A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Implant survival and risk factors for failure after proximal femoral megaprosthetic reconstruction. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Proximal femoral megaprosthetic reconstruction is a well-established solution for extensive bone loss in the hip region. Despite its utility in limb salvage, it carries notable complication rates, reported between 30% and 40%, along with increased morbidity and mortality. This study evaluated implant and patient survival, failure modes, and associated risk factors.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 165 patients who underwent proximal femoral megaprosthetic reconstruction between 2003 and 2023. Indications included primary bone tumors (n = 67), metastatic bone disease (n = 60), and non-oncologic conditions (n = 38). A total of 57 METS (Stanmore) and 108 MUTARS (Implantcast) implants were used. Median follow-up was 5 years (range: 0.25-17 years).

Results: Mean implant survival was 5.13 years (range: 0.2-17 years), with an overall complication rate of 30.9%. The most common failure modes were type 1 (11.5%) and type 4 (13.3%) per Henderson classification. Five-year implant survival ranged from 60% to 70% across indications. Independent risk factors for type 4 failure included prolonged hospitalization (OR = 1.07, p = 0.020) and longer operative time (OR = 1.01, p = 0.023). Silver-coated implants showed a trend toward reduced infection (OR = 0.18, p = 0.29), though not statistically significant. METS implants were associated with lower type 1 failure risk (OR = 0.09, p = 0.020), with a soft-tissue failure rate of 3.5% versus 15.7% for MUTARS.

Conclusion: Proximal femoral megaprostheses remain effective for limb salvage but are linked to a substantial complication burden. Recognition of modifiable and patient-specific risk factors may improve surgical outcomes and reduce failure rates.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12380411PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2025031DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

proximal femoral
16
implant survival
12
risk factors
12
femoral megaprosthetic
12
megaprosthetic reconstruction
12
limb salvage
8
failure modes
8
type failure
8
failure
7
risk
5

Similar Publications