Functional Outcome in Endoprosthetic Replacement around the Knee
A Narrative Review
Keywords:
Functional outcome, knee, periprosthetic, replacementAbstract
In general, most comparative studies have reported that successful limb salvage surgeries have better functional outcomes than amputations. This is largely due to the advances in surgical techniques and adjuvant therapy which allows reconstruction such as endoprosthetic replacements (EPR). Clinician‑reported outcome measures and patient‑reported outcome measures have been utilised to evaluate the benefits of orthopaedic surgical procedures. The most widely used measures in the field of orthopaedic oncology are the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Score and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score. The Jury is still out on the evidence basis for the functional outcome of EPR, especially around the knee joint. There is a need for more randomised control trials, systematic reviews or meta‑analyses to critically appraise and formally synthesise the best available evidence to provide a statement of conclusion on the functional outcome of EPRs.
References
1. Aksnes LH, Bauer HC, Jebsen NL, Follerås G, Allert C, Haugen GS,et al. Limb‑sparing surgery preserves more function than amputation:A Scandinavian sarcoma group study of 118 patients. J Bone Joint SurgBr 2008;90:786‑94.
2. Rougraff BT, Simon MA, Kneisl JS, Greenberg DB, Mankin HJ. Limbsalvage compared with amputation for osteosarcoma of the distal end ofthe femur. A long‑term oncological, functional, and quality‑of‑life study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994;76:649‑56.
3. Grimer RJ, Aydin BK, Wafa H, Carter SR, Jeys L, Abudu A, et al. Verylong‑term outcomes after endoprosthetic replacement for malignanttumours of bone. Bone Joint J 2016;98‑B:857‑64.
4. Malek F, Somerson JS, Mitchel S, Williams RP. Does limb‑salvagesurgery offer patients better quality of life and functional capacity thanamputation? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:2000‑6.
5. Kotz RI. Progress in musculoskeletal oncology from 1922 ‑ 2012. IntOrthop 2014;38:1113‑22.
6. Bickels J, Wittig JC, Kollender Y, Kollender Y, Henshaw RM,Kellar-Graney KL, et al. Distal femur resection with endoprostheticreconstruction: A long-term followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res2002;(400):225-35. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200207000-00028.
7. Cannon SR. Massive prostheses for malignant bone tumours of thelimbs. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997;79:497‑506.
8. Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Pala E, Dennis JA, Wooten R,Cheong D, et al. Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses:Retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. J BoneJoint Surg Am 2011;93:418‑29.
9. Sim FH, Bowman WE Jr., Wilkins RM, Chao EY. Limb salvage inprimary malignant bone tumors. Orthopedics 1985;8:574‑81.
10. Niimi R, Matsumine A, Hamaguchi T, Nakamura T, Uchida A, Sudo A,et al. Prosthetic limb salvage surgery for bone and soft tissue tumorsaround the knee. Oncol Rep 2012;28:1984‑90.
11. Ottaviani G, Jaffe N. The epidemiology of osteosarcoma. Cancer Treat Res 2009;152:3‑13.
12. Dahlin DC, Cupps RE, Johnson EW. Giant‑cell tumor: A study of195 cases. Cancer 1970;25:1061‑70.
13. Bernthal NM, Greenberg M, Heberer K, Eckardt JJ, Fowler EG. Whatare the functional outcomes of endoprosthestic reconstructions aftertumor resection? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473:812‑9.
14. Myers GJ, Abudu AT, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Grimer RJ. The long‑termresults of endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia for bonetumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:1632‑7.
15. Hwang JS, Mehta AD, Yoon RS, Beebe KS. From amputation to limbsalvage reconstruction: Evolution and role of the endoprosthesis inmusculoskeletal oncology. J Orthop Traumatol 2014;15:81‑6.
16. Iwata S, Uehara K, Ogura K, Akiyama T, Shinoda Y, Yonemoto T, et al. Reliability and validity of a Japanese‑language and culturally adaptedversion of the musculoskeletal tumor society scoring system for thelower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016;474:2044‑52.
17. Rebolledo DC, Vissoci JR, Pietrobon R, de Camargo OP, Baptista AM. Validation of the Brazilian version of the musculoskeletal tumor societyrating scale for lower extremity bone sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013;471:4020‑6.
18. Kim HS, Yun J, Kang S, Han I. Cross‑cultural adaptation and validationof the Korean Toronto extremity salvage score for extremity sarcoma.J Surg Oncol 2015;112:93‑7.
19. Ogura K, Uehara K, Akiyama T, Iwata S, Shinoda Y, Kobayashi E,et al. Cross‑cultural adaptation and validation of the Japanese versionof the Toronto extremity salvage score (TESS) for patients withmalignant musculoskeletal tumors in the lower extremities. J Orthop Sci2015;20:1098‑105.
