{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Extended distal femur resection: Megaprosthesis with telescopic bone allograft augmentation versus total femur prosthesis.
{Author}: Bruschi A;Cevolani L;Minerba A;Conversano D;Falzetti L;Pasini S;Donati DM;
{Journal}: J Surg Oncol
{Volume}: 129
{Issue}: 8
{Year}: 2024 Jun 27
{Factor}: 2.885
{DOI}: 10.1002/jso.27670
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>Oncological distal femur resections can leave a proximal femur too short to host a stem. Reconstructive techniques are then challenging. The purpose of the study is to compare implant survival, complication rate and MSTS of two different options.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>We retrospectively divided 33 patients with primary bone tumours of distal femur in Group 1 (16 patients reconstructed with knee megaprosthesis with proximal bone augmentation, APC) and Group 2 (17 patients reconstructed with total femur prosthesis, TFP). Less than 12 cm of remaining proximal femur were planned for all resections.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>MSTS score at 2 years is 25 ± 5 for Group 1 and 19 ± 7 for Group 2 (confidence interval [C.I.] 95%, p = 0.02). At 5 years it is 27 ± 2 for Group 1 and 22 ± 6 for Group 2 (C.I. 95%, p = 0.047). Failure and complication rates are lower for Group 1, but no statistical significance was reached. In APC reconstruction, union at the host-allograft junction was achieved in 16 out of 16 patients using the telescopic bone augmentation technique.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>APC provides higher functional results compared to TFP after extended distal femur resection. In APC reconstruction, telescopic augmentation is excellent for achieving union at the host-allograft junction.