
Professional Guidelines Included
Learn the Proximal femoral endoprosthesis: Revision of THR to Adler Pantheon for metastatic bone disease progression surgical technique with step by step instructions on OrthOracle. Our e-learning platform contains high resolution images and a certified CME of the Proximal femoral endoprosthesis: Revision of THR to Adler Pantheon for metastatic bone disease progression surgical procedure.
Metastatic bone disease commonly presents to the orthopaedic surgeon, bone being the most common site of metastasis. There are various Skeletal Related Events, or “SREs”, related to malignant bone disease most commonly pathological or impending fracture, hypercalcaemia, spinal cord compression and severe pain. These may require surgery and/or radiotherapy to palliate pain and also to maintain both the capacity to walk and quality of life.
Due to advances in the holistic management of common malignancies, particularly breast and prostate carcinoma, patient survival has been extended to the point that these are now considered chronic diseases rather than terminal diseases. Consequently, the prevalence of metastatic bone disease continues to escalate.
The goals of surgical intervention for solitary metastases are to resect the tumour en-bloc and reconstruct with curative intent but as a minimum to extend life. To reconstruct segmental bone defects after en-bloc excision endoprosthetic replacements are commonly used. Other options include allograft or allograft-prosthetic composites, but these would not typically be appropriate in metastatic bone disease. Such cases should be referred to a centre specialising in orthopaedic oncology.
With multiple sites of disease a cure is not possible surgically, therefore the treatment intent is to palliate pain, allow early weight-bearing and minimise the risk of mechanical failure, necessitating revision surgery. Carefully planning the right operation to achieve these goals is imperative. Reconstructions should aim to last the lifetime of the patient and therefore a revision procedure such as this case should be avoided. These are the guiding principles described in the British Orthopaedic Oncology Society guidelines 2015, which are also navigable from the guidelines section associated with this technique.
In this case none of those clear principles were adhered to. This patient had a solitary femoral metastasis treated intra-lesionally with a cemented total hip replacement which failed due to tumour progression within six months necessitating revision surgery for limb-salvage.
The Adler Pantheon endoprosthetic replacement utilises the latest technologies to avoid the commonest causes of failure and revision in proximal femoral endoprostheses: a 3D printed bridging collar encourages both periosteal and endosteal ingrowth and ongrowth to prevent aseptic loosening; Agluna (silver) surface treatment is now available to prevent early prosthetic joint infection.

Indications
The indications to use the Adler Pantheon proximal femoral EPR are to reconstruct segmental defects after resection of malignant tumours, failed trauma or arthroplasty.
This implant was chosen because the modularity enables optimisation of limb-length, offset and anteversion and because the 3D additive manufactured titanium collar allows periosteal and endosteal in & on-growth to minimise the risk of aseptic loosening.
Symptoms & Examination:
Patients with femoral metastases present with increasing groin or thigh pain and difficulty bearing weight, often necessitating walking aids or a wheelchair. Following pathological fracture a sudden increase in pain and decrease in walking ability culminating in emergency hospital admission would be anticipated. Clinically the presentation mimics a fractured hip but following radiographs in the emergency department highlighting a permeative bone loss, and appropriate staging including CT chest/abdo/pelvis and whole body bone scintigraphy confirming a solitary bone metastasis, referral to a specialist orthopaedic oncology centre for consideration of en-bloc resection and reconstruction would be strongly advocated.
Investigations:
In order to assess the patients suitability for major surgery, a detailed understanding of the underlying malignant process is necessary.
Assuming that the patient is known to have had a recent diagnosis of carcinoma, a staging CT chest abdomen and pelvis to establish the extent of metastases in the lungs and abdominal viscera and whole-body bone scintigraphy would be done to assess the extent of disease.
Routine blood tests particularly the bone profile to exclude hypercalcaemia and anaemia or hyper-coaguable states.
In cases of metastatic malignancy identified on imaging, without an obvious primary site, known as a Malignancy of Unknown Origin(MUO) the patient should be discussed with the hospital carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) team. NICE guidance describes the management of such cases (https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg104):
Primary investigations of an MUO include:
comprehensive history and physical examination
full blood count; urea, electrolytes and creatinine; liver function tests; calcium & bone profile; urinalysis; lactate dehydrogenase
chest radiograph
myeloma screen / serum free light chains (when there are isolated or multiple lytic bone lesions)
computed tomography scan of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis (CT-TAP)
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in men
biopsy and histological examination of an appropriate lesion
A CT-TAP demonstrating no measurable disease may indicate a primary bone tumour, rather than a lesion being benign and prompt referral for further investigation including biopsy before considering surgical intervention for the hip.
More detailed guidelines on the investigation and management of metastatic bone disease are available from the British Orthopaedic Oncology Society guideline update 2015 (http://www.boos.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/BOOS-MBD-2016-BOA.pdf).
Assuming the staging investigations have been completed and the patient is deemed suitable for surgery both femoral MRI and measured radiographs of the whole femur are required to plan the resection level, ideally 1 to 2 cm margins are required.
Non-operative management:
In general external beam radiotherapy or cryotherapy can be used for symptomatic control of small metastases which do not risk pathological fracture, or in patients unsuitable for surgery. Cryotherapy and radiofrequency ablation can also be used in carefully selected cases to control disease.
Alternative surgical operations:
Surgical options for proximal femoral metastases include medical therapy (i.e. chemo or hormone therapy) and external beam radiotherapy or Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in non-weight-bearing bones, cement augment plate stabilisation, cement augmented medullary nail stabilisation, cemented femoral stem (as in this case) or proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacement.
The optimal procedure for each patient is dependent upon multiple factors including treatment intent, prognosis, tumour type, tumour location and extent, and surgical expertise. Crucially whichever operation is selected, the survival of the implant should outlive the patient. Revision arthroplasty is usually reserved for patients who have undergone careful pre-operative assessment; excision of residual tumour & revision of a failed long-stem cemented total hip arthroplasty to proximal femoral endoprosthesis is a huge surgical insult for a patient with metastatic cancer.
Contraindications:
Medical co-morbidity preventing surgical intervention.


