Skip to main content
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2022 Dec 2;101(48):e31547. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031547

Novel reconstruction method by mega-prosthesis wrapped with vancomycin-containing cement after resection of malignancies

Kazuhiko Hashimoto a,b,*, Shunji Nishimura b, Yu Shinyashiki a,b, Tomohiko Ito b, Ryosuke Kakinoki b, Masao Akagi b
PMCID: PMC9726397  PMID: 36482578

Abstract

To introduce wrapping vancomycin-containing cement around a mega-prosthesis (MP) as a novel method to prevent prosthetic joint infection after reconstruction surgery for malignant bone and soft tissue tumors. Five patients with malignant bone and soft tissue tumors treated at our hospital from April 2009 to December 2019 were included. The average age was 71.4 years. Four males and one female were included. Three patients had a bone tumor, and two had a soft tissue tumor. Three right thighs and two left femurs were affected. These tumors were identified histologically as undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, spindle cell sarcoma, diffuse large cell B-cell lymphoma, metastasis of renal cancer, and metastasis of lung cancer. All patients underwent tumor resection and reconstruction with a MP. In all cases, vancomycin-containing cement (2 g/40 g) was wrapped around the implant at the extension. The average follow-up period was 30.4 months. We surveyed whether infection occurred after surgical treatment. We also investigated the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score and clinical outcome. We observed no postoperative infection. One case of local recurrence was observed, and a hip dissection was performed. The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 79.26 ± 1.26 (mean ± standard deviation) (range: 76‐80.3). Three patients remained disease-free, one survived but with disease, and one died of disease. Wrapping vancomycin-containing cement around the MP may be a useful method of preventing postoperative joint infections.

Keywords: extension part, mega-prosthesis, prosthetic joint infection, sarcoma, vancomycin-containing cement

1. Introduction

The use of a mega-prosthesis (MP) is increasing as limb-sparing procedures become the norm in malignant bone and soft tissue tumor surgery.[1] MP is a widely accepted technique for joint reconstruction after the resection of bone and soft tissue tumors, but it has a relatively high complication rate.[2] Among the various complications, postoperative infection is the most frequent and difficult problem.[3] In fact, the incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) has been reported as 0.25% to 2.0% for hip and knee joint revisions[4] and as 4% to 20% after tumor resection.[57]

PJI is also reported as a major cause of premature MP failure and revision.[8] The management of PJI after reconstruction by MP is very costly and difficult, requiring repeat surgery, prolonged antibiotic treatment, and hospitalization, with a high risk of limb amputation and increased mortality.[9,10] Although, over the years, several options have been proposed in an attempt to reduce the risk of PJI, including long-term prophylaxis with pre- and postoperative antibiotics and implant coating with silver or iodine, we have not yet completely eliminated the risk of PJI.[11,12]

The purpose of the current study was to introduce a new vancomycin-containing cementation technique in MP reconstruction alongside a literature review.

2. Methods

Five patients with malignant bone and soft tissue tumors treated at our hospital between April 2009 and December 2019 were included in the current study (Table 1). The average age was 71.4 (range: 66‐75) years. Four males and one female were included. Three of the patients had bone tumors, and two had soft tissue tumors. Three right thighs and two left femurs were the affected tumor sites. Histological diagnoses included an undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, a spindle cell sarcoma, a diffuse large cell B-cell lymphoma, a renal cancer metastasis, and a lung cancer metastasis. Regarding comorbidities, one patient had diabetes mellitus, one had adrenal insufficiency, one had a myocardial function, one had a uterine myoma, one had a past history of renal cancer, and one had a past history of lung cancer. All patients underwent tumor resection and reconstruction with an MP. The average operating time was 181 (range: 157‐445) minutes. One operation used a Kyocera Modular Limb Salvage (KLMS ®) for reconstruction, while the other four used the Orthopedic Salvage System (OSS ®). Each MP was fixed by screws within bones. In all cases, vancomycin-containing cement (2 g/40 g) was wrapped around the implant at the extension after the MP was fixed (Fig. 1a and b). Endurance® cement was used in four cases, and Palacos® cement was used in one case. Postoperative x-ray images are shown in Figure 1c and d. The average follow-up period was 30.4 (range: 13‐84) months. We surveyed whether infection occurred after surgical treatment. We also investigated the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score[13] and final clinical outcome.

Table 1.

The patient characteristics of the current study.

