The Survival Rate and Its Influencing Factors of Modular Endoprosthetic Replacement With Uncemented Stem for the Proximal Femur After Primary Tumor Resection

Abstract

Objective: Durable and biologically integrated fixation is critical for long-term implant survival in patients with primary bone tumors. However, limited evidence exists regarding the long-term outcomes of uncemented stem designs in this population. Specifically, we investigated: (1) the long-term patient and implant survivorship rates; (2) the influence of factors such as resection length and patient age on implant survival; and (3) the incidence and types of complications, particularly those requiring implant removal or revision.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 76 patients (49 males, 27 females; mean age 41 years, range 14–78 years) who underwent proximal femoral replacement with a modular uncemented endoprosthesis between 2015 and 2022. The mean follow-up was 63.4 months (median: 60.5 months; range: 12–104 months). Functional outcomes were assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, while complications were classified based on the Henderson et al. system. Survivorship analyses were conducted using Kaplan–Meier methods.

Results: The 5-year patient survival rate was 88.0%, and the 5-year implant survival rate was 90.4%. The mean MSTS score at final follow-up was 25.6 (range 16–30), with 87.7% of patients achieving good to excellent functional outcomes. Younger patients (< 30 years) exhibited poorer implant survival, while resection length did not significantly impact outcomes. Complications occurred in 18.4% of cases, categorized into type 1 (soft tissue-related, n = 3), type 2 (aseptic loosening, n = 2), type 3 (structural failure, n = 0), type 4 (infection, n = 3), type 5 (tumor recurrence, n = 3), and three cases of acetabular failure.

Conclusions: Modular uncemented endoprostheses for proximal femoral replacement demonstrated promising survivorship and functional outcomes in patients with primary bone tumors. The low rate of aseptic loosening highlights the benefits of uncemented stem designs. However, younger age remains a risk factor for reduced implant longevity.

Keywords

aseptic loosening / implant survivorship / modular uncemented endoprosthesis / primary bone tumors / proximal femoral replacement

References

[1] M. T. Houdek, C. D. Watts, C. C. Wyles, P. S. Rose, M. J. Taunton, and F. H. Sim, “Functional and Oncologic Outcome of Cemented Endoprosthesis for Malignant Proximal Femoral Tumors,” Journal of Surgical Oncology 114, no. 4 (2016): 501-506.

[2] C. A. Gusho, B. Clayton, N. Mehta, M. W. Colman, S. Gitelis, and A. T. Blank, “Survival and Outcomes of Modular Endoprosthetic Reconstruction of the Proximal Femur for Primary and Non-Primary Bone Tumors: Single Institutional Results,” Journal of Orthopaedics 25 (2021): 145-150.

[3] R. Zucchini, A. Sambri, M. Fiore, C. Giannini, D. M. Donati, and M. De Paolis, “Megaprosthesis Reconstruction of the Proximal Femur Following Bone Tumour Resection: When Do We Need the Cup?,” Hip & Pelvis 33, no. 3 (2021): 147-153.

[4] B. K. Potter, V. E. Chow, S. C. Adams, G. D. Letson, and H. T. Temple, “Endoprosthetic Proximal Femur Replacement: Metastatic Versus Primary Tumors,” Surgical Oncology 18, no. 4 (2009): 343-349.

[5] K. Jamshidi, M. Mirkazemi, M. Gharedaghi, et al., “Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty Versus Total Hip Arthroplasty in Allograft-Prosthesis Composite Reconstruction of the Proximal Femur Following Primary Bone Tumour Resection,” Bone & Joint Journal 102, no. 4 (2020): 524-529.

[6] K. Zheng, X. C. Yu, J. Cai, et al., “Management of Bone Defects and Complications After Bone Tumor Resection Using Ilizarov Method,” Orthopaedic Surgery 17, no. 2 (2025): 492-499.

[7] T. Ji, Y. Yang, d. Li, X. Tang, and W. Guo, “Limb Salvage Using Non-Hinged Endoprosthesis and Staged Correction of Leg-Length Discrepancy for Children With Distal Femoral Malignant Tumors,” Orthopaedic Surgery 11, no. 5 (2019): 819-825.

[8] C. Theil, B. Möllenbeck, G. Gosheger, et al., “Acetabular Erosion After Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty in Proximal Femoral Replacement for Malignant Bone Tumors,” Journal of Arthroplasty 34, no. 11 (2019): 2692-2697.

[9] A. G. Zavras, M. P. Fice, N. Dandu, et al., “Indication for Proximal Femoral Replacement Is Associated With Risk of Failure,” Journal of Arthroplasty 37, no. 5 (2022): 917-924.