HDU care, distal neurovascular observations
24 hours post-operative IV antibiotic prophylaxis
VTE: early mobilisation, LMWH 6 hours post-operatively for 4 weeks, thigh length TED stockings 6 weeks and foot pumps until mobile
Routine X-ray AP pelvis and AP & lateral femur
Await histology result and then post-operative radiotherapy by local oncology team at six weeks post-operatively
Clip removal 2 weeks
I manage these patients like revision hips replacements in terms of rehabilitation with physiotherapy guidance as an inpatient plus walking aids. Following discharge from hospital they would be seen in outpatients at 6 weeks routinely, then at 6 months post-operatively then annually unless their metastatic disease burden prevented them from attending outpatients. Oncologically, once the histology is confirmed, post-operative radiotherapy is usually advocated (unless they have previously received radiotherapy and further treatment would exceed tissue tolerances) and then their oncological management resides with their local team.

There are two aims in metastatic bone disease: the first is to prolong survival with oligometastatic disease; the second is to control pain and preserve function and avoid fracture. Any operation should outlive the patient i.e. no revision surgery due to mechanical failure should be required. In this patient the initial operation (long stem cemented total hip replacement) failed to address the primary aim. All patients with metastatic bone disease can be discussed with specialist orthopaedic oncologists at tertiary centres around the country, if only for advice remotely. Other guidelines described by the British Orthopaedic Oncology Society include never assuming that a bone lesion is solitary and if it is solitary after staging with CT chest/abdo/pelvis and whole body bone scanning, it should be referred to a specialist centre for biopsy.
British Orthopaedic Oncology Society – Metastatic Bone Disease: A guide to good practice. 2015
For patients with subtrochanteric bone tumour involvement, pathological fracture and patients with a good prognosis may best be managed with proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacement. Resection of a tumour from the proximal femur requires reconstruction of the large bone and soft-tissue defect and the complications of such surgery from a systematic review include dislocation (5.8%), infection (5.2%), local recurrence (4.7%) and peri-prosthetic fracture (0.6%). These are both reliable and durable implants that offer immediate mobility and return to function; however in the long-term complications and failure mean that ten year implant survival is approximately 75%.
Stevenson et al. Journal of Bone Joint Surgery 2018;100: 101-8.
Proximal femoral endoprostheses are durable and reliable reconstructions even in patients with comorbid conditions (Khajuria et al. Hip Int 2017) and recently were shown to have eliminated the risk of dislocation when used with hemiarthroplasty heads in the short term. Implant survival after five years is between 87% and 95%.
Henderson et al. Failure mode classification for tumour endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. Journal of Bone Joint Surgery Am 2011;93(5):418-29.
Causes of implant failure and revision include infection, aseptic loosening, dislocation, local tumour recurrence and structural failure. For the purposes of standardising the reporting of endoprosthetic related complications the Henderson classification is now used to subdivide the modes of failure into: soft-tissue failures (Type 1), aseptic loosening (Type 2), structural failures (Type 3), infection (Type 4), and tumor progression (Type 5)
Reference
- orthoracle.com




































































