Early rehabilitation of cancer patients after endoprosthetic reconstruction following resection of the lower extremity long bones
https://doi.org/10.21294/1814-4861-2022-21-5-142-148
Abstract
Aim of the study: to conduct a systematic analysis of the data available in the modern literature, prognostic factors, and modern methods of rehabilitation of cancer patients after endoprosthetic reconstruction following resection of the lower extremity long bones. Material and methods. We assessed reports of clinical trials published over the past 10 years, which evaluated prognostic factors, rehabilitation programs for cancer patients who underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction following resection of the lower extremity long bones, depending on the location and size of the implant and the age of the patient. The review also evaluated various prognostic factors that affected functional recovery following resection of the lower extremity long bones. Results. Findings that helped in choosing the best option for surgical treatment, thus providing the best quality of life in the postoperative period, were published. Conclusion. Further studies are needed to optimize rehabilitation techniques and develop new algorithms for the treatment of cancer patients who underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction following resection of the lower extremity long bones.
About the Authors
A. V. BukharovRussian Federation
Artem V. Bukharov, MD, PhD, Head of the Group for the Treatment of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors
3, 2nd Botkinsky Dr., 125284, Moscow, Russia
E. V. Filonenko
Russian Federation
Elena V. Filonenko, MD, DSc, Head of the Center for Laser and Photodynamic Diagnosis and Tumor Therapy
3, 2nd Botkinsky Dr., 125284, Moscow, Russia
D. A. Erin
Russian Federation
Dmitry A. Erin, MD, Oncologist of the Group for the Treatment of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors
3, 2nd Botkinsky Dr., 125284, Moscow, Russia
V. A. Derzhavin
Russian Federation
Vitaly A. Derzhavin, MD, PhD, Senior Researcher of the Group for the Treatment of Tumors of Soft Tissues and Bones
3, 2nd Botkinsky Dr., 125284, Moscow, Russia
A. V. Yadrina
Russian Federation
nna V. Yadrina, MD, PhD, Oncologist of the Group for the Treatment of Tumors of Soft Tissues and Bones
3, 2nd Botkinsky Dr., 125284, Moscow, Russia
A. M. Shatalov
Russian Federation
Alexander M. Shatalov, MD, PhD, Oncologist, Out-patient Department
3, 2nd Botkinsky Dr., 125284, Moscow, Russia
D. O. Elkhov
Russian Federation
Daniil O. Elkhov, MD, Clinical Intern
3, 2nd Botkinsky Dr., 125284, Moscow, Russia
M. D. Aliev
Russian Federation
Mamed D. Aliev, MD, DSc, Professor, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Advisor to the General Director
4, Koroleva St., 249036, Obninsk, Russia
References
1. Malignant tumors in Russia in 2018 (morbidity and mortality). Moscow, 2019. 250 p. (in Russian).
2. Grinberg S.Z., Posta A., Weber K.L., Wilson R.J. Limb Salvage and Reconstruction Options in Osteosarcoma. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2020; 1257: 13–29. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-43032-0_2.
3. Liu Y., Zeng Y., Wu Y., Li M., Xie H., Shen B. A comprehensive comparison between cementless and cemented fixation in the total knee arthroplasty: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021; 16(1): 176. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02299-4.
4. Dikmen G., Ozden V.E., Gulagaci F., Tozun I.R. Long-term results of cementless total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of ankylosed hip. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019; 27(2). doi: 10.1177/2309499019858038.
5. Moyer R., Ikert K., Long K., Marsh J. The Value of Preoperative Exercise and Education for Patients Undergoing Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JBJS Rev. 2017; 5(12). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00015.
6. Wirtz D.C., Heller K.D., Niethard F.U. Biomechanische Aspekte der Belastungsfähigkeit nach totalendoprothetischem Ersatz des Hüftgelenkes. Eine Auswertung des derzeitigen Kenntnisstandes im Literaturüberblick. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1998; 136(4): 310–6. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1053743.
