Ali Erkan YENİGÜL, Arif ÇAKAR, Muhammet Sadik BİLGEN

Tumor arthroplasties performed after proximal femur pathological fractures and evaluation of their pelvic parameters

Aim: Our aim in this study is to analyze patients who underwent arthroplasty for pathological fractures of the proximal femur and examine pelvic parameters in eligible patients. Material and Methods: Age, gender, operation side of the patients, the area of the fracture in the proximal femur previous lumbar spine surgery, lumbar region metastasis, postoperative leg length difference, postoperative dislocation, whether revision was performed and the appropriate patient. Results: 32 patients who underwent arthroplasty for pathological fracture of the proximal femur were identified. Dislocation was observed in 2 (6%) patients in the postoperative follow-up. The indication for the patient undergoing revision surgery was periprosthetic fracture after a fall. In 7 of the patients, the cause of the pathological fracture was primary bone tumor, while 24 of them were metastasis. The mean PI of these patients whose measurements were made from the lateral lumbar graphy were 54°, mean SD: 38°, mean PT: 11° and mean lumbar lordosis: 30°. Conclusion: Arthroplasty can be successfully applied as an extremity-conserving surgery method in patients with proximal femur pathological fractures, and the preoperative health status and life expectancy of the patient also affect the results of the surgery.

PDF

___

1. Swanson KC, Pritchard DJ, Sim FH. Surgical treatment of metastatic disease of the femur. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000 Jan-Feb;8(1):56-65. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200001000-00006. PMID: 10666653.
2. Dijstra S, Wiggers T, van Geel BN, Boxma H. Impending and actual pathological fractures in patients with bone metastases of the long bones. A retrospective study of 233 surgically treated fractures. Eur J Surg. 1994 Oct;160(10):535-42. PMID: 7849154.
3. Sarathy MP, Madhavan P, Ravichandran KM. Nonunion of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Treatment by modified medial displacement and valgus osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995 Jan;77(1):90-2. PMID: 7822404.
4. Di Martino A, Martinelli N, Loppini M et. al. Is endoprosthesis safer than internal fixation for metastatic disease of the proximal femur? A systematic review. Injury. 2017 Oct;48 Suppl 3:S48 S54. doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(17)30658-7. PMID: 29025610.
5. Duval-Beaupère G, Schmidt C, Cosson P. A Barycentremetric study of the sagittal shape of spine and pelvis: the conditions required for an economic standing position. Ann Biomed Eng. 1992;20(4):451-62. doi: 10.1007/BF02368136. PMID: 1510296.
6. Legaye J, Duval-Beaupère G, Hecquet J, Marty C. Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J. 1998;7(2):99- 103. doi: 10.1007/s005860050038. PMID: 9629932; PMCID: PMC3611230.
7. Berry DJ. Unstable total hip arthroplasty: detailed overview. Instr Course Lect. 2001;50:265-74. PMID: 11372323.
8. Hage WD, Aboulafia AJ, Aboulafia DM. Incidence, location, and diagnostic evaluation of metastatic bone disease. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000 Oct;31(4):515-28, vii. doi: 10.1016/s0030- 5898(05)70171-1. PMID: 11043092.
9. Lafage V, Schwab F, Vira S et. al. Spino-pelvic parameters after surgery can be predicted: a preliminary formula and validation of standing alignment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
2011 Jun;36(13):1037-45. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181eb9469. PMID: 21217459.
10. Wedin, R. Bauer, H. C. Surgical treatment of skeletal metastatic lesions of the proximal femur: endoprosthesis or reconstruction nail? The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume, 2005: 87(12), 1653-1657.
11. Harvey N, Ahlmann ER, Allison DC et al. Endoprostheses last longer than intramedullary devices in proximal femur metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Mar;470(3):684- 91. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2038-0. PMID: 21879409; PMCID: PMC3270182.
12. Sevimli R, Korkmaz MF. Analysis of orthopedic surgery of patients with metastatic bone tumors and pathological fractures. J Int Med Res. 2018 Aug;46(8):3262-3267. doi: 10.1177/0300060518770958. Epub 2018 Apr 24. PMID: 29690812; PMCID: PMC6134675.
13. Buckwalter JA, Brandser EA. Metastatic disease of the skeleton. Am Fam Physician. 1997 Apr;55(5):1761-8. PMID: 9105203.
14. Vialle R, Levassor N, Rillardon L et al. Radiographic analysis of the sagittal alignment and balance of the spine in asymptomatic subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Feb;87(2):260-7. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02043. PMID: 15687145.
15. Been E, Barash A, Pessah H, Peleg S. A new look at the geometry of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Sep 15;35(20):E1014-7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ddd433. PMID: 20802392.
16. Le Huec JC, Aunoble S, Philippe L, Nicolas P. Pelvic parameters: origin and significance. Eur Spine J. 2011 Sep;20 Suppl 5(Suppl 5):564-71. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1940-1. Epub 2011 Aug 10. PMID: 21830079; PMCID: PMC3175921.
17. Mac-Thiong JM, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Guigui P. Sagittal parameters of global spinal balance: normative values from a prospective cohort of seven hundred nine Caucasian asymptomatic adults. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Oct 15;35(22):E1193-8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e50808. PMID: 20959772.
18. Lazennec JY, Riwan A, Gravez Fb et al. Hip spine relationships: application to total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2007;17 Suppl 5:S91-104. PMID: 19197889.
19. Weng W, Wu H, Wu M et al. The effect of total hip arthroplasty on sagittal spinal-pelvic-leg alignment and low back pain in patients with severe hip osteoarthritis. Eur Spine J. 2016 Nov;25(11):3608-3614. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4444-1. Epub 2016 Feb 16. PMID: 26883265.