Points of consideration when performing surgical procedures for proximal femoral bone metastasis.

Background: To assess the points of consideration when performing surgical procedures for proximal femoral bone metastasis.

Methods: Fourty patients who underwent surgery for proximal femoral bone metastasis from 2009 to 2019 were included. Prognostic assessments were performed based on the Katagiri scoring system. The low-risk group underwent endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) following resection, while the high-risk group underwent internal fixation (IF). For the intermediate-risk group, one of the surgical procedures was chosen depending on general and local condition. Survival period, walking ability, and treatment failure were evaluated.

Results: Sixteen and 24 patients underwent EPR and IF, respectively. Although walking reacquisition rate was 94% (15 of 16 patients) for EPR and 75% (18 of 24 patients) for IF (p = 0.210), the median time to walking was shorter in IF compared to EPR (EPR, 29 days, interquartile range [IQR] 23-40; IF, 14 days, IQR 9-24; p = 0.014). Neither EPR nor IF resulted in treatment failure for those with survival periods of <1 year. The treatment failure rate for those with survival periods of ≥1 year was significantly different between EPR (9%, 1 of 11 patients) and IF (50%, 5 of 10 patients) (p = 0.038). All five patients of treatment failure for IF were renal cancer with no bone formation in the intermediate-risk group. Of the 13 patients who underwent IF for the intermediate-risk group, treatment failure did not occur in 5 patients with bone formation.

Conclusions: Although EPR is a more reliable treatment than IF, patients with life expectancy of <1 year are sufficiently manageable with IF. For the intermediate-risk group, EPR should be selected for cases without expected bone formation, and IF can be considered for cases with expected bone formation due to the risk of treatment failure for IF at ≥ 1 year after surgery.