Journals / The anatolian journal of family medicine (Online) / 2019 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 3

Our Positive and Negative Deductions regarding the Results of Tumor Prostheses after Resection of Primary and Metastatic Tumors of the Proximal Humerus

Pages
119–125
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is encouraging that the elbow, forearm and hand functions were fully protected in all patients andgood quality of life was ensured considering the cosmetic results, patient psychology and daily social activities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim of modular tumor prostheses for primary and metastatic tumors of the proximal humerusis to provide the maximum possible physical, psychological and social activity despite the wide resection areas.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The present study aims to show the suitability of modular tumor prostheses of the shoulder joint in theearly period without considering the postoperative life expectancy in patients diagnosed with a malignanttumor of the proximal humerus.Methods: In this study, a total of 53 patients were evaluated retrospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is encouraging that the elbow, forearm and hand functions were fully protected in all patients andgood quality of life was ensured considering the cosmetic results, patient psychology and daily social activities.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: The aim of modular tumor prostheses for primary and metastatic tumors of the proximal humerusis to provide the maximum possible physical, psychological and social activity despite the wide resection areas. The present study aims to show the suitability of modular tumor prostheses of the shoulder joint in theearly period without considering the postoperative life expectancy in patients diagnosed with a malignanttumor of the proximal humerus.Methods: In this study, a total of 53 patients were evaluated retrospectively. Our patients consisted of 32 female and 21 male patients who were diagnosed and underwent surgery at our Orthopedics and Traumatologyclinics between 1980 and 2003. The 14 patients we had personally followed-up at our clinic were included inGroup A, while the 39 patients who were evaluated using the data in the archives were included in Group B.The mean age of the patients was 57 years in Group A and 39 years in group B. Modular tumor prostheses weremostly used for the 53 patients in total in Group A and B, but a few patients received a tumor prosthesis madeof Polyacetalharz or an isoelastic tumor prosthesis.Results: There was no sign of postoperative metastasis or local residual tumor in any of the 14 patients in GroupA. Seven patients had no pain and five patients had only mild pain. None of the patients required opioids. Postoperative cranial subluxation was seen in ten patients after a mean duration of 34.5 months. Resurgery wasperformed only in four of 14 patients in group A. Multiple bones, or visceral/pulmonary metastases were foundat the same time as the initial diagnosis in Group B patients, and these subjects died within a mean postoperative duration of six months. Nine of the 39 patients underwent resurgery. There were six patients with no painin Group B. There was no recorded data related to pain in 25 patients. The movement limitation was significantin 13 patients and mild in two patients.Conclusion: The findings suggest that it was possible to achieve a good level of movement capacity and muscle strength although limited due to the refixation of the muscles and tendons protected during the wideintraoperative resections with modular tumor resection prosthesis implantation, despite some tolerable painin the early period, when the results were compared with other treatment options, such as arthrodesis or amputation. It is encouraging that the elbow, forearm and hand functions were fully protected in all patients andgood quality of life was ensured considering the cosmetic results, patient psychology and daily social activities.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALLAHVERDI, E., YILDIZ, Y. (2019). Our Positive and Negative Deductions regarding the Results of Tumor Prostheses after Resection of Primary and Metastatic Tumors of the Proximal Humerus. The anatolian journal of family medicine (Online), Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 3, 119–125. https://ajindex.com/articles/365040

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Frassica FJ, Sim FH, Chao EY. Primary malignant bone tumors of the shoulder girdle: surgical technique of resection and reconstruction. Am Surg 1987;53(5):264–9
  2. Donati D, Giacomini S, Gozzi E, Salphale Y, Mercuri M, Mankin HJ, et al. Allograft arthrodesis treatment of bone tumors: a two-center study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;(400):217–24
  3. Gebhardt MC, Roth YF, Mankin HJ. Ostoearticular allografts for reconstruction in the proximal part of the humerus after excision of a musculoskeletal tumor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72(3):334–45
  4. De Wilde L, Mombert M, Van Petegem P, Verdonk R. De Wilde L, Mombert M, Van Petegem P, Verdonk R. Acta Orthop Belg 2001;67(4):348–53
  5. Yalniz E, Ciftdemir M, Memişoğlu S. Functional results of patients treated with modular prosthetic replacement for bone tumors of the extremities. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2008;42(4):238–45
  6. Guven MF, Aslan L, Botanlioglu H, Kaynak G, Kesmezacar H, Babacan M. Functional outcome of reverse shoulder tumor prosthesis in the treatment of proximal humerus tumors. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016;25(1):e1–6
  7. Gouin F, Creen V. Reconstruction following shoulder resection for bone tumor. Bull Cancer 2014;101(10):951–7
  8. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987;(214):160–4
  9. Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993;(286):241–6
  10. Asavamongkolkul A, Eckardt JJ, Eilber FR, Dorey FJ, Ward WG, Kelly CM, et al. Endoprosthetic reconstruction for malignant upper extremity tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999;(360):207–20
  11. Fuhrmann RA, Roth A, Venbrocks RA. Salvage of the upper extremity in cases of tumorous destruction of the proximal humerus. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2000;126(6):337–44
  12. Lee SH, Kim DJ, Oh JH, Han HS, Yoo KH, Kim HS. Validation of a functional evaluation system in patients with musculoskeletal tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;(411):217–26
  13. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Neer hemiarthroplasty and Neer total shoulder arthroplasty in patients fifty years old or less. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80(4):464–73
  14. Kumar D, Grimer RJ, Abudu A, Carter SR, Tillman RM. Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal humerus. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85(5):717–22
  15. Kassab M, Dumaine V