Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Limb salvage

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 59 Ad

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Advertisement

Similar to Limb salvage (20)

Advertisement

Limb salvage

  1. 1. LIMB SALVAGE SURGERY
  2. 2. Limb Salvage  TRAUMA  TUMOR
  3. 3. Limb salvage and trauma  Starts at E.R. when a mangled extremity arrives – series of decisions 1. If life in danger, should the mangled limb be amputated 2. If stable, should an attempt be made to salvage the mangled limb 3. If salvage, what is the sequence of repairs 4. If salvage fails, when should amputation be performed.
  4. 4. Most difficult decision  Whether to attempt salvage or not  5 Scoring systems published Author / Year Name Criteria Gregory et al.1985 Mangled Extremity Syndrome Index 9 Seiler et al.1986 - 4 Howe et al.1987 Predictive Salvage Index PSI 4 Johansen et al.1990 Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS)- Prospective 4 Russell et al.1991 Limb Salvage Index (LSI) 7
  5. 5. Mangled Extremity Severity Score
  6. 6. Two major criteria  Immediate amputation Vs attempted salvage, if either present- amputation better choice. 1. Loss of arterial inflow >6 hrs., esp. in presence of a crush injury which disrupts collateral vessels. 2. Disruption of posterior tibial nerve.
  7. 7. Relative indications of amputation in Gustilo III-C tibial #s Lange & Hansen et al. 1. Serious associated polytrauma. 2. Severe ipsilateral foot trauma. 3. Anticipated protracted course for soft tissue coverage and tibial reconstruction. If 2 of these present immediate amputation is recommended.
  8. 8. Heroic techniques to save a limb  If vascular repair satisfactory on arteriogram, but distal extremity borderline viability because of – vascular spasm, – extreme destruction of collateral vessels in soft tissues or – prolonged ischaemia. 1. Sympathetic blocks or sympathectomy of the involved limb.
  9. 9. 2. Proximal arterial infusion with Heparin – Tolazoline – Saline Solution (1000 U heparin + 500mg tolazoline in 1000ml saline) @ 30ml/ hr. 3. Venous infusion with L.M.W.Dextran @ 500ml/ 12hrs.
  10. 10. TUMOR AND LIMB SALVAGE
  11. 11. Tumor and limb salvage  Advances in imaging, chemotherapy, radiotherapy & surgical technique  Treatment of choice in most bone and soft tissue sarcomas – Preoperative radiation – soft tissue sarcomas – Neoadjuvant chemotherapy – bone sarcomas
  12. 12. Rarely L. S. not possible e.g.  Neurovascular structures involvement,  Displaced pathological fracture,  Complications sec to poorly performed biopsy.
  13. 13. Limb salvage / Amputation  Expectations & desires of the individual and his family.  Simon – 4 Issues – Survival (Mortality) – Morbidity – short & long term – Function – compared to prosthesis – Psychosocial consequences
  14. 14. Literature  Several studies of comparison of – Multimodal treatment (Sx + CT) – Amputation – Disarticulation  Osteosarcoma – Long term survival 20% to 70% – Local recurrence distal femur lesions 5 – 10% equivalent to transfemoral amputations. – Very low in hip disarticulation.
  15. 15.  Survival - No study has proved any superiority of any surgical technique comparing – Limb salvage – Transfemoral amputation or – Hip disarticulation  Provided wide surgical margins obtained.
  16. 16. Amputation  Technically demanding for malignancy – Non standard flaps – Bone graft augmentation – better fxnal limb  Complications – Infection, wound dehiscence – Chronic painful limb, phantom limb – Appositional bone growth – revision.
  17. 17. Limb salvage  Greater perioperative and long term morbidity. – More extensive surgical procedure. – Greater risk of infection & wound dehiscence, – Flap necrosis – Blood loss – DVT
  18. 18.  Long term complications – Periprosthetic fractures – Prosthetic loosening or dislocation – Non-union of graft-host junction – Allograft # – LLD & late infection  Multiple future operations.  1/3rd of long term survivors – amputations.
  19. 19. Functional outcome:  Location of tumor most important issue.  Resection of upper extremity lesion with limb salvage even sacrificing 1 or 2 major nerves – better fxn – than amputation & prosthetic use.  Resection of proximal femoral or pelvic lesion with local recurrence – better fxn – than disarticulation or hemipelvectomy.  Ankle & foot – amputation + prosthetic fitting better in large sarcomas.  Sarcomas around knee - individualized.
  20. 20. Osteosarcoma around knee  Usually three surgical procedures 1. Wide resection with prosthetic knee replacement, 2. Wide resection with allograft arthrodesis & 3. Trans femoral amputation.  Less commonly, – Osteoarticular allograft reconstruction – Rotationplasty
  21. 21.  Compared to transfemoral amputees, pts. having resection & prosthetic knee replacement – demonstrated higher self selected walking velocities and – a more efficient gait with regards to O2 consumption. Otis,lane & kroll
  22. 22. Long term functions for tumors about knee  Amputation- – difficulty walking on steps, rough, slippery surfaces but – were active and – least worried about damaging the effected limb.  Arthrodesis- – performed most demanding physical work & recreational activities – Difficulty in sitting esp. back seat. Harris et al.
  23. 23.  Arthroplasty- – generally led more sedentary life & were protective of their limb – Little difficulty in ADL – Least self concerned about their limb.  A successful arthrodesis is more durable in long term than a mobile joint reconstruction.
  24. 24. Allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction  Location is important.  Proximal reconstruction generally outlast more distal ones ( Inverse of prognosis).  Prox. femoral > distal femoral > prox tibial.
  25. 25. Leg length discrepancy  Future LLD – Expandable prosthesis – Limb lengthening procedures  Complication may out weigh benefits esp. in children <10 yrs. – Temporary osteoarticular allograft – to spare the adjacent physis. – Disarticulation and rotationplasty.
  26. 26. Psychological outcome  No evidence of any significant diff.  Pt must make the final decision – Short & long term goals – Lifestyle modifications.
  27. 27. Margins of tumor  Oncological surgical procedures, – margins should be defined – Amputation / Resection.
  28. 28. Orthopedic oncology  Four terms 1.Intralesional 2.Marginal 3.Wide 4.Radical
  29. 29. Intralesional margins  Plane of dissection is within the tumor,  Gross residual tumor  Symptomatic benign lesions  Debulking  Palliative procedure in metastatic disease.
  30. 30. Marginal margin  Closest plane of dissection passes through the pseudocapsule.  Most benign lesions  Some low grade malignancies  Selective high grade malignancies + preop. radiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy
  31. 31.  Pseudocapsule – contains microscopic foci of disease / “satellite” lesions. – Local recurrance if not responding to C.T. / R.T.
  32. 32. Wide margins  Plane of dissection is in normal tissue  No specific distance defined.  Cuff of normal tissue  Goal of most procedures for high grade malignancies.
  33. 33. Radical margins  All compartments that contain the tumor removed en bloc – Soft tissue sarcomas – • removing entire compartment (or multiple compartments) of involved muscles – Bone tumors- • removing entire bone and the compartments of any involved ms. *
  34. 34. Oncological standpoint of view:  8 different surgical procedures – Resection - with 4 types of margins – Amputations - with 4 types of margins  Amputations being usually – wide or radical (high A K amputations) – or may be marginal (Hemipelvectomy).
  35. 35. RESECTION & RECONSTRUCTION  Current treatment for most musculoskeletal malignancies.  Aggressive benign neoplasms.  Goal of resection: – Wide margin if possible and if not – Marginal margin + C.T. / R.T. • e.g: radiation for soft tissue sarcomas. – Marginal margin - most benign lesions.
  36. 36. Reconstruction  Allograft arthrodesis still a role in some circumstances.  3 options available for preserving a mobile joint: 1. Osteoarticular allograft reconstruction 2. Endoprosthetic reconstruction 3. Allograft prosthesis composite  Sometimes rotationplasty.
  37. 37. Complications  Oncological procedures have higher complications due to – Extensive nature of operations – Extensive tissue loss – Side effects of radiation and chemotherapy – Generally young pts. with high activity.  Wound necrosis and infection same.
  38. 38. Osteoarticular allografts  Adv: – Ability to replace ligaments, tendons & intraarticular structures. – As a temporary measure to preserve adjacent physis till skeletal maturity e.g. Prox tibia  Disadv: – nonunion at graft host jxn. – fatigue #, articular collapse, dislocation, degenerative jt. dis. & failure of ligament & tendon attachments.
  39. 39. Allograft prosthesis composites  Long term soln. for some pts.  Adv: – Avoid deg. jt disorders and articular collapse – Preserving ability to directly attach soft tissue structures.  Disadv: – fatigue #, infection and non union at graft host jxn.
  40. 40. Endoprosthetic Reconstruction  Long term fxn for some pts.  Adv: – Predictable immediate stability – Quicker rehab with immediate FWB – Increased durability – better implants. – Incremental limb lengthening  Disadv: – Long term compl. if pt. is cured of disease. – polyetheylene wear – inserts replaced. – Fatigue # common at yoke of a rotating hinge – replaceable. – Fatigue # at base of stem – difficult to remove.
  41. 41. Segmental bone and joint prosthesis  Usually secured through composite fixation  Intramedullary stem - fixed with cement – immediate stability quicker rehab.  Shoulder region of prosthesis – porous coating – – promoting late extramedullary cortical bridging – also protecting cement- bone interface & – additional structural support.  Bonegrafting at shoulder region to promote extracortical bridging.
  42. 42. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE  Upper Extremity  Lower Extremity &  Pelvis
  43. 43. Upper Extremity:  Even the best artificial limbs fail to provide comparable fxn, unlike lower ext.  Even with sacrifice of 3 major nerves, limb salvage is better functional than artificial. – Prox. humeral resection– Axillary N. sacrificed. – Humeral shaft- Radial N.  If median & ulnar Ns sacrificed – L.S. is better if functioning ms. are available for transfers.
  44. 44. Resection of shoulder girdle  Scapular tumors- – extend to glenohumeral jt. – Extra-articular resection of humeral head en bloc with scapula  Proximal humeral tumors- – Extend into the joint through biceps tendon – Extra-articular partial scapulectomy
  45. 45. Classification: 6 types.  TYPE I – Intra-articular prox. humeral resection.  TYPE II – Partial scapular resection.  Type III – Intra-articular total scapulectomy.  TYPE IV – Extra-articular total scapulectomy and humeral head resection (Classical Tickhoff Linberg) Malawer et al.
  46. 46.  TYPE V –Extra-articular humeral head resection.  TYPE VI - Extra-articular humeral and total scapular resection.  Subtypes: – A - Abductor mech. intact. – B - Partial or complete resection.
  47. 47. Tikhoff- Linberg procedure:  Total scapulectomy  Partial/complete excision of clavicle  Excision of prox. humerus.  Use: – Malignant tumors about shoulder joint. – Usually sacrificing Axillary N. and sometimes Radial N.
  48. 48. Resection of clavicle:  Subcutaneous – early detection.  Either end resection.  Entire bone excision.  Little loss of function.  eg. solitary myelomas, ABC, non specific granulomatous lesions.
  49. 49. Subtotal resection of scapula  Tumors of scapular body wihout joint involvement is rare.  E.g. Extraabdominal desmoids, GCT, Low grade Chondrosarcoma – Partial scapulectomy  Subscapularis m. good margin prevents chest wall invasion.
  50. 50. Partial resection of scapula  Parts of scapula to entire bone.  E.g. Benign tumors, TB, chronic ostemyelitis.  Body alone resected – shoulder is fairly stable and functional provided ms. are attached in fxnal positions.
  51. 51. Resection of proximal humerus:  Biopsy - Anterior third of deltoid- no contamination of delto-pectoral interval.  Used in: – Sarcomas- Resection of prox. humerus with contiguous soft tissues- satisfactory margins – Aggressive benign neoplasms and metastatic carcinomas of prox. humerus.
  52. 52. Reconstructive alternatives: 1. Flial shoulder 2. Passive Spacer – Allograft or autograft, fibular or prosthetic implants ( better cosmesis / fxn). 3. Arthroplasty (implant or allograft). 4. Arthrodesis e.g. Enneking method
  53. 53.  Allograft arthrodesis is the most stable reconstuction for young pts. With vigorous activities.
  54. 54. Resection of distal humerus  Lesions in elbow requiring limb salvage are rare.  Occasional malignant/ aggressive benign lesions like Chondroblastoma or GCT.  Reconstruction options- – Flial elbow – Osteaoarticular allograft – Implant arthroplasty – Arthrodesis
  55. 55. Resection of proximal radius / ulna  Considerable portion can be resected without reconstruction in radius.
  56. 56. Resection of distal radius:  E.g. GCT  Reconstruction by: – Arthroplasty, – Arthrodesis using allograft or auto graft.  Proximal fibular auto graft reconstruction arthroplasty – Maintain motion but light activities.  Arthrodesis – Sacrifice motion but more stable.
  57. 57. Resection of distal ulna  No reconstruction needed.  Periosteum is excised with the tumor.
  58. 58. Thank You !

×