Translate this page into:
Proximal femur reconstruction with a cemented allograft-prosthesis composite and a new type of plate in young patients: Surgical technique
∗Corresponding author: Francesco Bosco. francescobosco@icloud.com
-
Received: ,
Accepted: ,
This article was originally published by Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd. and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.
Abstract
Abstract
To describe an alternative surgical technique for treating proximal femur tumor lesions in young patients.
Reconstruction of segmental defects is a major challenge for orthopedic oncologic surgeons. Bone reconstruction of these defects aims to restore bone length and function. Currently, the most widely used methods for reconstruction are mega-prosthesis or cemented allograft-prosthesis composite (APC).
The proposed approach consists of implanting a cemented allograft-short prosthesis composite and synthesis with a new type of plate, Depuy Synthes® VA-LCP PPFx proximal femur Hook Plate 3.5/4.5/5.0 mm.
This technique involves meticulous planning of implants and selection of the synthesis device with precise measurements on X-rays and intra-operatively. It allows the surgeon to standardize the procedure providing good synthesis stability and possibly subsequent proper osseointegration of the allograft with the native bone. Moreover, using a prosthesis with a short stem prevents affecting the bone reserve of the healthy femur and may obviate the risk of excessive bone stock loss associated with this surgical procedure.
A relatively straightforward surgical technique, stable synthesis, and adequate osseointegration feasibility between allograft and native bone.
Keywords
Bone graft
Allograft
APC
Proximal femur reconstruction
Surgical technique
Plate
Prosthesis
Tumor
Oncologic
1 Introduction
In orthopedic practice, massive bone loss occurs at the proximal femur because of tumors, pseudotumors, infections, osteolysis following joint replacement, complex fractures, and mega-prosthesis failure. Therefore, many different techniques have been introduced to overcome this challenge.
Several strategies are available to approach proximal femoral tumors requiring massive bone resection. Currently, proposed solutions for massive bone defects are prosthetic implants, i.e., mega-prostheses or composite allograft skeletal prostheses (APCs). Mega-prostheses, which are widely used, still allow the replacement of the resected proximal femur by allowing the soft-tissue component to be attached directly to the prosthesis, at least in the most recent models.1 A shortcoming of this technique is inadequate joint stability. In addition, some of this surgical procedure's main criticisms are the high infection rates and prosthesis loosening.1
On the other hand, APC is the alternative surgical technique used to fill massive bone defects, which involves a prosthesis inserted within a bone allograft and then synthesized with the resected healthy native bone. APC permits the connection of residual muscles and tendons to the allograft bone, reducing the risk of postoperative instability and providing better functional recovery for the patient.2 An additional advantage of this technique could be the allograft's capability of osseointegration with healthy native bone. All these aspects should be carefully considered before surgically treating a young patient with a high risk of undergoing subsequent revisions. However, even APCs are not exempt from complications. Periprosthetic bone resorption, osseointegration failure between the graft and the host bone, fractures, and infections are the main complications of this reconstruction method.3,4
This article aims to describe the APC technique performed by our surgical team, supported by our surgical intraoperative illustrations, and to share several tips and potential pitfalls related to this surgical procedure.
2 Surgical technique
2.1 Preoperative planning and devices
Defining the osteotomy level and identifying the best graft based on patient characteristics are essential during preoperative planning. The osteotomy level should be defined according to the extent of bone disease assessed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the time of diagnosis. The planning involves cutting the bone 2 cm from the tumor to achieve an adequate oncologic radicality (Fig. 1). Computer assistance was not considered necessary in this specific case. A length in centimeters (cm) from the femoral calcar should then be planned to achieve disease-free margins. The femoral calcar is also used as an anatomic reference for graft preparation, preferred to the greater trochanter because it is subject to less interindividual variability as a reference for the proximal osteotomy required for implantation of the prosthetic stem. The proximal femur allograft choice is dictated by some characteristics of the native bone as assessed by a preoperative computerized tomography (CT) scan. In particular, the diaphyseal diameter at the level of the osteotomy should be as close as possible to that of the patient's native femur, allowing for a proper interface.

Furthermore, an allograft with intact tendon insertions should be used to reinsert the major hip muscles, and this is an essential advantage over mega-prostheses, which do not allow anatomic reinsertion of periarticular muscles along their force vectors. The cephalic portion of the femoral allograft is replaced with a partial hip prosthesis with a short, cemented stem (LIMA® Friendly Short cemented stem) and a BIOLOX®delta ceramic femoral head.
The cemented stem is chosen to provide good primary stability in allograft bone. At the same time, its short design allows the prosthesis not to over-extend at the distal femoral diaphysis of the still-growing patient, thus reducing the risk of fracture or prosthetic loosening. The plate used for allograft synthesis with the residual distal femur is the Depuy Synthes® VA-LCP PPFx proximal femur Hook Plate 3.5/4.5/5.0 mm with its dedicated tensioner; osteosynthesis is performed according to the principles of absolute stability. Hip muscle tenodesis is performed with Ethibond Excel® non-resorbable polyester suture.
2.2 Graft preparation
Allograft preparation is performed on a workstation, where the cemented prosthetic stem and plate are placed on the graft. At first, tissue debris must be removed; then, a proximal osteotomy is performed approximately 1 cm from the lesser trochanter to allow insertion of the curved rasps to prepare the femoral canal (Fig. 2). Next, the Depuy Synthes® VA-LCP PPFx proximal femur Hook Plate 3.5/4.5/5.0 mm is synthesized on the graft, leaving the correct sized rasp in place to avoid impingement between the screws and prosthetic stem and bone perforation with the cement in place, in case the prosthesis is implanted before plate synthesis, which increases the risk of implant loosening due to alteration of the bone-cement interface (Fig. 3).


