Prognostic Analysis of Endoprosthetic Reconstruction Versus Biological Reconstruction in the Treatment of Extremity...

Objective: To compare the clinical prognosis of metal endoprosthetic reconstruction versus biological reconstruction in the treatment of limb osteosarcoma and to analyze associated prognostic factors. Methods: From October 2014 to October 2021, a retrospective study was carried out of patients with high-grade extremity osteosarcoma. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of reconstruction: endoprosthetic reconstruction and biological reconstruction. Demographic data and prognosis were systematically compared between the two groups. Furthermore, a Cox proportional hazards model was employed to evaluate the risk factors associated with recurrence and survival outcomes. Results: A total of 133 patients were enrolled in the study, comprising 88 patients in the endoprosthetic reconstruction group and 45 patients in the biological reconstruction group. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates for the endoprosthetic reconstruction group were 76.2% and 70.5%, respectively, which were higher than those observed in the biological reconstruction group (64.3% and 60%). Additionally, the local recurrence rate was significantly higher in the biological reconstruction group compared to the endoprosthetic reconstruction group (17.8% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.004). Cox regression analysis revealed that pathological fracture (p = 0.034) and the biological reconstruction (p = 0.007) were independent risk factors for local recurrence. Conclusions: Endoprosthetic reconstruction may be preferable for patients requiring early functional recovery or presenting with pathological fractures. Biological reconstruction may be considered for younger patients with diaphyseal defects and demanding long-term functional requirements, albeit with elevated local recurrence risk. Individualized decision-making incorporating tumor location, patient age, and functional goals is essential.