Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Sep;473(9):3003-13.
doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4355-1. Epub 2015 May 21.

Are Complications Associated With the Repiphysis(®) Expandable Distal Femoral Prosthesis Acceptable for Its Continued Use?

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Are Complications Associated With the Repiphysis(®) Expandable Distal Femoral Prosthesis Acceptable for Its Continued Use?

Eric L Staals et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Reconstruction of the distal femur after resection for malignant bone tumors in skeletally immature children is challenging. The use of megaprostheses has become increasingly popular in this patient group since the introduction of custom-made, expandable devices that do not require surgery for lengthening, such as the Repiphysis(®) Limb Salvage System. Early reports on the device were positive but more recently, a high complication rate and associated bone loss have been reported.

Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) what are the clinical outcomes using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system after 5-year minimum followup in patients treated with this prosthesis at one center; (2) what are the problems and complications associated with the lengthening procedures of this implant; and (3) what are the specific concerns associated with revision of this implant?

Methods: At our institute, between 2002 and 2007, the Repiphysis(®) expandable prosthesis was implanted in 15 children (mean age, 8 years; range, 6-11 years) after distal femoral resection for malignant bone tumors. During this time, the general indication for use of this implant was resection of the distal femur for localized malignant bone tumors in pediatric patients. Alternative techniques used for this indication were modular prosthetic reconstruction, massive (osteoarticular or intercalary) allograft reconstruction, or rotationplasty. Age and tumor extension were the main factors to decide on the surgical indication. Of the 15 patients who had this prosthesis implanted during reconstruction surgery, five died with the implant in situ or underwent amputation before 5 years followup and the remaining 10 were evaluated at a minimum of 5 years (mean, 104 months; range, 78-140 months). No patients were lost to followup. These 10 patients were long-term survivors and underwent the lengthening program. They were included in our study analysis. The first seven lengthening procedures were attempted in an outpatient setting; however, owing to pain and burning sensations experienced by the patients, the procedures failed to achieve the desired lengthening. Therefore, other procedures were performed with the patients under general anesthesia. We reviewed clinical data at index surgery for all 15 patients. We further analyzed the lengthening procedures, implant survival, radiographic and functional results, for the 10 long-term survivors. Functional results were assessed according to the MSTS scoring system. Complications were classified according to the International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) classification system.

Results: Nine of the 10 survivors underwent revision of the implant for mechanical failure. They had a mean MSTS score of 64% (range, 47%-87%) before revision surgery. At final followup the 10 long-term surviving patients had an average MSTS score of 81% (range, 53%-97%). In total, we obtained an average lengthening of 39 mm per patient (range, 17-67 mm). Exact expansion of the implant was unpredictable and difficult to control. Nine of 10 of the long-term surviving patients underwent revision surgery of the prosthesis-eight for implant breakage and one for stem loosening. At revision surgery, six patients had another type of expandable prosthesis implanted and three had an adult-type megaprosthesis implanted. In five cases, segmental bone grafts were used during revision surgery to compensate for loss of bone stock.

Conclusions: We could not comfortably expand the Repiphysis(®) prosthesis in an outpatient setting because of pain experienced by the patients during the lengthening procedures. Furthermore, use of the prosthesis was associated with frequent failures related to implant breakage and stem loosening. Revisions of these procedures were complex and difficult. We no longer use this prosthesis and caution others against the use of this particular prosthesis design.

Level of evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Figures

Fig. 1A–B
Fig. 1A–B
(A) The Repiphysis® prosthesis and (B) the generator of the external electromagnetic field are shown.
Fig. 2A–C
Fig. 2A–C
(A) A plain radiograph of the Repiphysis® distal femoral prosthesis before lengthening is shown. (B) Application of the external electromagnetic field with the patient under general anesthesia and (C) fluoroscopic control of the lengthening procedure are shown.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A plain radiograph shows an inflammatory reaction, 24 hours after a lengthening procedure. The patient presented with thigh pain, fever, and swelling around the implant. A radiolucency is visible around the prosthetic body. The symptoms regressed spontaneously in the following 48 hours.
Fig. 4A–C
Fig. 4A–C
(A) The radiograph shows signs of implant failure including metallic debris in the soft tissues and breakage of the spring. (B) The explanted prosthesis shows the periprosthetic membrane with extensive metallosis and a dark greenish-gray pseudocapsule. (C) The radiograph shows the removed implant at revision surgery.
Fig. 5A–I
Fig. 5A–I
The intraoperative photographs show (A) preparation of the segmental cortical allograft; (B) application of the allograft to the host bone; (C) preparation of the stem wings distally in the segmental cortical allograft; (D) stem introduction; (E) the distal part of the stem with a thin mantle of cement, just before complete introduction; and (F) final stem placement. The plain radiographs show (G) the prosthesis before revision, (H) immediately postoperative, and (I) 40 months after revision surgery.
Fig. 6A–D
Fig. 6A–D
Sequential radiographs show (A) spring breakage of the Repiphysis® prosthesis in 2008, followed by (B) revision surgery in 2010 with another type of expandable prosthesis, and radiographic controls after expanding the new prosthesis in (C) 2011 and (D) 2012.

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 8 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

MeSH terms

Feedback