Skip to main content
main-content

01.11.2010 | Symposium: Highlights of the ISOLS/MSTS 2009 Meeting | Ausgabe 11/2010

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 11/2010

Joint-sparing or Physeal-sparing Diaphyseal Resections: The Challenge of Holding Small Fragments

Zeitschrift:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® > Ausgabe 11/2010
Autoren:
MS(Orth) Manish Agarwal, MS(Orth) Ajay Puri, MS(Orth) Ashish Gulia, MS(Orth) Kishore Reddy
Wichtige Hinweise
Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.
All investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

Abstract

Background

Joint-sparing or physeal-sparing diaphyseal resections are technically challenging when only a small length of bone is available for implant purchase.

Questions/purposes

We describe a series of cases with the aim of generating some guidelines as to the choice of reconstruction method and the implant used.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 25 patients with diaphyseal resections in which the remaining epiphyseal or metaphyseal segment provided 3 cm or less of purchase. Reconstruction was performed with bone (allograft, extracorporeally radiated autograft, or vascularized fibula) in 19 cases or a custom diaphyseal implant (CDI) in six. The implants used for holding the bone construct varied from standard plates to custom plates. The presence of union, function, complications, and disease status at last followup was recorded.

Results

Sixteen of the 25 patients are disease-free and alive with the original construct at a median followup of 34 months (range, 12–66 months). Implant-related complications such as plate breakage (four) and angulation (three) happened more frequently when weak plates such as reconstruction plates were used. Local recurrence with pulmonary metastases occurred in two cases. The two deep infections required an amputation or rotationplasty for control. Custom plates were successful in three of four patients.

Conclusions

Weak plates such as reconstruction plates are best avoided for these reconstructions. Custom plates allow secure fixation with technical ease. CDIs allow immediate weightbearing and ability to lengthen with predictable good functional short-term outcome.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2010

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 11/2010 Zur Ausgabe

Symposium: Highlights of the ISOLS/MSTS 2009 Meeting

Does Increased Rate of Limb-sparing Surgery Affect Survival in Osteosarcoma?

Symposium: Highlights of the ISOLS/MSTS 2009 Meeting

Surgical Management of 121 Benign Proximal Fibula Tumors

  1. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise