Is a Cephalomedullary Nail Durable Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Peritrochanteric Disease?

Abstract

Background Although cephalomedullary nail fixation is often used for metastatic peritrochanteric lesions of the femur, there is concern regarding the durability of the implant in comparison to endoprosthetic reconstruction. Previous studies have reported the proportion of patients who undergo reoperation for loss of stability, but the adequacy of the construct has not been critically evaluated in a competing risk analysis that incorporates death of the patient in the calculation. Questions/purposes (1) What is the cumulative incidence of reoperation of cephalomedullary nails with death as a competing risk for metastatic lesions of the proximal femur? (2) What is the survival of patients with metastases to the proximal femur after cephalomedullary nailing? (3) What clinical factors are associated with implant stability in these patients? Methods Between 1990 and 2009, 11 surgeons at one center treated 217 patients with cephalomedullary nails for metastatic proximal femoral lesions. This represented 40% (217 of 544) of the patients undergoing surgery for metastases in this location during the study period. In general, we used cephalomedullary nails when there was normal bone in the femoral head, no fracture in the neck, and a moderate-sized lesion; we favored bipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures and disease affecting the femoral head; finally, we used proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacement for large lesions with severe bone destruction. A retrospective study was conducted of 199 patients with cephalomedullary nails for peritrochanteric metastases from 1990 to 2009. Pathologic fracture, defined as a breach in cortex with a clear fracture line either with or without displacement, was present in 61 patients. The most common primary cancers were breast (42 of 199 patients [21%]), lung (37 of 199 patients [18%]), and renal cell (34 of 199 patients [17%]). A competing risk analysis was performed to describe the cumulative incidence of implant revision. Patient overall survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier survivorship. A univariate analysis was performed to determine whether there was an association between revision surgery and various patient factors, including tumor histology, pathologic fracture, cementation, and radiation. Results Loss of implant stability necessitating revision surgery occurred in 19 of 199 patients (10%). In a competing risk analysis with death of the patient as the competing event, the cumulative incidence of revision surgery was 5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-9%) at 12 months and 9% (95% CI, 5%-13%) at 5 years. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, the overall patient survival was 31% (95% CI, 25%-37%) at 12 months and 5% (95% CI, 3%-9%) at 60 months. Patients with lung cancer had the shortest overall survival of 11% (95% CI, 1%-21%) at 12 months, and patients with multiple myeloma had the longest overall survival of 71% (95% CI, 49%-94%) at 12 months (p < 0.001). Duration of patient survival beyond the median 7 months was the only factor associated with a greater likelihood of revision surgery. Factors not associated with revision included tumor histology, pathologic fracture, closed versus open nailing, cementation, gender, age, and postoperative radiation. Conclusions The competing risk analysis demonstrates a relatively low cumulative incidence of reoperation and suggests that cephalomedullary nailing is reasonable for patients with moderate-sized proximal femoral metastasis not affecting the femoral head. For the large majority of patients, the construct achieves the goal of stabilizing the femur for the duration of the patient’s life. Longer patient survival was associated with greater risk of revision surgery, but no particular tumor histology was found to have a greater cumulative incidence of reoperation. Future work with a larger number of patients and stricter surgical indications may be needed to corroborate these findings. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Current concepts in the surgical treatment of skeletal metastases

“…In the trochanteric region, intramedullary nails (IM-nails), conventional prostheses or tumour prostheses can be used. As complications related to non-union and tumour growth such as implant breakage and loosening tend to occur 6-12 mo postoperatively, in patients with a shorter estimated survival (3-6 mo), IM-nailing is adequate[ 10 , 12 , 35 , 36 ]. However, IM-nails should not be used if there is tumour mass affecting the neck of the femur, even if the fracture itself is in the intertrochanteric region.…”

Intramedullary rod failure in metastatic breast cancer: Do triple negative cancer patients have more revision surgery?

“…Previous literature demonstrated that hormone-receptor positive patients have a higher risk of having bone metastatic disease, but concomitantly these same patients also tend to have a better prognosis, with better treatment response and longer overal survival [9] , [28] , [29] , [13] , [14] . Earlier studies have shown that the most important factor for bone fixation failure was the length of the patient’s survival [30] , [31] . In accordance with this, our data showed that patients with metastic breast cancer treated with intramedullary rods required a late revision with a mean time for the revision procedure of 19.4 months.…”

“…This study had a number of limitations. First, our sample was of a relatively reduced size, with a total of 57 patients, and even though this was the biggest sample we found in the literature regarding specifically metastatic breast cancer and its treatment exclusively with intramedullary rodding, we acknowledge we did not have enough power to achieve significance in our results [30] , [20] . For the difference in revision rate among the different groups, 12% vs. 17%, our study attained to show a trend in the association between hormone receptors and rod survival, unfortunately those numbers did not reach statistical significance and our sample size likely played a role in that.…”

Utility of the Current Procedural Terminology Codes for Prophylactic Stabilization for Defining Metastatic Femur Disease

“…In several of the small cohort studies on metastatic bone disease of the femur we reviewed, the methods suggested that a chart review for data abstraction took place, but it was unclear if or how the chart review contributed to the definition of eligible patients. 12 13 14 15 16 , 18 - 20 , 25 …”

“… 17 Some studies have used the CPT and ICD codes to define cohorts of patients with metastatic disease of the femur, 17 whereas others do not explicitly state the criteria or methodology that were used to identify patient cohorts. 12 13 14 15 16 , 18 - 20 Efforts to produce studies with larger sample sizes will likely rely on structured data to identify patient cohorts. A lack of understanding of the characteristics and accuracy of cohorts defined by ICD and CPT codes could lead to biased conclusions.…”