Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

⁘ࡡ䌀ںtroduction: The literature review does not allow us to identify which technique, between the osteoarticular allografts and the megaprostheses, gives the best results for the knee reconstruction after resection of bone tumors. Therefore we reviewed the complications, the implant survival and the joint mobilities of both techniques to compare their results at the CUSL. Materials : We retrospectively reviewed the files of 26 patients who had megaprostheses reconstruction between 17/06/1987 and 20/01/2015.The average age was 24 years (range 9-58) and the average bone resection was 14,3cm (range 5-22). We reviewed the files of 11 patients who underwent an osteoarticular allograft reconstruction between 10/10/1994 and 14/01/2013. The average age was 14 years (range 9-27) and the average bone resection was 18cm (range 11-42).Results: For the megaprostheses, the average follow-up was 86 months (range 7-347) and the average survival time was 53 months (range 7-138). One patient died during the follow-up. The failures of the megaprostheses were due to : 5 aseptic loosening’s, 3 structural failures and 1 failure of the expandable mechanism. In the end, 2 patients had total femur prosthesis and 2 patients a allograft-prosthesis composites. The joint mobility was 99° for the flexion and -6 for the extension. For the allograft, the average follow-up was 44 months (range 11-219) and the average survival time was 28 months (range 3-86). Four patients died during the follow-up. The failures of the allografts were due to 3 deep infections associated with wound dehiscences, 2 nonunions, 2 local recurrences, 1 fracture and 1 fracture associated with nonunion. The joint mobility was 96° for the flexion and -22 for the extension. In the end, 2 patients underwent an amputation, 5 patients were converted to a megaprostheses and 1patient had total femur prosthesis. Conclusion: By comparing the results of both reconstructions, megaprostheses give better results than osteoarticular allografts in terms of implant survival, incidence of complications, reoperation and joint mobility. There were more local recurrences and deaths in the allograft group. In each option, complications are frequent and the risk of reoperation is high. The survival of the osteoarticular allografts and megaprostheses of our series were shorter compared with those reported in the literature but the complications were similar. Introduction: Dans la littérature, il n'est pas simple d'identifier quelle technique, entre les allogreffes ostéoarticulaires et les mégaprothèses, donne les meilleurs résultats pour la reconstruction du genou après résection de tumeurs osseuses. Nous avons donc revu les complications, les durées de vie et les mobilités articulaires des deux techniques afin de comparer leurs résultats au sein des Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc. Matériel : Nous avons revu rétrospectivement les dossiers de 26 patients ayant subi une reconstruction par mégaprothèse entre le 17/06/1987 et le 20/01/2015. L'âge moyen était de 24 ans (extrêmes 9-58) et la résection moyenne était de 14,3cm (extrêmes 5-22). Les dossiers de 11 patients ayant subi une reconstruction par allogreffe ostéoarticulaire entre le 10/10/994 et le 14/01/2013 ont été revus. L'âge moyen était de 14 ans (extrêmes 9- 27) et la résection moyenne de 18cm (extrêmes 11-42).Résultats : Le suivi moyen des mégaprothèses était de 86 mois (extrêmes 7-347) et la durée de vie moyenne était de 53 mois (extrêmes 7-138).Un patient est décédé. L'échec des mégaprothèses était dû à : 5 descellements aseptiques, 3 fractures d'implant et l défaillance du mécanisme d'allongement. Finalement, 2 patients ont eu une conversion en fémur totalement prothétique et 2 patients une reconstruction composite avec prothèse et allogreffe. La mobilité articulaire moyenne était de 99° pour la flexion et -6° pour l'extension. Le suivi moyen des patients avec une allogreffe ostéoarticulaire était de 44 mois (extrêmes 11-219) et la durée de vie moyenne était de 28 mois (extrêmes 3-86 mois). 4 patients sont décédés. L'échec des allogreffes était dû à : 3 infections profondes avec déhiscences de plaie, 2 pseudarthroses, 2 récidives locales, 1 fracture et 1 fracture associée à une pseudarthrose. La mobilité articulaire était de 96° pour la flexion et -22° pour l'extension. Finalement, 2 patients ont subi une amputation, 5 une conversion en mégaprothèse et 1 en fémur totalement prothétique. Conclusion : En comparant les résultats des deux techniques, les mégaprothèses donnent de meilleurs résultats que les allogreffes ostéoarticulaires en termes de durée de vie, d'incidence des complications, de ré intervention et de mobilité articulaire. Un nombre plus important de récidive et de décès ont été rencontrés dans le groupe allogreffe. Pour les deux techniques, les complications sont fréquentes et le risque de réintervention est élevé. En comparaison avec les résultats de la littérature, la durée de survie des allogreffes ostéoarticulaires et des mégaprothèses de notre série était inférieure à celle des articles revus, mais les complications étaient comparables.