[10] H. Kumar, K. N. Mittemari, V. C. Nimmagadda, A. T. Abraham, S. Nadagouda, and D. Choudry, “The Functional Outcome of Limb Salvage of Proximal Femur Tumors With Modular Endoprosthesis: A Prospective Study,” Cureus 15, no. 12 (2023): e50375.

[11] N. M. Bernthal, A. J. Schwartz, D. A. Oakes, M. J. Kabo, and J. J. Eckardt, “How Long Do Endoprosthetic Reconstructions for Proximal Femoral Tumors Last?,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 468, no. 11 (2010): 2867-2874.

[12] W. G. Abou Senna, W. A. Ebeid, M. Abdel Moneim, et al., “Long-Term Outcome of Patients With Primary or Secondary Tumors of the Proximal Femur Treated by Bipolar Modular Tumor Prosthesis,” Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 142 (2022): 33-39.

[13] L. R. Menendez, E. R. Ahlmann, C. Kermani, and H. Gotha, “Endoprosthetic Reconstruction for Neoplasms of the Proximal Femur,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1976-2007 450 (2006): 46-51.

[14] A. Nooh, A. Alaseem, L. M. Epure, M.-A. Ricard, K. Goulding, and R. E. Turcotte, “Radiographic, Functional, and Oncologic Outcomes of Cemented Modular Proximal Femur Replacement Using the “French Paradox” Technique,” Journal of Arthroplasty 35, no. 9 (2020): 2567-2572.

[15] G. T. Szoradi, A. M. Feier, S. G. Zuh, O. M. Russu, and T. S. Pop, “Polymethyl Methacrylate Bone Cement Polymerization Induced Thermal Necrosis at the Cement-Bone Interface: A Narrative Review,” Applied Sciences 14, no. 24 (2024): 11651.

[16] A. B. Christ, F. J. Hornicek, and N. Fabbri, “Distal Femoral Replacement-Cemented or Cementless? Current Concepts and Review of the Literature,” Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma 19 (2021): 11-16.

[17] E. R. Henderson, J. S. Groundland, E. Pala, et al., “Failure Mode Classification for Tumor Endoprostheses: Retrospective Review of Five Institutions and a Literature Review,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 93, no. 5 (2011): 418-429.

[18] S. A. L. Calderón, J. Kuechle, K. A. Raskin, and F. J. Hornicek, “Lower Extremity Megaprostheses in Orthopaedic Oncology,” Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 26, no. 12 (2018): e249-e257.

[19] D. Orlic, M. Smerdelj, R. Kolundzic, and M. Bergovec, “Lower Limb Salvage Surgery: Modular Endoprosthesis in Bone Tumour Treatment,” International Orthopaedics 30 (2006): 458-464.

[20] X. Zhang, X. Tang, Z. Li, et al., “Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Combined Modular Prothesis and Cortical Strut for Revision Proximal Femur in Giant Cell Tumor of Bone Patients,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery 30, no. 1 (2022): 10225536221095202.

[21] Z. Li, M. Lu, Y. Zhang, et al., “3D-Printed Custom-Made Short Stem With Porous Structure for Fixation of Massive Endoprosthesis in Joint-Preserving Reconstruction After Tumor Resection,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 18, no. 1 (2023): 468.

[22] M. Medellin, T. Fujiwara, R. Clark, J. Stevenson, M. Parry, and L. Jeys, “Mechanisms of Failure and Survival of Total Femoral Endoprosthetic Replacements,” Bone & Joint Journal 101, no. 5 (2019): 522-528.

[23] W. F. Enneking, W. Dunham, M. C. Gebhardt, M. Malawar, and D. J. Pritchard, “A System for the Functional Evaluation of Reconstructive Procedures After Surgical Treatment of Tumors of the Musculoskeletal System,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 286 (1993): 241-246.

[24] H. Machida, T. Yuhara, M. Tamura, et al., “Whole-Body Clinical Applications of Digital Tomosynthesis,” Radiographics 36, no. 3 (2016): 735-750.

[25] T. Gong, M. Lu, H. Sheng, et al., “Survivorship, Complications, and Functional Outcomes of Uncemented Distal Femoral Endoprosthesis With Short, Curved Stem for Patients With Bone Tumours,” Bone & Joint Journal 106, no. 9 (2024): 1000-1007.

[26] F. Mancino, V. Di Matteo, F. Mocini, et al., “Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes of Proximal Femoral Replacement in Non-Neoplastic Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 22 (2021): 1-14.

[27] T. Mazurkiewicz, E. Warda, J. Kopacz, and M. Mazurkiewicz, “Results of the Megaprosthesis Replacement Reconstruction Proximal Femoral Resection Bone Tumors,” Ortopedia, Traumatologia, Rehabilitacja 7, no. 6 (2005): 595-599.