Age Sex Site Histology Ope-time (min.) Bleeding (cc) Follow-up period (months) Implant Cement MSTS score
72 M Right thigh UPS 360 1779 84 KLMS Endurance 80.3
72 M Right femur Renal Cancer 159 129 15 OSS Endurance 80
72 M Left femur Lung Cancer 445 443 26 OSS Endurance 80
66 M Right thigh Dedifferentiated liposarcoma 181 878 14 OSS Endurance 76
75 F Left femur DLBCL 157 223 13 OSS PARACOS 80

DLBCL = diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, F = female, KLMS = Kyocera Modular Limb Salvage, M = male, min = minutes, MSTS = Musculoskeletal Tumor Society, Ope = operation, OSS = Orthopedic Salvage System, UPS = undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

(a) Schematic diagram of the distal femoral type implant. (b) Schematic diagram of the proximal femoral implant. The oblique shaded area indicates the extensional area; vancomycin-containing cement was wrapped around the extensional area. (c) Postoperative X-ray image showing a distal femoral type implant. d Postoperative X-ray image showing a proximal femoral implant.

3. Results

There were no cases of postoperative infection. One case of local recurrence was observed, and a hip dissection was performed as a result. The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 79.26 ± 1.26 (mean ± standard deviation) (range: 76‐80.3). Three patients remained disease-free, one survived but with disease, and one died of disease.

We present the case of one patient as follows. The patient was a 75-year-old woman who became aware of full left thigh pain 1 year ago. She was suspected of having a lumbar spine disorder and was treated with medication, but her condition did not improve. MRI showed a mass in the left proximal femur (Fig. 2a). Bone biopsy of the femoral lesion was performed from the lateral femur, and a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was confirmed with pathological findings. Extensive resection and reconstruction with an MP were performed. The vancomycin-containing cement (2 g/40 g: vancomycin/cement) was wrapped around the extension of the stem (Fig. 2b). Two months after surgical treatment, the patient could walk with a cane, and there was no evidence of tumor recurrence or metastasis.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

(a) MRI image of a patient’s left-sided tumor. The red arrow heads show the tumor. (b) X-ray image after MP reconstruction. The cement line is observed around the implant.

4. Discussion

One of the most serious and concerning complications of reconstruction with an MP after extensive resection of bone and soft tissue malignancies is PJI.[14] In the current study, we described the novel method of wrapping an implant with vancomycin cement to avoid PJI.

The outcome of MP reconstruction after resection of malignancy remains unsatisfactory.[15] Overall survival rates for knee prostheses were reported to be 91% at 2 years, 83% at 5 years, and 68% at 10 years.[15] PJI is the most common failure of MP reconstruction, with an incidence of 5% to 40%.14,16,17] Relatively high infection rates have also been reported in sites such as the tibia, ranging from 14% to 36%.[1720] Furthermore, the risk of secondary amputation due to PJI is high, ranging from 23.5% to 87%.[17] Thus, prevention and control of PJI are important in MP reconstruction, with the method described herein as a potential solution to prevent infection.

Risk factors for PJI after reconstructive surgery by MP include soft tissue tumor with bone invasion, using radiation therapy, a surgery time exceeding 8 hours, and a tumor site of the tibia.[17,21,22] In the current study, we did not observe the risk factors as previously described.[17,21,22] In the future, it will be necessary to confirm the presence or absence of infection using this method in cases with these risk factors.

Staphylococcus species were reported to be the most common organisms responsible for PJI, with taphyloccous epidermidis being the most common, followed by methycillin-resistant Staphyloccous aureus.[22] Moreover, it has been reported that multiple pathogens are isolated in about one-fourth of all cases.[16,23] The most common combination is reported to be coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and group D Streptococcus.[16,23] These findings suggest that a response focusing on Staphylococcus and its resistant strains is necessary.

Infection in prostheses is classified as either early (4 weeks to 2 years postoperatively) or late (2 years and up), with an average reported time to PJI of 1451 days (30‐5825 days) for surgery with MP.[22] Furthermore, the incidence of late infection (6.3%) has been reported to be significantly higher than that of early infection (0.9%‐1.4%).[23] Therefore, when reconstructive surgery with MP is performed, it is considered necessary to pay attention mainly to late infection.

Bone cement is widely used in implant fixation in arthroplasty and in vertebral body fixation surgery.[24] Generally, antimicrobial agents are mixed into the bone cement base in advance to prevent infection.[25] An in vitro study found that the vancomycin-containing cement showed a steady increase in elution until day 8, after which elution was observed until day 60.[26] The study also reported that more than vancomycin 0.25 g/40 g was effective in eliminating methicillin-resistant S. aureus.[26] Moreover, vancomycin 0.5 g/40 g or more is reportedly effective in eliminating S. aureus as a whole 26. Therefore, the current method involving of vancomycin 2 g/40 g will be effectively in preventing infections within 60 days, including infections caused by Staphylococcus species.