Finally, with the plate and screws positioned in the correct direction, the LIMA® Friendly Short stem is cemented inside the allograft placed on the workstation (Fig. 4). No cement is applied distally to the allograft at the interface with the patient's bone to promote repopulation of the graft and possibly, achieve good osseointegration.

2.3 Surgical approach
The patient should be placed in a lateral position to access the hip and femoral diaphysis, with landmarks on the contralateral limb for length and axis checking. A posterolateral approach to the hip is performed to access the proximal femur, with distal lateral extension along the diaphysis for plate synthesis. The tendon insertions of the major muscle groups (gluteus, ileopsoas, and vastus lateralis) and the joint capsule must be dissected and protected for subsequent reinsertion into the graft. Next, as planned preoperatively and performed on the allograft, an osteotomy is performed with manual measurement from the calcar along the femoral diaphysis, with en bloc excision of the proximal femur. The margins should appear macroscopically free of disease. Finally, the femoral diaphysis will be prepared up to the distal third for plate synthesis, limiting deperiostization.
2.4 Osteosynthesis of the graft
The allograft previously prepared on the workstation is placed at the host site and temporarily clamped with reduction forceps once proper anteversion and osteotomy surface correspondence is achieved. Synthesis is then performed according to the principles of absolute stability with at least six proximal and six distal cortices to the osteotomy site. The plate tensioner and two non-locking eccentric screws achieve compression between the contact surfaces. The capsule and major tendon structures are reinserted and sutured with Ethibond Excel®. A fluoroscopic examination is used throughout the procedure, and an anteroposterior (AP) and Lateral View X-ray are performed at the end of the surgical procedure to confirm successful prosthetic implantation and successive synthesis (Fig. 5). Finally, a pelvic-condylar spica must be made to protect osteosynthesis, tenodesis, and hip stability.

2.5 Follow-up
Pelvic-condylar spica is maintained for 30 days postoperatively, with subsequent removal, and progressive weight-bearing is allowed to be started only when there is good proximal femoral osseointegration on radiographic evaluation. No weight-bearing is recommended until 60 postoperative days, then partial loading with crutches until 90 postoperative days. Clinical and radiographic follow-ups are scheduled 30, 60, and 90 days after the surgical procedure.
3 Discussion and conclusion
The main advantage of this surgical technique is related to the use of an allograft with osseointegration capability, the choice of a short-stemmed prosthesis so as not to affect the femoral bone stock, and fixation with a new type of plate with anatomical adaptation to the proximal femur to be gentler to the soft tissues and with high screw density and additional fixation options.5
Nowadays, allograft-prosthesis composites can be divided into three groups: cemented, uncemented, and partially cemented.6 The surgical technique proposed could be placed in the third group, with the advantage given by the cement of keeping the prosthesis on the allograft but, at the same time, avoiding the disadvantage of cementing the osseointegration zone between the allograft and the healthy femoral bone.
This proposed surgical technique is suitable for aggressive benign tumors and low-grade sarcomas, for which chemotherapy is not necessary. The procedure may be a viable choice in young patients and is a bridge to subsequent total hip arthroplasty (THA), which will be performed when the growing osseocartilaginous structures of the acetabulum are firmly established. The use of allograft is designed for very young growing patients due to the unavailability of hip prostheses suitable for this age group. However, the choice of this surgical procedure is also dictated by the allograft availability of a musculoskeletal tissue bank, which is not present in all countries.6 Furthermore, this surgical procedure may be a suitable alternative for failed oncologic modular prostheses and failed osteoarticular allografts, as it aims to restore bone stock.7
Most studies on APC in the literature are case series with heterogeneous study groups, which makes it challenging to evaluate the results of this surgical procedure.2–4 Although good functional and radiographic outcomes with APC have been reported, long-term follow-up is needed to determine the durability and effectiveness of the proposed surgical technique.
Funding
No funding has been received for this study.
Financial support and sponsorship
The authors received no financial support for this article's research, authorship and/or publication.
Institutional ethical clearance and informed consent
The institutional Review Board (IRB) of the author's institution defined this study as exempt from IRB approval (study on a well-established surgical procedure) and was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.
Authors' contributions
JV and MR have contributed substantially to conception and design, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation. They have been involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content, giving final approval of the version to be published. They agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. PB has contributed substantially to the data analysis, interpretation, and manuscript drafting. FB and NR have significantly contributed to the conception, analysis, and interpretation of data and have been involved in drafting the manuscript. RP has made substantial contributions to concept and design.
References
- Comparison of allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction and modular prosthetic replacement in proximal femur bone tumors: functional assessment by gait analysis in 20 patients. Acta Orthop. 2013;84(2):218-223.
- [Google Scholar]
- The use of allograft prosthesis composite for extensive proximal femoral bone deficiencies: a 2- to 9.8-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(8):1241-1248.
- [Google Scholar]
- Megaprosthesis versus allograft prosthesis composite for massive skeletal defects. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018;9(1):63-80.
- [Google Scholar]
- Proximal femoral allograft-prosthetic composites: do they really restore bone? A retrospective Review of revision allograft-prosthetic composites. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(2):346-351.
- [Google Scholar]
- Proximal femur allograft-prosthesis with compression plates and a short stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):224-230.
- [Google Scholar]
- Cemented allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction for the proximal femur tumor. OncoTargets Ther. 2015;8:2261-2269.
- [Google Scholar]
- Allograft prosthetic composite replacement for bone tumors. Semin Surg Oncol. 1997;13(1):18-24.
- [Google Scholar]