[28] M. Natarajan, J. Bose, and G. Rajkumar, “Proximal Femoral Reconstruction With Custom Mega Prosthesis,” International Orthopaedics 27 (2003): 175-179.

[29] Y. Kabukcuoglu, R. J. Grimer, R. M. Tillman, and S. R. Carter, “Endoprosthetic Replacement for Primary Malignant Tumors of the Proximal Femur,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 358 (1999): 8-14.

[30] Y. Kim, D.-G. Jeon, W. H. Cho, C.-B. Kong, and W. S. Song, “Clinical Outcomes of Endoprosthetic Reconstruction for Proximal Femoral Resection,” Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 51, no. 8 (2021): 1248-1252.

[31] T. Calabró, R. Van Rooyen, I. Piraino, et al., “Reconstruction of the Proximal Femur With a Modular Resection Prosthesis,” European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 26 (2016): 415-421.

[32] A. F. Mavrogenis, E. Pala, C. Romagnoli, M. Romantini, T. Calabro, and P. Ruggieri, “Survival Analysis of Patients With Femoral Metastases,” Journal of Surgical Oncology 105, no. 2 (2012): 135-141.

[33] C. Chandrasekar, R. Grimer, S. Carter, R. Tillman, A. Abudu, and L. Buckley, “Modular Endoprosthetic Replacement for Tumours of the Proximal Femur,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 91, no. 1 (2009): 108-112.

[34] M. Ropars, J.-C. Lambotte, J. Maximen, V. Crenn, A. Tronchot, and D. Huten, “Techniques and Outcomes of Hip Abductor Reconstruction Following Tumor Resection in Adults,” Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery & Research 107, no. 1 (2021): 102765.

[35] G. Guzik, “Oncological and Functional Results After Surgical Treatment of Bone Metastases at the Proximal Femur,” BMC Surgery 18 (2018): 1-8.

[36] F. Sevelda, R. Schuh, J. G. Hofstaetter, M. Schinhan, R. Windhager, and P. T. Funovics, “Total Femur Replacement After Tumor Resection: Limb Salvage Usually Achieved but Complications and Failures Are Common,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 473, no. 6 (2015): 2079-2087.

[37] C. Theil, J. Schwarze, G. Gosheger, et al., “Implant Survival, Clinical Outcome and Complications of Megaprosthetic Reconstructions Following Sarcoma Resection,” Cancers 14, no. 2 (2022): 351.

[38] G. Gosheger, C. Gebert, H. Ahrens, A. Streitbuerger, W. Winkelmann, and J. Hardes, “Endoprosthetic Reconstruction in 250 Patients With Sarcoma,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1976-2007 450 (2006): 164-171.

[39] L. Jeys, R. Grimer, S. Carter, and R. Tillman, “Periprosthetic Infection in Patients Treated for an Orthopaedic Oncological Condition,” JBJS 87, no. 4 (2005): 842-849.

[40] N. Wagener, S. Hardt, M. Pumberger, and F. Schömig, “Comparative Analysis of Femoral Bone Loss: Uncemented vs. Cemented Aseptic Stem Loosening in First-Time Revision Surgery—A Retrospective Evaluation of 215 Patients,” Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 144, no. 8 (2024): 3427-3438.

[41] E. Pala, A. Mavrogenis, A. Angelini, E. Henderson, G. Douglas Letson, and P. Ruggieri, “Cemented Versus Cementless Endoprostheses for Lower Limb Salvage Surgery,” Journal of Balkan Union of Oncology 18, no. 2 (2013): 496-503.

[42] M. S. Oliva, F. Muratori, R. Vitiello, et al., “Cemented vs Uncemented Megaprostheses in Proximal Femur Metastases: A Multicentric Comparative Study,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 22, no. Suppl 2 (2021): 1068.

[43] D. Donati, M. Zavatta, E. Gozzi, S. Giacomini, L. Campanacci, and M. Mercuri, “Modular Prosthetic Replacement of the Proximal Femur After Resection of a Bone Tumour: A Long-Term Follow-Up,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 83, no. 8 (2001): 1156-1160.

[44] S. Tsukushi, Y. Nishida, T. Hirose, et al., “Short-Term Clinical Outcomes of Kyocera Modular Limb Salvage System Designed Cementless Stems for the Endoprosthetic Reconstruction of Lower Extremities: A Japanese Musculoskeletal Oncology Group Multi-Institutional Study,” BMC Cancer 22, no. 1 (2022): 781.

[45] V. D. Pellegrini, B. A. Heiges, B. Bixler, E. B. Lehman, and C. M. Davis, “Minimum Ten-Year Results of Primary Bipolar Hip Arthroplasty for Degenerative Arthritis of the Hip,” JBJS 88, no. 8 (2006): 1817-1825.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.