Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Proximal humeral endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumour defects clinical outcomes of 165 patients from the MUTARS Orthopedic Registry Orthopedic Registry Europe (MORE)

  • MORE study group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims Tumour defects of the proximal humerus can be reconstructed using hemiarthroplasty, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), or anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). This study aimed to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of reconstructions of proximal humeral tumour defects with MUTARS endoprostheses. Methods A total of 165 reconstructions were included: 98 (59%) hemiarthroplasties, 61 (37%) RSAs, and six (4%) TSAs. Median age was 54 years (IQR 31 to 68). Median follow-up time was 5.9 years (IQR 2.83 to 10.50). Competing risks models were employed to estimate the cumulative incidence of revision (CIR) for mechanical reasons and infection with local recurrence and mortality as competing events. The range of motion was reported using descriptive statistics. Results Axillary nerve preservation and deltoid muscle reattachment were observed in 89% and 96% of cases, respectively, without significant differences between implant types. Rotator cuff refixation was less frequent in RSA (78%) compared to hemiarthroplasty (91%). Overall, 26 implants (16%) were revised for mechanical complications (dislocation n = 11, loosening n = 2, periprosthetic fracture n = 3) and infection (n = 10). Patients with previous surgery at the same site had a higher revision risk due to instability (cause-specific hazard ratio 3.7; 95% CI 1.3 to 10.8). The CIRs for mechanical reasons (Henderson 1 to 3) in the entire population at two, five, and ten years were 7% (95% CI 3 to 11), 11% (95% CI 6 to 17), and 13% (95% CI 7 to 20), respectively. For periprosthetic joint infection (Henderson 4), the CIRs were 5% (95% CI 2 to 10), 7% (95% CI 3 to 12), and 7% (95% CI 3 to 12). Compared with hemiarthroplasty, RSA offered superior median anteflexion (73° (IQR 40 to 90) vs 30° (IQR 5 to 45)), abduction (70° (IQR 38 to 90) vs 30° (IQR 5 to 45)), and external rotation (15° (IQR 0 to 28) vs 5° (0 to 19)). Conclusion MUTARS proximal humerus reconstruction outcomes are satisfying, particularly in terms of mechanical failure. RSA and hemi-arthroplasty exhibit comparable revision risks, with previous surgery at same site as a prognostic factor for revision due to dislocation. RSA appears to provide the best functional outcome.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)715-723
Number of pages9
JournalBone and Joint Open
Volume6
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 16 Jun 2025

Keywords

  • Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty
  • Endoprosthetic reconstructions
  • Functional outcomes
  • Hemiarthroplasty
  • Implant survival
  • MUTARS endoprothesis
  • MUTARS orthopedic registry
  • Oncological reconstructions
  • Proximal humerus reconstruction
  • RSA
  • Reverse shoulder arthroplasty
  • endoprosthesis
  • hemiarthroplasties
  • infections
  • periprosthetic joint infection (PJI)
  • proximal humerus
  • reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA)
  • rotator cuff muscles
  • total shoulder arthroplasty

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Proximal humeral endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumour defects clinical outcomes of 165 patients from the MUTARS Orthopedic Registry Orthopedic Registry Europe (MORE)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this