2001
CTOS Annual Meeting Posters— Surgery
RECONSTRUCTION
FOLLOWING TOTAL SCAPULAR RESECTION: ANALYSIS OF HUMERAL SUSPENSION
VERSUS ENDOPROSTHETIC RECONSTRUCTION
Jacob Bickels1, James C Wittig2, Yehuda
Kollender1, Kristen L. Kellar-Graney2,
Isaac Meller1, Martin Miles Malawer2
1National Unit of Orthopedic Oncology Tel-Aviv Sourasky
Medical Center, 2Division of Orthopedic Oncology
Washington Cancer Institute Washington Hospital Center
OBJECTIVE: Total scapular resection causes a significant functional
loss because of the sacrifice of the glenoid, which serves as a stable
base for shoulder motion. The authors analyze their experience with
two types of reconstructions following total scapular resection; suspension
of the humeral head from the clavicle without endoprosthetic reconstruction
of the scapula and endoprosthetic scapular reconstruction
METHODS: Between 1979 and 1997, the authors treated 23
patients with scapular tumors that required total scapular resection.
Patients were diagnosed with 14 bone and 9 soft–tissue tumors. Resection
included total scapulectomy in 12 patients and enbloc resection
of the scapula and humeral head in 11 patients. Reconstruction:
All eleven patients who had resection of their humeral head underwent
reconstruction of the humerus with endoprosthesis. Scapular endoprosthesis
was further installed in 7 patients and suspension of the humeral
head from the clavicle with a Dacron tape was performed in 16 patients
(Suspension of the prosthetic humeral head from the clavicle – 4
patients; suspension of the native humeral head from the clavicle
– 12 patients). Endoprosthetic reconstruction of the scapula was
feasible only when the periscapular musculature was sufficient for
endoprosthetic attachment and coverage. The scapular prosthesis
was attached to the prosthetic humeral head with a Goretex® sleeve,
which served as an artificial joint capsule. All patients were followed
for a minimum of 2 years; follow-up included physical examination,
radiological evaluation and functional evaluation according to the
American Musculoskeletal Tumor Society system.
RESULTS: Elbow range-of-motion and hand dexterity were
similar in the two groups of patients. However, compared with patients
who undergone humeral suspension, those who had scapular endoprosthesis
had better abduction (60-90 vs. 10-20)
of the shoulder joint. Moreover, these patients had better cosmetic
appearance of the shoulder girdle. There were no deep wound infections,
prosthetic failures, or secondary amputations. Overall, 6 patients
who had scapular prosthesis (86%) and 10 patients who had humeral
suspension (62%) had a good-to-excellent functional outcome.
CONCLUSION: The number of patients who underwent a scapular
endoprosthetic reconstruction is small and does not allow a valid
statistical analysis; however, the authors feel that scapular endoprosthesis
reconstruction is associated with better functional and cosmetic
outcomes, when compared to humeral suspension. The authors recommend
reconstruction of the scapula with endoprosthesis when periscapular
musculature, remaining after tumor resection allows attachment and
coverage of the prosthesis.
|