Expandable prostheses for reconstruction after tumor resection in young patients

Robert Heck, Michael D. Neel

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the past three decades, survival rates for patients with bone sarcomas have greatly improved. Amputation or rotationplasty were previously regarded as the only surgical options for skeletally immature patients with bone sarcomas, but current use of expandable prostheses has made limb-sparing surgery a reasonable option for many of these patients. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of several types of expandable prostheses. RECENT FINDINGS: Although associated with a relatively higher complication rate than most orthopedic procedures, limb-sparing surgery currently is the treatment of choice for most patients with bone sarcomas. The complication rate can be even higher for skeletally immature patients who require multiple procedures to maintain equal leg lengths. Prosthetic reconstruction options include modular prostheses, minimally invasive expandable prostheses and noninvasive expandable prostheses. Modular prostheses are relatively durable, but can be expanded only by extensive open surgical procedures. Minimally invasive and noninvasive expandable prostheses can be lengthened by relatively minor procedures; however, mechanical failures still remain problematic. SUMMARY: The current trend is to use noninvasive or minimally invasive prostheses for very young patients to avoid the complications that can be associated with multiple extensive open surgical procedures. Older adolescents, on the other hand, are better treated with modular prostheses because of the increased mechanical demands placed on the prostheses by these patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)532-537
Number of pages6
JournalCurrent Opinion in Orthopaedics
Volume17
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2006

Fingerprint

Prostheses and Implants
Neoplasms
Sarcoma
Bone and Bones
Extremities
Orthopedic Procedures
Amputation
Leg
Survival Rate

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Expandable prostheses for reconstruction after tumor resection in young patients. / Heck, Robert; Neel, Michael D.

In: Current Opinion in Orthopaedics, Vol. 17, No. 6, 01.12.2006, p. 532-537.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{8e88f986e0cc470c8a90878821ca7c02,
title = "Expandable prostheses for reconstruction after tumor resection in young patients",
abstract = "PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the past three decades, survival rates for patients with bone sarcomas have greatly improved. Amputation or rotationplasty were previously regarded as the only surgical options for skeletally immature patients with bone sarcomas, but current use of expandable prostheses has made limb-sparing surgery a reasonable option for many of these patients. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of several types of expandable prostheses. RECENT FINDINGS: Although associated with a relatively higher complication rate than most orthopedic procedures, limb-sparing surgery currently is the treatment of choice for most patients with bone sarcomas. The complication rate can be even higher for skeletally immature patients who require multiple procedures to maintain equal leg lengths. Prosthetic reconstruction options include modular prostheses, minimally invasive expandable prostheses and noninvasive expandable prostheses. Modular prostheses are relatively durable, but can be expanded only by extensive open surgical procedures. Minimally invasive and noninvasive expandable prostheses can be lengthened by relatively minor procedures; however, mechanical failures still remain problematic. SUMMARY: The current trend is to use noninvasive or minimally invasive prostheses for very young patients to avoid the complications that can be associated with multiple extensive open surgical procedures. Older adolescents, on the other hand, are better treated with modular prostheses because of the increased mechanical demands placed on the prostheses by these patients.",
author = "Robert Heck and Neel, {Michael D.}",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01.bco.0000247369.26330.c5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "532--537",
journal = "Current Orthopaedic Practice",
issn = "1940-7041",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Expandable prostheses for reconstruction after tumor resection in young patients

AU - Heck, Robert

AU - Neel, Michael D.

PY - 2006/12/1

Y1 - 2006/12/1

N2 - PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the past three decades, survival rates for patients with bone sarcomas have greatly improved. Amputation or rotationplasty were previously regarded as the only surgical options for skeletally immature patients with bone sarcomas, but current use of expandable prostheses has made limb-sparing surgery a reasonable option for many of these patients. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of several types of expandable prostheses. RECENT FINDINGS: Although associated with a relatively higher complication rate than most orthopedic procedures, limb-sparing surgery currently is the treatment of choice for most patients with bone sarcomas. The complication rate can be even higher for skeletally immature patients who require multiple procedures to maintain equal leg lengths. Prosthetic reconstruction options include modular prostheses, minimally invasive expandable prostheses and noninvasive expandable prostheses. Modular prostheses are relatively durable, but can be expanded only by extensive open surgical procedures. Minimally invasive and noninvasive expandable prostheses can be lengthened by relatively minor procedures; however, mechanical failures still remain problematic. SUMMARY: The current trend is to use noninvasive or minimally invasive prostheses for very young patients to avoid the complications that can be associated with multiple extensive open surgical procedures. Older adolescents, on the other hand, are better treated with modular prostheses because of the increased mechanical demands placed on the prostheses by these patients.

AB - PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the past three decades, survival rates for patients with bone sarcomas have greatly improved. Amputation or rotationplasty were previously regarded as the only surgical options for skeletally immature patients with bone sarcomas, but current use of expandable prostheses has made limb-sparing surgery a reasonable option for many of these patients. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of several types of expandable prostheses. RECENT FINDINGS: Although associated with a relatively higher complication rate than most orthopedic procedures, limb-sparing surgery currently is the treatment of choice for most patients with bone sarcomas. The complication rate can be even higher for skeletally immature patients who require multiple procedures to maintain equal leg lengths. Prosthetic reconstruction options include modular prostheses, minimally invasive expandable prostheses and noninvasive expandable prostheses. Modular prostheses are relatively durable, but can be expanded only by extensive open surgical procedures. Minimally invasive and noninvasive expandable prostheses can be lengthened by relatively minor procedures; however, mechanical failures still remain problematic. SUMMARY: The current trend is to use noninvasive or minimally invasive prostheses for very young patients to avoid the complications that can be associated with multiple extensive open surgical procedures. Older adolescents, on the other hand, are better treated with modular prostheses because of the increased mechanical demands placed on the prostheses by these patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750539091&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750539091&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.bco.0000247369.26330.c5

DO - 10.1097/01.bco.0000247369.26330.c5

M3 - Review article

VL - 17

SP - 532

EP - 537

JO - Current Orthopaedic Practice

JF - Current Orthopaedic Practice

SN - 1940-7041

IS - 6

ER -