were not (61% vs 56%; p = 0.378). Patients with a tantalum THA had a significantly (p = 0.015) higher mean MSTS score (78%) than those who were reconstructed with a saddle prosthesis (47%) or who had not been reconstructed (56%). Patients who had undergone reconstruction were more likely to have complications (81% vs 53%; p = 0.033).ConclusionReconstruction after resection of the acetabulum is technically demanding. In selected cases, reconstruction is of benefit, especially when reconstruction is by tantalum THA; however, the follow-up for these patients remains mid-term. When not feasible, patients with no reconstruction have an acceptable functional outcome. Level of Evidence: Level III Therapeutic. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):391–397.

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.

AbstractIntroductionAdvances in the care of cancer patients have resulted in increased survival. The proximal femur is a common site for metastatic disease, often requiring surgical intervention. Tranexamic acid (TXA) has proven to be safe in elective and traumatic femoral hemiarthroplasty; however, its use has not been investigated in oncologic patients.MethodWe reviewed 66 patients (37 males) with a mean age of 64 ± 3 years undergoing a hemiarthroplasty for metastatic disease in the femoral neck. A total of 22 (33%) patients received intraoperative TXA. Primary outcomes included postoperative blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative transfusion requirement, and postoperative complications.ResultsThere was no difference in the baseline characteristics between the TXA and non‐TXA groups. When comparing the TXA and non‐TXA groups, there were no differences in 72 h postoperative blood loss between groups (1.21 L vs. 1.33 L, p = 0.61), percentage of patients requiring transfusion (36.4% vs. 36.4%, p = 1.0), or the incidence of postoperative complications including venous thromboembolism (14% vs. 11%, p = 0.70) and pulmonary embolism (0% vs. 5%, p = 1.0).ConclusionOncology patients are a high‐risk population for thromboembolic events. This initial study supports the safe use of TXA intraoperatively in femoral hemiarthroplasty performed for metastatic disease.

AbstractIntroductionThe proximal humerus is a common location for primary and non‐primary tumors. Reconstruction of the proximal humerus is commonly performed with an endoprosthesis with low rates of structural failure. The incidence and risk factors for stress shielding are under reported.MethodsThirty‐nine (19 male, 20 female) patients underwent resection of the proximal humerus and reconstruction with a cemented modular endoprosthesis between 2000 and 2018. The mean resection length was 12 ± 4 cm and was most commonly performed for metastatic disease (n = 26, 67%).ResultsStress shielding was observed in 9 (23%) patients at a mean of 29 (6–132) months postoperatively. Patients with stress shielding were noted to have shorter intramedullary stem length (87 vs. 107 mm, p < .001), longer extramedullary implant length (16 vs. 14 cm, p = .01) and a higher extramedullary implant to stem length ratio (2.1 vs. 1.1, p < .001). The incidence of stress shielding was higher (p = .003) in patients reconstructed with 75 mm stem (n = 6, 67%) lengths.ConclusionStress shielding of the humerus was associated with the use of shorter stems and long extramedullary implants. The long‐term ramifications of stress shielding on implant stability, complications at the time of revision surgery, and overall patient outcomes remain unknown.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesDescribe patient‐reported functional outcomes for hand and foot sarcoma survivors treated with limb‐sparing surgery and radiation therapy (LSS + RT).MethodsFifty‐four patients with hand/wrist and foot/ankle sarcomas treated with LSS + RT from 1991 to 2015 were identified. Survivors ≥18 years old without subsequent amputation completed self‐assessed functional surveys: Toronto upper extremity salvage score (TESS‐UE) and Michigan hand outcomes (MHQ) surveys for hand; TESS lower extremity (TESS‐LE) and Foot and Ankle Outcomes (FAOS) surveys for foot. Scoring scales: 0–100, MHQ and TESS; ‐26 to 56 and 25‐59, FAOS core and shoe comfort, respectively. Higher scores denote superior function.ResultsFive‐year local tumor control was 88%. Fourteen of 24 hand (58%) and 14/18 foot (78%) survivors completed surveys. Mean TESS‐UE and MHQ scores were 89.4 and 72.8, respectively. Mean TESS‐LE, core FAOS, and shoe comfort scores were 92.4, 46.19, and 53.1, respectively. No factors correlated with outcomes. TESS‐UE and MHQ scores strongly correlated (r = .87). TESS‐LE and FAOS scores were associated with a poor correlation (r = .02 and r = .69).ConclusionsThe largest patient‐reported functional outcomes analysis for hand and foot sarcoma survivors treated with LSS + RT demonstrates excellent local tumor control and acceptable functional outcomes. Further exploration of optimal functional assessment tools is needed given the potential scope differences.

