Long term results of composite prosthesis-allograft in tumor surgery.

Communication sur le cancer

Long term results of composite prosthesis-allograft in tumor surgery.
association ametist

pétition enfants cancéreux

carine curtet
Témoignage Intégral de Carine Curtet
Présidente de l'Association AMETIST

vidéo nicole delepine
Témoignage Intégral du Dr Delépine
Pour le film Cancer Business Mortel

vidéo nicole delepine
vidéo nicole delepine

soutien associaiton cancer

Si vous souhaitez contacter Nicole Delepine
Rendez-vous sur son site :
site de Nicole Delépine

information cancer et médecine

Long term results of composite prosthesis-allograft in tumor surgery.

The adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy


Réunion anniversaire de la banque d’os de Marseille 23/24 Octobre 2008

In Creteil we implanted our first massive composite prosthesis allograft (MCP) in 1984.

We hoped that MCP could permit a better muscle anchorage and that restoration of bone

stock would decrease the loosening risk of prosthesis.

• The aims of this study is to verify if these advantages are clinically relevant.

• And to precise the effect of adjuvant therapies on late results in order to discuss the optimal

indications of this materia

The allografts

• All allografts of this study were provided by the bone bank of Creteil :

• Sterile harvesting,

• Cryopreservation by -40°

• Irradiation before implantation 25 Kgray)

• Selection of graft on plain X rays without immunologic matching.

• 3 months quarentaine before implantation.


Prothesis first cemented into the allograft

Then composite prosthesis cimented into the bone

78 patients

Locations were

proximal femur (20),

distal femur (34),

proximal tibia (19)

upper humerus (5).

Median follow up of 19 years (12 to 24)

78 patients:

48 males and 30 females median age 17

The tumors were

• osteosarcoma (46),

• Ewing’s (10),

• fibrosarcoma, MFH


• chondrosarcoma (7).

60 patients received chemotherapy

and 21 chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Bone healing

Long Term Results

With a median follow up of 19 years (12-24) , all patients have been reoperated for


• Wear of prosthesis,

• Loosening,

• Resorption of allograft,

• Infection (21) or tumour recurrence (2).

Infection or tumour recurrence.

21 patients suffered of deep infection 7 of them were secondary amputated).

2 other were amputated for tumour (1 local recurrence and 1 post irradiation sarcoma)

Secondary Lengthening

The healing of the graft permit a longer anchorage for the stem of the expanding prosthesis.

Secondary lengthening 8 centimeters

78 composite allograft protheses

Resorption of allograft in 51 patients

51 resorptions

25 minor,

16 severe

10 major

The 21 irradiated patients suffered of

15 non union

18 secondary fractures

8 secondary major resorptions

and 11 deep infections

resulting in 6 amputations

Complications are correlated with adjuvant therapies


12 years EVOLUTION

Chondrosarcoma. No adj.

17 Years follow up

Chondrosarcoma no adjuvant therapy.

Wear of the acetabulum

20 years evolution

High grade osteosarcoma

• High dose chemotherapy


• No radiotherapy

• Excellent graft evolution

• Excellent fonction

24 Y F U (no adjuvant treatment) 3 exgange of knee

No severe nor major resorption were observed despite 3 exgange of knee prothesis

Wear of prosthesis

Liberation of wear particules sometimes induced a bone resorption near the articulattion or distally around the stem.

Chemotherapy, Resorption,

Fracture of graft, Loosening

High grade OS High dose chemotherapy. Mal union and Resorption of graft induced loosening of prothesis


non union, major resorption, fracture


At last evaluation the function

(EMSOS criteria) is rated:

excellent in 31,

good in 23,

fair in 12,

poor in 12.


MCP permits a better muscle re insertion and gives usually a better function than massive prosthesis.

• This advantage is more evident for upper femur and proximal tibia and humerus especially when a long resection is necessary.

• With long follow up the loosening risk of MCP does not seem different from that of massive metallic prosthese.

MCP permits a better muscle re insertion and gives usually a better function than massive prosthesis but are threatened by non union during chemotherapy and massive osteolysis and fracture after irradiation.

• When radiotherapy can not be avoided, a massive custom made prosthesis should be preferred to MCP.

cancer Consulter le document dans sa version complete tumeur

ostéocarcome sarcome ewing

traitement sarcome ewing
Accueil | L'association | Faire un Don | Actualités | Actions | Contacts | Sarcomes | Nicole Delépine | Info cancer | Plan du site | Mentions Légales | Webangelis