7. Rud´ I.M., Melnikova E.A., Rassulova M.A., Razumov A.N., Gorelikov A.E. Rehabilitation of the patients following the endoprosthetic replacement of the joints of the lower extremities. Problems of Balneology, Physiotherapy and Exercise Therapy. 2017; 94(6): 38–44. (in Russian). doi: 10.17116/kurort201794638-44.
8. Hol A.M., van Grinsven S., Lucas C., van Susan-te J.L., van Loon C.J. Partial versus unrestricted weight bearing after an uncemented femoral stem in total hip arthroplasty: recommendation of a concise rehabilitation protocol from a systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010; 130(4): 547–55. doi: 10.1007/s00402-009-1017-3.
9. Krastanova M.S., Ilieva E.M., Vacheva D.E. Rehabilitation of Patients with Hip Joint Arthroplasty (Late Post-surgery Period – Hospital Rehabilitation). Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2017; 59(2): 217–21. doi: 10.1515/folmed-2017-0016.
10. Wilk-Frańczuk M., Tomaszewski W., Zemła J., Noga H., Czamara A. Analysis of rehabilitation procedure following arthroplasty of the knee with the use of complete endoprosthesis. Med Sci Monit. 2011; 17(3). doi: 10.12659/msm.881451.
11. Zhang C., Chen M., Yu W., Han X., Ye J., Zhuang J. Longterm survival after cemented versus uncemented total hip arthroplasty for treatment of acute femoral neck fracture: a retrospective study with a mean 10-year follow-up. J Int Med Res. 2020; 48(9). doi: 10.1177/0300060520941974.
12. Shehadeh A., El Dahleh M., Salem A., Sarhan Y., Sultan I., Henshaw R.M., Aboulafia A.J. Standardization of rehabilitation after limb salvage surgery for sarcomas improves patients’ outcome. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2013; 6(3–4): 105–11. doi: 10.1016/j.hemonc.2013.09.001.
13. Tomasz P., Guzik G., Biega P., Tarczyńska-Osiniak M., Krzysztof G. Resection arthroplasty of the knee – early treatment outcomes and rehabilitation efficiency. Chirurgia Narządów Ruchu i Ortopedia Polska. 2019; 83: 216–20. doi: 10.31139/chnriop.2018.83.6.43.
14. Morri M., Forni C., Ruisi R., Giamboi T., Giacomella F., Donati D.M., Benedetti M.G. Postoperative function recovery in patients with endoprosthetic knee replacement for bone tumour: an observational study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018; 19(1): 353. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2280-7.
15. Bhangu A.A., Kramer M.J., Grimer R.J., O’Donnell R.J. Early distal femoral endoprosthetic survival: cemented stems versus the Compress implant. Int Orthop. 2006; 30(6): 465–72. doi: 10.1007/s00264-006-0186-8.
16. Sewell M.D., Hanna S.A., McGrath A., Aston W.J., Blunn G.W., Pollock R.C., Skinner J.A., Cannon S.R., Briggs T.W. Intercalary diaphyseal endoprosthetic reconstruction for malignant tibial bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(8): 1111–7. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B8.25750.
17. Morri M., Raffa D., Vigna D., Barbieri M., Mariani E., Donati D.M. Which factors are associated with the functional recovery in patients undergoing endoprosthetic knee reconstruction following bone tumour resection? – A observational study. Arch Physiother. 2018; 8: 11. doi: 10.1186/s40945-018-0052-1.
18. Kagan R., Adams J., Schulman C., Laursen R., Espana K., Yoo J., Doung Y.C., Hayden J. What Factors Are Associated With Failure of Compressive Osseointegration Fixation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(3): 698–704. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4764-9.
Review
For citations:
Bukharov A.V., Filonenko E.V., Erin D.A., Derzhavin V.A., Yadrina A.V., Shatalov A.M., Elkhov D.O., Aliev M.D. Early rehabilitation of cancer patients after endoprosthetic reconstruction following resection of the lower extremity long bones. Siberian journal of oncology. 2022;21(5):142-148. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21294/1814-4861-2022-21-5-142-148