TY - JOUR
T1 - Proximal humeral endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumour defects clinical outcomes of 165 patients from the MUTARS Orthopedic Registry Orthopedic Registry Europe (MORE)
AU - MORE study group
AU - Evenhuis, Richard
AU - Bus, Michaël P.A.
AU - Sellevold, Simen
AU - Dierselhuis, Edwin F.
AU - Trikoupis, Ioannis G.
AU - Scorianz, Maurizio
AU - Walter, Sebastian
AU - Cabrolier, Jorge
AU - Fiocco, Marta
AU - van de Sande, Michiel A.J.
N1 - © 2025 Evenhuis et al.
PY - 2025/6/16
Y1 - 2025/6/16
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty
KW - Endoprosthetic reconstructions
KW - Functional outcomes
KW - Hemiarthroplasty
KW - Implant survival
KW - MUTARS endoprothesis
KW - MUTARS orthopedic registry
KW - Oncological reconstructions
KW - Proximal humerus reconstruction
KW - RSA
KW - Reverse shoulder arthroplasty
KW - endoprosthesis
KW - hemiarthroplasties
KW - infections
KW - periprosthetic joint infection (PJI)
KW - proximal humerus
KW - reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA)
KW - rotator cuff muscles
KW - total shoulder arthroplasty
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105008735397
U2 - 10.1302/2633-1462.66.BJO-2025-0018
DO - 10.1302/2633-1462.66.BJO-2025-0018
M3 - Article
C2 - 40518134
AN - SCOPUS:105008735397
SN - 2633-1462
VL - 6
SP - 715
EP - 723
JO - Bone and Joint Open
JF - Bone and Joint Open
IS - 6
ER -