Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of minimally invasive and non-invasive systems in lengthening total femoral prostheses.

Bone & Joint Journal 2018 December
AIMS: The aim of this study was to describe, analyze, and compare the survival, functional outcome, and complications of minimally invasive (MI) and non-invasive (NI) lengthening total femoral prostheses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 24 lengthening total femoral prostheses, 11 MI and 13 NI, were implanted between 1991 and 2016. The characteristics, complications, and functional results were recorded. There were ten female patients and ten male patients. Their mean age at the time of surgery was 11 years (2 to 41). The mean follow-up was 13.2 years (seven months to 29.25 years). A survival analysis was performed, and the failures were classified according to the Modified Henderson System.

RESULTS: The overall implant survival was 79% at five, ten, and 20 years for MI prostheses, and 84% at five years and 70% at ten years for NI prostheses. At the final follow-up, 13 prostheses did not require further surgery. The overall complication rate was 46%. The mean revision-free implant survival for MI and NI prostheses was 59 months and 49 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall implant survival, revision-free survival, or the distribution of complications between the two types of prosthesis. Infection rates were also comparable in the groups (9% vs 7%; p = 0.902). The rate of leg-length discrepancy was 54% in MI prostheses and 23% in NI prostheses. In those with a MI prosthesis, there was a smaller mean range of movement of the knee (0° to 62° vs 0° to 83°; p = 0.047), the flexion contracture took a longer mean time to resolve after lengthening (3.3 months vs 1.07 months; p < 0.001) and there was a lower mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score (24.7 vs 27; p = 0.295).

CONCLUSION: The survival and complications of MI and NI lengthening total femoral prostheses are comparable. However, patients with NI prosthesis have more accurate correction of leg-length discrepancy, a better range of movement of the knee and an improved overall function.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app