In general, Palacos® bone cement is high viscosity bone cement that has high contrast with the surrounding tissue, making it highly visible. It is also easy to handle intraoperatively.[27] Palacos® bone cement with added antimicrobials has been reported to have the lowest rate of total hip arthroplasty revision due to infection.[28] The Palacos® spacer showed higher elution levels than the Simplex® spacer in total knee arthroplasty and exceeded the minimum inhibitory concentration of the bacteria when used for an extended period of time.[29] Furthermore, in vitro studies have reported that Palacos® bone cement eluted more antimicrobials than CMW1.[30] Therefore, Palacos® cement may be relatively effective in preventing infection.

One previous in vitro study showed that too much antimicrobial addition significantly reduces the mechanical properties of cement.[31] However, the compressive strength, flexural strength, and flexural modulus reportedly remained above the ISO minimum specifications even with the addition of 1 or 2 g of vancomycin per 40 g of cement.[25]

Because the rate of antimicrobial contamination in the current study was 2 g/40 g, strength was not a problem.

In general, management of the dead space is important to prevent infection.[32]

Additionally, the rectus abdominis skin valve was reportedly effective in the dead pelvic cavity because of blood flow.[33] Although there is no blood flow in this method, the dead space around the extension can be reduced by wrapping the implant with cement.

This study has some limitations. First, it included a small cohort, short follow-up, and retrospective study design and did not compare the results with those of infected cases. Second, the method in this study may only be effective for relatively early infections of 60 days rather than the entire duration of vancomycin leakage. However, the current methods may prevent long-term infection by reducing dead spaces. Third, recent studies are controversial on whether antimicrobial-containing cement is effective in preventing PJI.[34,35] However, this method may prevent PJI long-term by reducing dead space. Despite these limitations, this method could be useful as an infection control measure. Therefore, we believe that further studies with a larger sample size are needed.

In conclusion, we described five cases of vancomycin-containing cement implantation in MP reconstruction. The use of this method may lead to a reduction in the PJI rate with the MP reconstruction method.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: K.H., Y.S., R.K., T.I., M.A., and S.N.; Methodology: K.H., Y.S., T.I., and S.N.; Software: K.H., T.I., R.K., and S.N.; Validation: K.H., S.N., R.K., Y.S., and M.A.; Formal analysis: K.H., Y.S., R.K., T.I.; Investigation: K.H., S.N., Y.S., T.I., and M.A.; Writing—original draft preparation: K.H.; Writing—review and editing: K.H., Y.S., R.K., T.I., M.A., and S.N.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Abbreviations:

KLMS ® =
Kyocera Modular Limb Salvage
MP =
mega-prosthesis
OSS ® =
Orthopedic Salvage System
PJIs =
periprosthetic joint infections

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written consent is also obtained from the patients.

How to cite this article: Hashimoto K, Nishimura S, Shinyashiki Y, Ito T, Kakinoki R, Akagi M. Novel reconstruction method by mega-prosthesis wrapped with vancomycin-containing cement after resection of malignancies. Medicine 2022;101:48(e31547).

Contributor Information

Shunji Nishimura, Email: shunnisi@med.kindai.ac.jp.

Yu Shinyashiki, Email: shinyashiki@med.kindai.ac.jp.

Tomohiko Ito, Email: tomo0251118zooo@gmail.com.

Ryosuke Kakinoki, Email: rkakinoki@med.kindai.ac.jp.

Masao Akagi, Email: makagi@med.kindai.ac.jp.