Allografts --- Knee Prosthesis --- Metastasectomy

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Cancer of the urological sphere is a disease continuously increasing in numbers in the statistics of tumor malignancies in Western countries. Although this fact is mainly due to the contemporary increase of life expectancy of the people in these geographic areas, many other factors do contribute as well to this growth. Urological cancer is a complex and varied disease of different organs and mainly affects the male population. In fact, kidney, prostate, and bladder cancer are regularly included in the top-ten list of the most frequent neoplasms in males in most statistics. The female population, however, has also increasingly found itself affected by renal and bladder cancer in the last decade. Considering these altogether, urological cancer is a problem of major concern in developed societies. This Topic Issue of Cancers intends to shed some light into the complexity of this field and will consider all useful and appropriate contributions that scientists and clinicians may provide to improve urological cancer knowledge for patients’ benefit. The precise identification of the molecular routes involved, the diagnostic pathological criteria in the grey zones, the dilemma of T1G3 management, and the possible treatment options between superficial, nonmuscle-invasive and muscle-invasive diseases will be particularly welcomed in this Issue.

Research. --- Chemistry. --- bladder cancer --- radiotherapy --- radiosensitisation --- molecular subtypes --- preclinical studies --- bladder cancer cell lines --- latent cancer --- prostate cancer --- autopsy --- prognostic index --- prediction model --- mortality --- screening trial --- renal cell carcinoma --- PD-1 --- PD-L1 --- biomarkers --- immune checkpoint inhibitors --- prostatic neoplasms --- positron-emission tomography --- decision making --- tumor thrombus --- metastasectomy --- postoperative complications --- oncological outcomes --- radical cystectomy --- AHNAK2 --- prognosis --- dog --- comparative oncology --- inflammation --- prostatic atrophy --- preneoplastic lesion --- biomarker --- urine --- machine learning --- TRIPOD --- liquid biopsy --- glutaminase --- immunohistochemistry --- in situ methods --- prostate --- PSMA-RLT --- 177Lu-PSMA --- PSA --- mCRPC --- urinary bladder neoplasms --- Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) --- immunotherapy --- divergent differentiation --- variant morphology --- survival --- stereotactic body radiotherapy --- frail patients --- cancer --- metastasis --- genomic analysis --- microenvironment --- tumor ecology --- game theory --- fluorescence confocal microscopy --- prostate biopsy --- ablation margins --- focal therapy --- sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 1 --- bladder carcinoma --- cell migration --- epithelial-mesenchymal transition --- FTY-720 --- OIP5 --- papillary renal cell carcinoma --- PLK1 --- tumorigenesis --- therapy --- image-guided --- magnetic resonance imaging --- ultrasonography --- biopsy --- abiraterone --- enzalutamide --- docetaxel --- novel hormonal therapies --- comparative effectiveness --- real-world treatment pattern --- metastatic prostate cancer --- epiplakin --- diagnosis --- advanced urothelial carcinoma --- immune checkpoint inhibitor --- prognostic --- tumour mutational board --- genomic signatures --- ctDNA --- inflammatory indices --- urothelial carcinoma --- frailty --- prognostic factor --- psoas muscle --- Hounsfield units --- bladder cancer --- radiotherapy --- radiosensitisation --- molecular subtypes --- preclinical studies --- bladder cancer cell lines --- latent cancer --- prostate cancer --- autopsy --- prognostic index --- prediction model --- mortality --- screening trial --- renal cell carcinoma --- PD-1 --- PD-L1 --- biomarkers --- immune checkpoint inhibitors --- prostatic neoplasms --- positron-emission tomography --- decision making --- tumor thrombus --- metastasectomy --- postoperative complications --- oncological outcomes --- radical cystectomy --- AHNAK2 --- prognosis --- dog --- comparative oncology --- inflammation --- prostatic atrophy --- preneoplastic lesion --- biomarker --- urine --- machine learning --- TRIPOD --- liquid biopsy --- glutaminase --- immunohistochemistry --- in situ methods --- prostate --- PSMA-RLT --- 177Lu-PSMA --- PSA --- mCRPC --- urinary bladder neoplasms --- Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) --- immunotherapy --- divergent differentiation --- variant morphology --- survival --- stereotactic body radiotherapy --- frail patients --- cancer --- metastasis --- genomic analysis --- microenvironment --- tumor ecology --- game theory --- fluorescence confocal microscopy --- prostate biopsy --- ablation margins --- focal therapy --- sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 1 --- bladder carcinoma --- cell migration --- epithelial-mesenchymal transition --- FTY-720 --- OIP5 --- papillary renal cell carcinoma --- PLK1 --- tumorigenesis --- therapy --- image-guided --- magnetic resonance imaging --- ultrasonography --- biopsy --- abiraterone --- enzalutamide --- docetaxel --- novel hormonal therapies --- comparative effectiveness --- real-world treatment pattern --- metastatic prostate cancer --- epiplakin --- diagnosis --- advanced urothelial carcinoma --- immune checkpoint inhibitor --- prognostic --- tumour mutational board --- genomic signatures --- ctDNA --- inflammatory indices --- urothelial carcinoma --- frailty --- prognostic factor --- psoas muscle --- Hounsfield units

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Cancer of the urological sphere is a disease continuously increasing in numbers in the statistics of tumor malignancies in Western countries. Although this fact is mainly due to the contemporary increase of life expectancy of the people in these geographic areas, many other factors do contribute as well to this growth. Urological cancer is a complex and varied disease of different organs and mainly affects the male population. In fact, kidney, prostate, and bladder cancer are regularly included in the top-ten list of the most frequent neoplasms in males in most statistics. The female population, however, has also increasingly found itself affected by renal and bladder cancer in the last decade. Considering these altogether, urological cancer is a problem of major concern in developed societies. This Topic Issue of Cancers intends to shed some light into the complexity of this field and will consider all useful and appropriate contributions that scientists and clinicians may provide to improve urological cancer knowledge for patients’ benefit. The precise identification of the molecular routes involved, the diagnostic pathological criteria in the grey zones, the dilemma of T1G3 management, and the possible treatment options between superficial, nonmuscle-invasive and muscle-invasive diseases will be particularly welcomed in this Issue.

Research & information: general --- Chemistry --- bladder cancer --- radiotherapy --- radiosensitisation --- molecular subtypes --- preclinical studies --- bladder cancer cell lines --- latent cancer --- prostate cancer --- autopsy --- prognostic index --- prediction model --- mortality --- screening trial --- renal cell carcinoma --- PD-1 --- PD-L1 --- biomarkers --- immune checkpoint inhibitors --- prostatic neoplasms --- positron-emission tomography --- decision making --- tumor thrombus --- metastasectomy --- postoperative complications --- oncological outcomes --- radical cystectomy --- AHNAK2 --- prognosis --- dog --- comparative oncology --- inflammation --- prostatic atrophy --- preneoplastic lesion --- biomarker --- urine --- machine learning --- TRIPOD --- liquid biopsy --- glutaminase --- immunohistochemistry --- in situ methods --- prostate --- PSMA-RLT --- 177Lu-PSMA --- PSA --- mCRPC --- urinary bladder neoplasms --- Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) --- immunotherapy --- divergent differentiation --- variant morphology --- survival --- stereotactic body radiotherapy --- frail patients --- cancer --- metastasis --- genomic analysis --- microenvironment --- tumor ecology --- game theory --- fluorescence confocal microscopy --- prostate biopsy --- ablation margins --- focal therapy --- sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 1 --- bladder carcinoma --- cell migration --- epithelial–mesenchymal transition --- FTY-720 --- OIP5 --- papillary renal cell carcinoma --- PLK1 --- tumorigenesis --- therapy --- image-guided --- magnetic resonance imaging --- ultrasonography --- biopsy --- abiraterone --- enzalutamide --- docetaxel --- novel hormonal therapies --- comparative effectiveness --- real-world treatment pattern --- metastatic prostate cancer --- epiplakin --- diagnosis --- advanced urothelial carcinoma --- immune checkpoint inhibitor --- prognostic --- tumour mutational board --- genomic signatures --- ctDNA --- inflammatory indices --- urothelial carcinoma --- frailty --- prognostic factor --- psoas muscle --- Hounsfield units --- n/a --- Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) --- epithelial-mesenchymal transition --- Research. --- Chemistry.