EXPANDABLE PROSTHESES IN PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY
Limb Salvage | Skeletally Immature | Growth Preservation | Non-Invasive Expansion
EXPANSION MECHANISM TYPES
Critical Must-Knows
- Predicted limb length discrepancy greater than 4cm is the primary indication
- Distal femur contributes 70% of femoral growth (1cm/year)
- Non-invasive mechanisms reduce infection risk vs modular designs
- Growth arrest after resection of physis occurs - calculate expected discrepancy
- Conversion to adult prosthesis typically at skeletal maturity
Examiner's Pearls
- "Use multiplier method for limb length prediction
- "Timing of expansion every 3-4 months to match growth
- "Soft tissue envelope limits total expansion achievable
- "Nerve palsy risk with each lengthening episode
Critical Expandable Prosthesis Exam Points
Calculate Expected Discrepancy
Before surgery, calculate predicted limb length discrepancy (LLD). The distal femur contributes 70% of femoral growth (approximately 1cm/year), proximal tibia 57% of tibial growth (0.6cm/year). Use the multiplier method for accurate prediction based on skeletal age.
Non-Invasive vs Invasive
Non-invasive magnetic expansion (REPIPHYSIS, JTS) reduces infection risk compared to modular designs requiring surgical lengthening. However, magnetic systems have higher mechanical failure rates. Know the trade-offs for exam discussion.
Infection is the Nemesis
Deep periprosthetic infection (10-15%) is the most common reason for amputation after limb salvage. Repeated surgeries for expansion in modular systems increase cumulative infection risk. Single-stage revision is rarely successful.
Soft Tissue Limits Expansion
The soft tissue envelope limits total lengthening achievable per prosthesis. Typically 8-10cm total expansion possible. Nerve stretch, muscle contracture, and skin tension limit each individual lengthening to 10-15mm increments.
Expansion Mechanism Comparison
| Mechanism | Procedure Required | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-invasive magnetic (REPIPHYSIS, JTS) | Outpatient, external magnetic field | No surgical procedures, lower infection risk | Mechanical failure 15-20%, MRI incompatible |
| Minimally invasive (Lewis-Roye) | Small incision to access port | Lower infection than modular, reliable | Requires anaesthesia, incision each time |
| Modular surgical (Stanmore) | Open surgery to exchange segments | Technically reliable, proven track record | Highest infection risk, multiple surgeries |
| Self-expanding (Phenix) | Remove locking pin (day surgery) | Controlled expansion with spring | Limited total expansion, pin retrieval issues |
GROW - Indications for Expandable Prosthesis
Memory Hook:Think GROW - these prostheses allow continued skeletal growth in children
SAFE - Pre-operative Planning
Memory Hook:SAFE planning prevents complications and sets realistic expectations
FAIL - Complications to Anticipate
Memory Hook:Know the FAILures to counsel patients and answer viva questions
Overview and Epidemiology
Expandable endoprostheses represent a critical advancement in pediatric musculoskeletal oncology, enabling limb salvage in skeletally immature patients while accommodating ongoing skeletal growth. Without expandable technology, children with significant remaining growth would face limb length discrepancy greater than 4cm following tumour resection that includes the growth plate.
Key epidemiological context:
- Incidence: Approximately 400 new primary bone sarcomas in children annually in Australia
- Peak age: Osteosarcoma peaks at 15-19 years, Ewing sarcoma at 10-15 years
- Common sites: Distal femur (40%), proximal tibia (20%), proximal humerus (15%)
- Growth implications: Distal femoral physis contributes 70% of femoral length (approximately 10mm/year)
Indications for expandable prosthesis:
- Predicted limb length discrepancy greater than 4cm at skeletal maturity
- Malignant bone tumour requiring physeal resection
- Patient/family acceptance of multiple procedures and prolonged follow-up
- Adequate soft tissue envelope for reconstruction
- Absence of pathological fracture through tumour (relative contraindication)
Historical Development
The first expandable prosthesis was developed by Scales and Sneath at the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (Stanmore) in 1976. Initial designs required open surgery for modular segment exchange. Non-invasive magnetic technology (REPIPHYSIS) was introduced in the early 2000s, significantly reducing operative burden.
Growth Prediction and LLD Calculation
Physeal Growth Contribution
Accurate prediction of limb length discrepancy is essential for surgical planning. Growth contribution varies by anatomical site:
Lower Limb:
| Physis | Contribution to Bone Length | Growth Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Distal femur | 70% of femur | 10mm/year |
| Proximal tibia | 57% of tibia | 6mm/year |
| Proximal femur | 30% of femur | 4mm/year |
| Distal tibia | 43% of tibia | 5mm/year |
Upper Limb:
| Physis | Contribution to Bone Length | Growth Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Proximal humerus | 80% of humerus | 8mm/year |
| Distal radius | 75% of radius | 5mm/year |
| Distal ulna | 80% of ulna | 5mm/year |
The Multiplier Method
The Multiplier Method (Paley) provides the most accurate prediction of limb length discrepancy using skeletal age:
Calculation Steps:
- Obtain bone age radiograph (left hand and wrist)
- Determine multiplier value from published tables based on skeletal age and sex
- Calculate expected remaining growth: Remaining growth = Current limb length x (Multiplier - 1)
- Predicted LLD = Remaining growth of affected side (which will be zero if physis resected)
Example Calculation:
A 10-year-old boy (skeletal age 10) with osteosarcoma of the distal femur requiring physeal resection. Current femoral length is 35cm. The multiplier for a 10-year-old boy is 1.28.
- Expected remaining femoral growth = 35 x (1.28 - 1) = 9.8cm
- Distal femoral contribution = 70% x 9.8cm = 6.9cm predicted LLD
This patient requires an expandable prosthesis.
Growth Prediction Uncertainty
Growth prediction has inherent uncertainty. Chemotherapy may reduce remaining growth by 15-20%. Always counsel families that actual discrepancy may differ from predicted values. Plan for worst-case scenario when selecting prosthesis expansion capacity.
Timing of Expansion
Frequency:
- Typically every 3-4 months to match physiological growth
- More frequent in younger children with faster growth rates
- Aim for 5-10mm per lengthening episode
Expansion Limits:
- Individual lengthening: 10-15mm maximum (limited by neurovascular stretch)
- Total expansion per prosthesis: 80-100mm typical capacity
- May require prosthesis exchange if growth exceeds expansion capacity
Nerve Stretch Risk
Acute lengthening greater than 15mm risks nerve palsy, particularly the peroneal nerve in lower limb prostheses. Symptoms include foot drop and numbness. If detected, immediate shortening may be required. Pre-operative counselling must include this risk.
Clinical Assessment
Pre-operative Evaluation
Oncological Assessment:
- Tumour staging: MRI of entire bone, CT chest, bone scan/PET
- Biopsy: Core needle biopsy with tract planning for excision
- Neoadjuvant chemotherapy response: Assess clinically and radiologically
- Margins: Plan for wide surgical margins (minimum 2cm from tumour)
Growth and Skeletal Assessment:
- Bone age radiograph: Left hand and wrist for skeletal age
- Limb length measurement: Scanogram or CT for accurate measurement
- Joint range of motion: Document baseline for comparison
- Multiplier calculation: Predict LLD at skeletal maturity
Patient and Family Assessment:
| Domain | Assessment | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Age | Chronological and skeletal | Expansion capacity needed |
| Compliance | Ability to attend follow-up | Critical for outcomes |
| Understanding | Expectations of multiple procedures | Counselling required |
| Social support | Family circumstances | Impacts rehabilitation |
| Psychological | Coping mechanisms | Mental health support |
Imaging
Plain Radiographs:
- Full-length views of affected limb
- Chest X-ray as baseline
MRI:
- Entire bone including skip lesions
- Joint involvement assessment
- Soft tissue extension evaluation
- Neurovascular proximity
CT:
- Chest staging for pulmonary metastases
- 3D planning for custom prosthesis
Prosthesis Selection Factors
| Factor | Favouring Expandable | Favouring Non-Expandable |
|---|---|---|
| Predicted LLD | Greater than 4cm | Less than 2cm |
| Patient age | Younger (greater than 4 years growth remaining) | Adolescent near skeletal maturity |
| Tumour location | Distal femur, proximal tibia | Upper limb (discrepancy better tolerated) |
| Soft tissue envelope | Adequate for reconstruction | Compromised by tumour/radiation |
| Prognosis | Expected survival greater than 2 years | Poor prognosis - prioritise palliation |
Expansion Mechanisms
Non-Invasive Magnetic Expansion
Non-invasive expandable prostheses represent the current preferred technology when available, eliminating the need for repeated surgical procedures.
REPIPHYSIS System (Wright Medical/Stryker):
- Mechanism: External rotating magnetic field (ERC) activates internal gearbox
- Procedure: Outpatient, no anaesthesia, takes 15-30 minutes
- Expansion: Typically 4-8mm per session
- Capacity: Up to 100mm total expansion
Juvenile Tumour System (JTS - Stanmore Implants):
- Mechanism: External electromagnetic field drives internal motor
- Design: Modular for customisation
- Advantage: MRI conditional designs now available
Advantages:
- No surgical procedures for expansion
- Reduced infection risk (no repeat incisions)
- Outpatient procedure
- Psychological benefit for child
Disadvantages:
- Mechanical failure rate 15-20%
- MRI incompatible (traditional designs)
- High cost
- Not available in all centres
Mechanical Failure
Non-invasive mechanisms have 15-20% mechanical failure rates. Failure modes include motor burnout, gear slippage, and telescoping failure. Revision to modular prosthesis or exchange may be required. Regular radiographic monitoring for expansion function is essential.
Surgical Technique
Pre-operative Planning
Multidisciplinary Team Meeting:
- Orthopaedic oncologist
- Pediatric oncologist
- Radiologist
- Pathologist
- Rehabilitation specialist
Imaging Review:
- Confirm tumour extent and planned margins
- Identify neurovascular proximity
- Measure for custom prosthesis sizing
- Plan soft tissue reconstruction
Prosthesis Selection:
| Consideration | Decision |
|---|---|
| Expansion mechanism | Based on centre expertise and availability |
| Stem type | Cemented vs cementless (age-dependent) |
| Stem length | Adequate fixation in remaining bone |
| Joint constraint | Based on soft tissue sacrifice |
| Total expansion capacity | Predicted LLD plus margin |
Consent Discussion:
- Limb salvage vs amputation comparison
- Infection risk (10-15% deep)
- Mechanical failure and revision
- Need for conversion at skeletal maturity
- Functional expectations (MSTS score 70-80%)
Complications
Prosthesis-Related Complications
Major Complications
| Complication | Incidence | Risk Factors | Management |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deep periprosthetic infection | 10-15% | Multiple surgeries, chemotherapy immunosuppression | Debridement and antibiotics, often requires amputation |
| Aseptic loosening | 20-30% | Young active patients, cemented stems | Revision surgery with longer stem |
| Mechanical failure | 15-20% | Non-invasive mechanisms, patient weight | Prosthesis exchange or conversion |
| Soft tissue failure | 10-15% | Poor initial coverage, radiation | Flap coverage, revision |
| Nerve palsy (expansion) | 5-10% | Rapid expansion, cumulative lengthening | Shortening, observation, rarely permanent |
Infection Management
Classification:
| Type | Timing | Management |
|---|---|---|
| Superficial | Less than 4 weeks | Antibiotics, wound care |
| Deep early | Less than 6 weeks | DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, implant retention) |
| Deep late | Greater than 6 weeks | Two-stage revision or amputation |
| Chronic | Recurrent | Amputation often required |
Infection and Amputation
Deep periprosthetic infection is the leading cause of amputation after limb salvage. Success rates for infection eradication in expandable prostheses are lower than primary arthroplasty due to immunocompromised status and large dead space. Two-stage revision success rate is only 50-60%.
Mechanical Failure Modes
Non-Invasive Systems:
- Motor burnout (most common)
- Gear mechanism slippage
- Telescoping section jamming
- Electromagnetic coil malfunction
Modular Systems:
- Locking mechanism failure
- Taper corrosion
- Component dissociation
Management:
- Revision to alternative expansion mechanism
- Conversion to non-expandable prosthesis if near maturity
- Custom prosthesis for complex failures
Complication Imaging Gallery



Long-term Considerations
Growth-Related Issues:
- Angular deformity from asymmetric growth
- Joint contracture limiting function
- Limb length over-correction or under-correction
Prosthesis Longevity:
- Expandable prostheses are not permanent
- Conversion to adult prosthesis at skeletal maturity
- Multiple revisions expected over lifetime
Amputation After Limb Salvage
Approximately 10-15% of patients ultimately require amputation after initial limb salvage with expandable prosthesis. The most common reason is uncontrolled infection. Families must be counselled that amputation remains a possibility despite initial limb preservation.
Postoperative Care and Rehabilitation
Immediate Post-operative
Days 0-3:
- Inpatient stay for wound monitoring
- DVT prophylaxis (mechanical and pharmacological)
- Drain management
- Pain control (PCA then oral)
- Non-weight bearing initially
Weeks 1-6:
- Protected weight bearing (touch or partial)
- Wound surveillance
- Range of motion exercises
- Physiotherapy referral
Rehabilitation Protocol
Goals: Wound healing, prevent contracture, protected mobility
- Protected weight bearing with walking frame
- Active-assisted range of motion
- Quadriceps/hamstring isometrics
- Monitor wound for infection
Goals: Increase weight bearing, strengthen muscles
- Progress to full weight bearing as tolerated
- Strengthening exercises
- Gait training
- Hydrotherapy if wound healed
Goals: Return to school/activities, independent mobility
- Sport-specific rehabilitation (non-contact)
- Stair climbing, community ambulation
- Psychological support
- Ongoing expansion procedures
Goals: Monitor for oncological recurrence and prosthesis function
- Regular expansion to match growth
- Oncological surveillance (chest imaging, local imaging)
- Prosthesis function assessment
- Conversion planning at skeletal maturity
Conversion to Adult Prosthesis
Timing:
- At or near skeletal maturity
- When expansion capacity exhausted
- When mechanical failure precludes further expansion
Procedure:
- Elective revision to non-expandable prosthesis
- Often requires longer stem for fixation
- May need bone grafting of expansion gaps
- Joint constraint reassessment
Outcomes and Prognosis
Oncological Outcomes
Local Recurrence:
- 5-10% local recurrence with wide margins
- Higher with inadequate margins
- Surveillance MRI recommended
Overall Survival:
- Osteosarcoma: 65-70% 5-year survival
- Ewing sarcoma: 70-75% 5-year survival
- Chemotherapy response is key prognostic factor
Prosthesis Survival
| Timepoint | Implant Survival | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 5 years | 70-80% | Higher with non-invasive |
| 10 years | 50-65% | Revision or conversion expected |
| 15 years | 30-40% | Multiple revisions likely |
Functional Outcomes
MSTS Score:
- Average 70-80% of normal
- Lower than non-expandable in adults
- Impact of multiple procedures
Limb Function:
- 85-90% limb salvage success
- Some activity restriction recommended
- Avoid high-impact sports
Quality of Life:
- Generally good with successful limb salvage
- Psychological impact of repeated procedures
- Support services important
Function vs Survival
Limb salvage with expandable prosthesis provides equivalent oncological outcomes to amputation when wide margins are achieved. Functional outcomes favour limb salvage for lower limb tumours. The choice should be individualised based on tumour location, patient factors, and family preferences.
Evidence and Guidelines
Non-invasive vs Invasive Expansion - Infection Rates
- Non-invasive mechanisms reduced surgical procedures by 70%
- Infection rate 8% non-invasive vs 18% modular
- Mechanical failure higher in non-invasive (18% vs 5%)
- Overall revision rate similar between groups
Long-term Outcomes of Expandable Prostheses
- 5-year prosthesis survival 70-80%
- 10-year survival drops to 50-65%
- Infection leading cause of failure and amputation
- Average 4-6 expansion procedures required
Functional Outcomes After Limb Salvage
- MSTS functional score averages 70-80%
- Lower limb function better than upper limb
- Quality of life comparable to amputation
- Psychological impact of repeated procedures significant
Soft Tissue Coverage Impact on Outcomes
- Gastrocnemius flap reduces proximal tibial prosthesis infection
- Primary flap coverage superior to delayed
- Infection rate 7% with flap vs 20% without
- Flap failure itself is a complication (10%)
Exam Viva Scenarios
Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination
Distal Femoral Osteosarcoma in a Child
"An 8-year-old boy presents with a 3-month history of knee pain. Radiographs and MRI confirm a high-grade osteosarcoma of the distal femur with metaphyseal involvement but no joint invasion. Staging shows no metastatic disease. He is receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy with good response."
Infected Expandable Prosthesis
"A 12-year-old girl had an expandable prosthesis inserted for proximal tibial Ewing sarcoma 18 months ago. She now presents with a draining sinus over the prosthesis with purulent discharge. She is afebrile but inflammatory markers are elevated (CRP 85, WCC 14)."
Mechanical Failure of Non-Invasive Prosthesis
"A 14-year-old boy with a distal femoral non-invasive expandable prosthesis (inserted at age 10 for osteosarcoma) attends for routine expansion. The external magnetic device is applied but no expansion is achieved. Radiographs confirm the prosthesis has not lengthened despite multiple attempts."
Australian Context
Epidemiology
Primary bone sarcomas in children and adolescents are relatively rare in Australia, with approximately 150 new cases of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma annually. The majority of cases occur in patients under 25 years, with peak incidence during adolescence coinciding with the pubertal growth spurt. The need for expandable prostheses is determined by age at presentation and tumour location, with distal femoral and proximal tibial tumours most commonly requiring growth-accommodating reconstructions.
Referral and Management
Paediatric bone sarcoma management in Australia is centralised at major tertiary paediatric oncology centres with dedicated musculoskeletal oncology units. These centres are located in state capital cities and provide multidisciplinary care including paediatric oncology, orthopaedic oncology, radiation oncology, and allied health services. Telemedicine facilitates initial consultation for patients in rural and regional areas, with definitive surgery and chemotherapy typically delivered at the tertiary centre.
Access to expandable prosthesis technology, including non-invasive magnetic expansion systems, is available at major Australian sarcoma centres. Custom prosthesis manufacturing is supported through collaboration with international implant companies. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) regulates implant availability, with most major expandable systems available under Special Access Scheme or registered for Australian use. Long-term follow-up is coordinated through the treating sarcoma unit, with transition to adult services occurring during late adolescence.
EXPANDABLE PROSTHESES IN PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY
High-Yield Exam Summary
Key Indications
- •Predicted LLD greater than 4cm at skeletal maturity
- •Malignant bone tumour requiring physeal resection
- •Distal femur contributes 70% of femoral growth (1cm/year)
- •Proximal tibia contributes 57% of tibial growth (0.6cm/year)
Expansion Mechanisms
- •Non-invasive (REPIPHYSIS, JTS) - lower infection, higher mechanical failure
- •Modular (Stanmore) - higher infection from repeat surgery, reliable
- •Self-expanding (Phenix) - spring mechanism, limited capacity
- •Expansion every 3-4 months, 10-15mm per episode maximum
Critical Complications
- •Deep infection 10-15% - leading cause of amputation
- •Aseptic loosening 20-30%
- •Mechanical failure 15-20% (non-invasive)
- •Nerve palsy with over-expansion
Surgical Pearls
- •Gastrocnemius flap for proximal tibia coverage
- •Calculate LLD using multiplier method pre-op
- •Select prosthesis with capacity exceeding predicted LLD
- •Plan for conversion to adult prosthesis at maturity
Exam Triggers
- •Child with bone sarcoma requiring physeal resection
- •Calculating expected limb length discrepancy
- •Comparing expansion mechanism options
- •Managing infected expandable prosthesis