Skip to main content
. 2015 Oct 16;474(2):539–548. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4588-z

Table 3.

Comparison of current study results with those of other studies involving intercalary endoprostheses

First author, year Number of implants Average age (years) Primary Secondary Implant Femora Tibiae Humeri Nononcologic complications Time to complications (months) Followup (months) MSTS score
Abudu, 1996 [1]* 18 26 18 Custom (Stanmore) 13 3 2 9 (50%) 66 84%
Aldlyami, 2005 [4] 35 25 35 Custom (Stanmore) 29 3 3 11 (31%) 107
Ahlmann, 2006 [2] 6 42 4 2 Custom (Stryker) 2 3 1 1 (17%) 14 22 90%
Damron, 2008 [9] 32 65 3 29 Stryker lap-joint construct 32 3 (14%) 12 20 83%
McGrath, 2011 [24] 13 35 11 2 Custom (Stanmore) 13 6 (46%) 23 57 77%
Hanna, 2010 [18] 23 41 22 1 Custom (Stanmore) 23 5 (22%) 48 97 87%
Sewell, 2011 [33] 18 42 17 1 Custom (Stanmore) 18 7 (39%) 26 59 77%
Ruggieri, 2011 [31] 24 62 10 14 OsteoBridge§ IDSF 11 5 8 8 (33%) 16 29 86%
Current study, 2014 44 64 11 33 OsteoBridge§ IDSF 21 5 18 12 (27%) 14 14 76%

* Some patients in the Abudu 1996 [1] study are also included in the Aldlyami 2005 [4] study; Stryker, Rutherford, NJ, USA; Stanmore Implants Worldwide, Stanmore, UK; §Merete, Berlin, Germany; MSTS = Musculoskeletal Tumor Society.