References

  • [1].Smolle MA, Andreou D, Tunn PU, et al. Advances in tumour endoprostheses: a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4:445–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Berger C, Larsson S, Bergh P, et al. The risk for complications and reoperations with the use of mega prostheses in bone reconstructions. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16:598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Lex JR, Koucheki R, Stavropoulos NA, et al. Megaprosthesis anti-bacterial coatings: a comprehensive translational review. Acta Biomater. 2022;140:136–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Arduino JM, Kaye KS, Reed SD, et al. Staphylococcus aureus infections following knee and hip prosthesis insertion procedures. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015;4:13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Allison DC, Huang E, Ahlmann ER, et al. Periprosthetic infection in the orthopedic tumor patient. JISRF Reconstr Rev. 2014;4:13–7. [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Kapoor SK, Thiyam R. Management of infection following reconstruction in bone tumors. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2015;6:244–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Mavrogenis AF, Pala E, Angelini A, et al. Infected prostheses after lower-extremity bone tumor resection: clinical outcomes of 100 patients. Surg Infect. 2015;16:267–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Capanna R, Scoccianti G, Frenos F, et al. What was the survival of megaprostheses in lower limb reconstructions after tumor resections? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:820–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Li X, Moretti VM, Ashana AO, et al. Perioperative infection rate in patients with osteosarcomas treated with resection and prosthetic reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2889–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Angelini A, Drago G, Trovarelli G, et al. Infection after surgical resection for pelvic bone tumors: an analysis of 270 patients from one institution. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:349–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Azab MA, Allen MJ, Daniels JB. Evaluation of a silver-impregnated coating to inhibit colonization of orthopaedic implants by biofilm forming methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2016;29:347–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Hettwer WH, Horstmann PF, Hovgaard TB, et al. Low infection rate after tumor hip arthroplasty for metastatic bone disease in a cohort treated with extended antibiotic prophylaxis. Adv Orthop. 2015;2015:428986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Bolia IK, Savvidou OD, Kang HP, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the musculoskeletal tumor society (MSTS) scoring system and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) for musculoskeletal sarcoma patients in Greece. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2021;31:1631–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Sukhonthamarn K, Tan TL, Strony J, et al. The fate of periprosthetic joint infection following megaprosthesis reconstruction. JB JS Open Access. 2021;6:e21.00003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Hu CC, Chen SY, Chen CC, et al. Superior survivorship of cementless vs cemented diaphyseal fixed modular rotating-hinged knee megaprosthesis at 7 years’ follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:1940–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Jeys LM, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, et al. Periprosthetic infection in patients treated for an orthopaedic oncological condition. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:842–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Pala E, Trovarelli G, Angelini A, et al. Megaprosthesis of the knee in tumor and revision surgery. Acta Biomed. 2017;88:129–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, et al. Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:488–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Myers GJC, Abudu AT, Carter SR, et al. The long-term results of endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia for bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1632–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Puchner SE, Kutscha-Lissberg P, Kaider A, et al. Outcome after reconstruction of the proximal tibia–complications and competing risk analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0135736. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Theil C, Röder J, Gosheger G, et al. What is the likelihood that tumor endoprostheses will experience a second complication after first revision in patients with primary malignant bone tumors and what are potential risk factors? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019;477:2705–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Fujiwara T, Ebihara T, Kitade K, et al. Risk factors of periprosthetic infection in patients with tumor prostheses following resection for musculoskeletal tumor of the lower limb. J Clin Med. 2020;9:3133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Mavrogenis AF, Papagelopoulos PJ, Coll-Mesa L, et al. Infected tumor prostheses. Orthopedics. 2011;34:991–8; quiz 999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Webb JCJ, Spencer RF. The role of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement in modern orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:851–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Bridgens J, Davies S, Tilley L, et al. Orthopaedic bone cement: do we know what we are using? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:643–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Bishop AR, Kim S, Squire MW, et al. Vancomycin elution, activity and impact on mechanical properties when added to orthopedic bone cement. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;87:80–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Jørgensen PB, Lamm M, Søballe K, et al. Equivalent hip stem fixation by Hi-Fatigue G and palacos R + G bone cement: a randomized radiostereometric controlled trial of 52 patients with 2 years’ follow-up. Acta Orthop. 2019;90:237–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Engesaeter LB, Lie SA, Espehaug B, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty: effects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0–14 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:644–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Stevens CM, Tetsworth KD, Calhoun JH, et al. An articulated antibiotic spacer used for infected total knee arthroplasty: a comparative in vitro elution study of Simplex and palacos bone cements. J Orthop Res. 2005;23:27–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Nagy M, Jakaraddi C, Neal T, et al. In vitro elution characteristics of gentamicin- and teicoplanin-loaded CMW1 and palacos R bone cement. J Orthop. 2021;25:75–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Lautenschlager EP, Jacobs JJ, Marshall GW, et al. Mechanical properties of bone cements containing large doses of antibiotic powders. J Biomed Mater Res. 1976;10:929–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Metsemakers WJ, Fragomen AT, Moriarty TF, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for local antimicrobial strategies and dead space management in fracture-related infection. J Orthop Trauma. 2020;34:18–29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Abbott DE, Halverson AL, Wayne JD, et al. The oblique rectus abdominal myocutaneous flap for complex pelvic wound reconstruction. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:1237–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Hoskins T, Shah JK, Patel J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of antibiotic-loaded bone cement versus plain bone cement following total and partial knee and hip arthroplasty. J Orthop. 2020;20:217–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Berberich C, Josse J, Ruiz PS. Patients at a high risk of PJI: can we reduce the incidence of infection using dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement? Arthroplasty. 2022;4:41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES