National guidelines recommend that trauma centres have a designated consultant for managing metastatic bone disease (MBD). No such system exists in Scotland. We compared MBD cases in a trauma hospital to a national bone tumour centre to characterise differences in management and outcome. Consecutive patients with metastatic proximal femoral lesions referred to a trauma unit and a national sarcoma centre were compared over a seven-year period (minimum follow-up one year). From Jan 2010-Dec 2016, 195 patients were referred to the trauma unit and 68 to the tumour centre. The trauma unit tended to see older patients (mean 72 vs. 65 years, p<0001) with cancers of poorer prognosis (e.g. 31% 61/195 vs. 13% 9/68 lung primary, p<0.001). Both units had similar operative rates but patients referred to the tumour centre were more likely to have endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR 44% tumour vs. 3% trauma centre, p<0.001). Patients with an EPR survived longer than those with other types of fixation (81% 17/21 vs. 31% 35/112 one-year survival, p<0.001). Patients undergoing EPR were more likely to have an isolated metastasis (62% 13/21 vs. 17% 4/24, p<0.001). One patient from each centre had a revision for failed metalwork. There was a difference in caseload referred to both units, with the tumour centre seeing younger patients with a better prognosis. Patients suitable for endoprostheses were more likely to have isolated metastatic disease and a longer survival after surgery. An MBD pathway is required to ensure such patients are identified and referred for specialist management where appropriate

Background. Modular endoprostheses today represent a standard treatment option in the management of musculoskeletal tumors of the lower extremities. Long-term results of these reconstructions, however, are often limited by the course of the underlying disease. We therefore report our experiences in cancer patients with megaprostheses of the lower limb after a minimum of 15 years. Materials and Methods. 62 patients, 34 men and 28 women, with a mean age of 26 years (median, 20; range, 6–83) were included in this investigation with a mean follow-up of 230 months (median, 228; range, 180–342). Endoprosthetic reconstructions of the proximal femur (11), the distal femur (28), the total femur (2) or the proximal tibia (21) were indicated for osteosarcoma (43), chondrosarcoma (5), malignant fibrous histiocytoma (3) or other tumors (11). All patients have received either a KMFTR (22) or a HMRS (40) modular prosthesis; 23 patients had a muscle flap, 14 had a fibular transposition osteotomy and 4 have received an artificial LARS ligament for soft-tissue reconstruction. Results. 7 patients (11.3%) died throughout the follow-up period, but none succumbed to primary disease. One patient (1.6%) developed a local recurrence after 31 months that was resected. Overall, 56 patients (90.3%) underwent revision of their prosthesis; 50 (80.7%) had multiple revisions up to a maximum of 12 operations (mean, 3 per patient). The median overall prosthetic survival to first revision was 40 months; the corresponding 5-, 10- and 15-year survival rates were 35.5%, 14.5% and 12.9%, respectively. 3 patients (5.4%) had an infection, 8 (14.3%) had a soft-tissue related failure, 30 (53.6%) had a mechanical or structural failure and 15 (26.8%) had an aseptic loosening. The 15-year survival rates of these respective endpoints were 87.1% for infection, 79.0% for soft-tissue related failure, 32.3% for mechanical or structural failure and 56.5% for aseptic loosening. 59 patients (95.2%) have retained their prosthesis; 2 patients (3.2%) underwent secondary amputation due to an irresolvable complication, another one (1.6%) for a second malignancy. Conclusion. Modular prosthetic reconstructions of the lower extremities have a high revision rate in the long-term, primarily due to mechanical failures. Given that patients survive their malignant disease the rate of secondary implant removal, however, tends to be low, providing satisfactory function and body integrity. Further advances in implant design, soft tissue management and infection prophylaxis are required to reduce revision rates

Objectives

Deep bone and joint infections (DBJI) are directly intertwined with health, demographic change towards an elderly population, and wellbeing.

The elderly human population is more prone to acquire infections, and the consequences such as pain, reduced quality of life, morbidity, absence from work and premature retirement due to disability place significant burdens on already strained healthcare systems and societal budgets.

DBJIs are less responsive to systemic antibiotics because of poor vascular perfusion in necrotic bone, large bone defects and persistent biofilm-based infection. Emerging bacterial resistance poses a major threat and new innovative treatment modalities are urgently needed to curb its current trajectory.