Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 31, 2026
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
Patient-oriented functional results of total femoral endoprosthetic reconstruction following oncologic resection
Kevin B Jones1, Anthony M Griffin, Coonoor R Chandrasekar
1The Department of Orthopaedics, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. kevin.jones@hci.utah.edu
Background And Objectives:
Functional outcomes following oncologic total femoral endoprosthetic reconstruction (TFR) are lacking. We compared patient-oriented functional results of TFRs to proximal femur and distal femur reconstructions (PFR and DFR). We also compared function and complications with regard to knee and hip componentry.
Methods:
Fifty-four TFR patients were identified from three institutional prospective databases. Forty-one had fixed- and 13 had rotating-hinge knees, 37 hemiarthroplasty and 17 total hip arthroplasty componentry. Toronto Extremity Salvage Scores (TESS) for n = 27 were compared between groups and to cohorts of PFR (n = 31) and DFR (n = 85) patients using the Mann-Whitney U-test.
Results:
Follow-up averaged 4 years. Mechanical complications included five hip dislocations and one femoral malrotation. Four dislocations were in fixed-hinge implants, all in those lacking abductor reattachment. TESS averaged 69.3 ± 17.8, statistically decreased from DFR (P = 0.002) and PFR patients (P = 0.036). No significant differences were detected between patients in the fixed-hinge (n = 18) and rotating-hinge (n = 9) groups (P = 0.944), or total hip (n = 8) and hemiarthroplasty (n = 19) groups (P = 0.633).
Conclusions:
TFR is reserved for extreme cases of limb salvage, portending a poor prognosis overall. Function reflects additive impairments from PFR and DFR. TFR outcomes differ little with rotating- or fixed-hinge, total hip or hemiarthroplasty implants.
