Plate-prosthesis composite reconstruction after large segmental resection of proximal humeral tumors

Ran WEI,Wei GUO,Rong-li YANG,Xiao-dong TANG,Tai-qiang YAN,Da-sen LI,Yi YANG,Tao JI

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000015787

2018-01-01

Abstract:Objective ( 1 ) To describe the design, reconstructive procedures and outcomes of plate-prosthesis composite ( PPC ); ( 2 ) To describe outcomes of endoprosthetic reconstruction after large segmental resection of proximal humeral tumors; ( 3 ) To compare functional outcomes, implant survival, surgical time, intra-operative haemorrhage and complication rate of PPC with those of proximal humeral prosthesis ( PHP ). Methods We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of 17 patients [ 9 males, average age ( 23.9 ± 17.1 ) years ] who received large segmental resection of proximal humeral tumors in our center from Aug. 2007 to Feb. 2017. All patients received intraarticular proximal humeral resection without the preservation of abductor mechanism. The mean resection length was ( 19.8 ± 3.4 ) cm, accounting for ( 71.5 ± 6.3 ) ％ of the whole humeral length. All patients were divided into PPC group ( n = 8 ) and PHP group ( n = 9 ) according to the reconstructive options. The proximal component of PPC was designed as the same as PHP, and the stem was custom-made to be a dumpy shape based on the length of residual humerus and diameter of medullary cavity. Three transverse screw holes were pre-drilled on the distal part of the prosthesis. The hole distances were designed as the same as that of pre-selected lateral anatomic plate for distal humerus, and the directions of holes were designed to assure the plate fit the bone surface while the prosthetic humeral head was reduced into the glenoid correctly. During reconstruction, the prosthetic stem was firstly cemented into the residual humerus, then the plate was fixed to the prosthesis and residual humerus by screws. Functional outcomes were assessed using MSTS 93 system for the upper extremity. The mechanical prosthetic complication was defined as the observation of imaging evidence of mechanical complication, and the implant survival was defined as the period between surgery and occurrence of mechanical prosthetic complication. Results The mean follow-up period was ( 34.8 ± 28.3 ) months. Five patients ( 29.4％ ) had mechanical prosthetic complications who were dispensed with re-operation, with a mean implant survival of ( 79.0 ± 15.4 ) months. In PPC group, the mean surgical time and intra-operative haemorrhage of 8 patients were ( 3.2 ± 1.4 ) hours and ( 275.0 ± 146.4 ) ml, respectively. The mean MSTS 93 score was 22.5 ± 2.4 ( 75.0 ± 8.2 ) ％ and no patients suffered from mechanical prosthetic complications. Compared with PHP group, PPC group showed no differences on surgical time, intra-operative haemmorhage and MSTS 93 scores, while PPC group showed significant lower mechanical prosthetic complication rates ( 0 versus 55.6％, P = 0.020 ) and better implant survival ( 77.0 months versus 51.5 ± 18.7 months, P = 0.029 ). Conclusions Endoprosthesis reconstruction after large segmental resection of proximal humeral tumors can provide reasonable functions of the upper extremity with a comparatively high risk of mechanical prosthetic complications. PPC can maintain low mechanical prosthetic complication rate without increasing the complexity and risk of surgery, which can be represented as an ideal reconstructive option after large segmental resection of proximal humeral tumors.