20. Xu L, Li X, Wang Z, Xiong J, Wang S. Functional evaluation forpatients with lower extremity sarcoma: Application of the Chineseversion of musculoskeletal tumor society scoring system. Health QualLife Outcomes 2017;15:107.
21. Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ. Asystem for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures aftersurgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. ClinicalOrthopaedics and Related Research 1993;(286):241-6.
22. Uehara K, Ogura K, Akiyama T, Shinoda Y, Iwata S, Kobayashi E, et al. Reliability and validity of the musculoskeletal tumor society scoringsystem for the upper extremity in Japanese patients. Clin Orthop RelatRes 2017;475:2253‑9.
23. Janssen SJ, Paulino‑Pereira NR, Raskin KA, Ferrone ML, Hornicek FJ,van Dijk CN, et al. A comparison of questionnaires for assessingphysical function in patients with lower extremity bone metastases. J Surg Oncol 2016;114:691‑6.
24. Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Carr AJ. The routineuse of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ2010;340:c186.
25. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL,et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological qualityof studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:22.
26. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC,et al. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews ofstudies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMINchecklist. Qual Life Res 2012;21:651‑7.
27. Tunn PU, Pomraenke D, Goerling U, Hohenberger P. Functionaloutcome after endoprosthetic limb‑salvage therapy of primary bonetumours – A comparative analysis using the MSTS score, the TESS andthe R NL index. Int Orthop 2008;32:619‑25.
28. Stucki G, Cieza A, Ewert T, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Ustün TB. Application of the international classification of functioning, disabilityand health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:281‑2.
29. Davis AM, Wright JG, Williams JI, Bombardier C, Griffin A, Bell RS. Development of a measure of physical function for patients with boneand soft tissue sarcoma. Qual Life Res 1996;5:508‑16.
30. Sæbye C, Safwat A, Kaa AK, Pedersen NA, Keller J. Validation of aDanish version of the toronto extremity salvage score questionnaire forpatients with sarcoma in the extremities. Dan Med J 2014;61:A4734.
31. Hillmann A, Hoffmann C, Gosheger G, Krakau H, Winkelmann W. Malignant tumor of the distal part of the femur or the proximal partof the tibia: Endoprosthetic replacement or rotationplasty. Functionaloutcome and quality‑of‑life measurements. J Bone Joint Surg Am1999;81:462‑8.
32. Park DH, Jaiswal PK, Al‑Hakim W, Aston WJ, Pollock RC, Skinner JA,et al. The use of massive endoprostheses for the treatment of bonemetastases. Sarcoma 2007;2007:62151.
33. Kumar D, Grimer RJ, Abudu A, Carter SR, Tillman RM. Endoprostheticreplacement of the proximal humerus. Long‑term results. J Bone JointSurg Br 2003;85:717‑22.
34. Chandrasekar CR, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Abudu A,Buckley L. Modular endoprosthetic replacement for tumours of theproximal femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91:108‑12.
35. Idowu OK, Eyesan SU, Badmus HD, Giwa SO, Badmos KB,Abdulkareem FB. Endoprosthetic replacement of distal femoral tumorsin Nigeria: A case series. Niger J Clin Pract 2016;19:567-72.
36. Idowu OK, Akinmade A, Giwa SO, Eyesan SU. Segmental endoprosthesisreplacement in a resource-constrained setting. Musculoskeletal Surgery2020. DOI: 10.1007/s12306-020-00656-w.
37. Cook JA. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis ofsurgical randomised controlled trials. Trials 2009;10:9.
38. Stirrat GM, Farrow SC, Farndon J, Dwyer N. The challenge ofevaluating surgical procedures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1992;74:80‑4.
39. Schnell‑Inderst P, Hunger T, Conrads‑Frank A, Arvandi M, Siebert U. Ten recommendations for assessing the comparative effectiveness oftherapeutic medical devices: A targeted review and adaptation. J ClinEpidemiol 2018;94:97‑113.
40. Martelli N, Devaux C, van den Brink H, Pineau J, Prognon P, Borget I. A systematic review of the level of evidence in economic evaluations ofmedical devices: The example of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. PLoSOne 2015;10:e0144892.
41. Boudard A, Martelli N, Prognon P, Pineau J. Clinical studies ofinnovative medical devices: What level of evidence for hospital‑basedhealth technology assessment? J Eval Clin Pract 2013;19:697‑702.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Uwale Samuel Eyesan, Oluwaseyi Kayode Idowu (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing in the Nigerian Journal of Orthopaedics and Trauma retain the copyright to their work.
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
