Cemented versus cementless endoprostheses for lower limb salvage surgery

E. Pala, A. F. Mavrogenis, A. Angelini, E. R. Henderson, G. Douglas Letson, Pietro Ruggieri

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the survival and failures of cemented vs cementless endoprostheses. Methods: We retrospectively studied 232 patients treated with lower limb salvage surgery and reconstruction using cementless and cemented endoprostheses from 2002 to 2007. We compared survival and failures of the endoprostheses regarding age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, site of reconstruction, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and stem fixation. Results: The mean patient follow-up was 28 months (median 24; range 12-84). The overall survival of cemented and cementless endoprostheses at 60 months was 64 and 78%, respectively (p=0.0078). Survival at 60 months of cemented and cementless endoprostheses to infection was 68 and 82%, respectively (p=0.0248). Survival of cemented and cementless endoprostheses to aseptic loosening at 60 months was 94 and 96%, respectively (p=0.1493). The only significant univariate and multivariate predictor of survival was the cementless type of stem fixation. Conclusion: Cementless endoprostheses have higher overall survival and survival to infection compared to cemented endoprostheses. Survival to aseptic loosening is not different. Stem fixation is the only significant variable for survival.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)496-503
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of B.U.ON.
Volume18
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2013

Fingerprint

Lower Extremity
Survival
Infection
Body Mass Index
Radiotherapy
Drug Therapy

Keywords

  • Apoptosis
  • Euphorbia lunulata Bge
  • Hepatoma
  • HepG2 cells

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research
  • Hematology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Pala, E., Mavrogenis, A. F., Angelini, A., Henderson, E. R., Letson, G. D., & Ruggieri, P. (2013). Cemented versus cementless endoprostheses for lower limb salvage surgery. Journal of B.U.ON., 18(2), 496-503.

Cemented versus cementless endoprostheses for lower limb salvage surgery. / Pala, E.; Mavrogenis, A. F.; Angelini, A.; Henderson, E. R.; Letson, G. Douglas; Ruggieri, Pietro.

In: Journal of B.U.ON., Vol. 18, No. 2, 04.2013, p. 496-503.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pala, E, Mavrogenis, AF, Angelini, A, Henderson, ER, Letson, GD & Ruggieri, P 2013, 'Cemented versus cementless endoprostheses for lower limb salvage surgery', Journal of B.U.ON., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 496-503.
Pala E, Mavrogenis AF, Angelini A, Henderson ER, Letson GD, Ruggieri P. Cemented versus cementless endoprostheses for lower limb salvage surgery. Journal of B.U.ON. 2013 Apr;18(2):496-503.
Pala, E. ; Mavrogenis, A. F. ; Angelini, A. ; Henderson, E. R. ; Letson, G. Douglas ; Ruggieri, Pietro. / Cemented versus cementless endoprostheses for lower limb salvage surgery. In: Journal of B.U.ON. 2013 ; Vol. 18, No. 2. pp. 496-503.
@article{3ea2ce3076694bc5bc3dbb25b517a80b,
title = "Cemented versus cementless endoprostheses for lower limb salvage surgery",
abstract = "Purpose: To determine the survival and failures of cemented vs cementless endoprostheses. Methods: We retrospectively studied 232 patients treated with lower limb salvage surgery and reconstruction using cementless and cemented endoprostheses from 2002 to 2007. We compared survival and failures of the endoprostheses regarding age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, site of reconstruction, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and stem fixation. Results: The mean patient follow-up was 28 months (median 24; range 12-84). The overall survival of cemented and cementless endoprostheses at 60 months was 64 and 78{\%}, respectively (p=0.0078). Survival at 60 months of cemented and cementless endoprostheses to infection was 68 and 82{\%}, respectively (p=0.0248). Survival of cemented and cementless endoprostheses to aseptic loosening at 60 months was 94 and 96{\%}, respectively (p=0.1493). The only significant univariate and multivariate predictor of survival was the cementless type of stem fixation. Conclusion: Cementless endoprostheses have higher overall survival and survival to infection compared to cemented endoprostheses. Survival to aseptic loosening is not different. Stem fixation is the only significant variable for survival.",
keywords = "Apoptosis, Euphorbia lunulata Bge, Hepatoma, HepG2 cells",
author = "E. Pala and Mavrogenis, {A. F.} and A. Angelini and Henderson, {E. R.} and Letson, {G. Douglas} and Pietro Ruggieri",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "496--503",
journal = "Journal of B.U.ON.",
issn = "1107-0625",
publisher = "Balkan Union of Oncology",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cemented versus cementless endoprostheses for lower limb salvage surgery

AU - Pala, E.

AU - Mavrogenis, A. F.

AU - Angelini, A.

AU - Henderson, E. R.

AU - Letson, G. Douglas

AU - Ruggieri, Pietro

PY - 2013/4

Y1 - 2013/4

N2 - Purpose: To determine the survival and failures of cemented vs cementless endoprostheses. Methods: We retrospectively studied 232 patients treated with lower limb salvage surgery and reconstruction using cementless and cemented endoprostheses from 2002 to 2007. We compared survival and failures of the endoprostheses regarding age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, site of reconstruction, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and stem fixation. Results: The mean patient follow-up was 28 months (median 24; range 12-84). The overall survival of cemented and cementless endoprostheses at 60 months was 64 and 78%, respectively (p=0.0078). Survival at 60 months of cemented and cementless endoprostheses to infection was 68 and 82%, respectively (p=0.0248). Survival of cemented and cementless endoprostheses to aseptic loosening at 60 months was 94 and 96%, respectively (p=0.1493). The only significant univariate and multivariate predictor of survival was the cementless type of stem fixation. Conclusion: Cementless endoprostheses have higher overall survival and survival to infection compared to cemented endoprostheses. Survival to aseptic loosening is not different. Stem fixation is the only significant variable for survival.

AB - Purpose: To determine the survival and failures of cemented vs cementless endoprostheses. Methods: We retrospectively studied 232 patients treated with lower limb salvage surgery and reconstruction using cementless and cemented endoprostheses from 2002 to 2007. We compared survival and failures of the endoprostheses regarding age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, site of reconstruction, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and stem fixation. Results: The mean patient follow-up was 28 months (median 24; range 12-84). The overall survival of cemented and cementless endoprostheses at 60 months was 64 and 78%, respectively (p=0.0078). Survival at 60 months of cemented and cementless endoprostheses to infection was 68 and 82%, respectively (p=0.0248). Survival of cemented and cementless endoprostheses to aseptic loosening at 60 months was 94 and 96%, respectively (p=0.1493). The only significant univariate and multivariate predictor of survival was the cementless type of stem fixation. Conclusion: Cementless endoprostheses have higher overall survival and survival to infection compared to cemented endoprostheses. Survival to aseptic loosening is not different. Stem fixation is the only significant variable for survival.

KW - Apoptosis

KW - Euphorbia lunulata Bge

KW - Hepatoma

KW - HepG2 cells

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879597505&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879597505&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 496

EP - 503

JO - Journal of B.U.ON.

JF - Journal of B.U.ON.

SN - 1107-0625

IS - 2

ER -