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.

AbstractBackgroundNonuterine leiomyosarcomas (LMS) are common extremity soft‐tissue sarcomas. Deep LMS are at an increased risk for recurrence; however, few studies have focused on superficial LMS.MethodsWe reviewed the clinicopathological features of 82 patients with a primary superficial LMS. The mean age and follow‐up were 57 ± 15 and 7 ± 5 years. Depth was classified as dermal (based in the skin; n = 35, 43%) and subcutaneous (based below the dermis, above the fascia; n = 47, 57%) on the final resection specimen. Dermal cases were treated with negative margin resection, while subcutaneous tumors were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team for consideration of possible adjuvant therapy.ResultsThe 10‐year disease‐specific survival (DSS) for superficial LMS was 90% with no difference (p = .18) in the 10‐year DSS between patients with dermal (100%) and subcutaneous (86%) LMS. All disease recurrences occurred in subcutaneous LMS (17% vs. 0%, p = .02) and subcutaneous tumors had a worse10‐year metastatic free survival (81% vs. 100%, p = .03).ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that dermal LMS can be managed with a negative margin resection alone. Although the prognosis for patients with subcutaneous LMS is quite favorable, there is some risk for local and distant recurrence, and such patients will benefit from multidisciplinary care.

Background: Sacral tumor resections require a multidisciplinary approach to achieve a cure and a functional outcome. Currently, there is no accepted classification system that provides a means to communicate among the multidisciplinary teams in terms of approach, osseous resection, reconstruction, and acceptable functional outcome. The purpose of this study was to report the outcome of sacral tumor resection based on our classification system. Methods: In this study, 196 patients (71 female and 125 male) undergoing an oncologic en bloc sacrectomy were reviewed. The mean age (and standard deviation) was 49 ± 16 years, and the mean body mass index was 27.2 ± 6.4 kg/m 2 . The resections included 130 sarcomas (66%). The mean follow-up was 7 ± 5 years. Results: Resections included total sacrectomy (Type 1A: 20 patients [10%]) requiring reconstruction, subtotal sacrectomy (Type 1B: 5 patients [3%]) requiring reconstruction, subtotal sacrectomy (Type 1C: 104 patients [53%]) not requiring reconstruction, hemisacrectomy (Type 2: 29 patients [15%]), external hemipelvectomy and hemisacrectomy (Type 3: 32 patients [16%]), total sacrectomy and external hemipelvectomy (Type 4: 5 patients [3%]), and hemicorporectomy (Type 5: 1 patient [1%]). The disease-specific survival was 66% at 5 years and 52% at 10 years. Based on the classification, the 5-year disease-specific survival was 34% for Type 1A, 100% for Type 1B, 71% for Type 1C, 65% for Type 2, 57% for Type 3, 100% for Type 4, and 100% for Type 5 (p < 0.001). Tumor recurrence occurred in 67 patients, including isolated local recurrence (14 patients), isolated metastatic disease (31 patients), and combined local and metastatic disease (22 patients). At 5 years, the local recurrence-free survival was 77% and the metastasis-free survival was 68%. Complications occurred in 153 patients (78%), most commonly wound complications (95 patients [48%]). Following the procedure, 154 patients (79%) were ambulatory, and the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS93) score was 60% ± 23%. Conclusions: Although resections of sacral malignancies are associated with complications, they can be curative in a majority of patients, with a majority of patients ambulatory with an acceptable functional outcome considering the extent of the resection. At our institution, this classification allows for communication between surgical teams and implies a surgical approach, staging, reconstruction, and potential functional outcomes. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.