Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Knowledge Hub

Study

  • Topics
  • MCQs
  • ISAWE
  • Operative Surgery
  • Flashcards

Company

  • About Us
  • Editorial Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA
  • Refund Policy

Support

  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
OrthoVellum

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not affiliated with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Expandable Prostheses in Pediatric Oncology

Back to Topics
Contents
0%

Expandable Prostheses in Pediatric Oncology

Comprehensive guide to expandable endoprostheses for limb salvage in skeletally immature patients with bone tumours - mechanisms, indications, complications, and conversion to adult prosthesis

complete
Updated: 2025-01-08
High Yield Overview

EXPANDABLE PROSTHESES IN PEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY

Limb Salvage | Skeletally Immature | Growth Preservation | Non-Invasive Expansion

10-15%Deep infection rate
20-30%Aseptic loosening rate
70-80%5-year implant survival
85-90%Limb salvage success

EXPANSION MECHANISM TYPES

Non-invasive (Magnetic)
PatternExternal rotating magnetic field activates internal mechanism
TreatmentPreferred - avoids repeated surgery
Minimally Invasive
PatternSmall incision to access expansion port
TreatmentLower infection risk than modular
Modular (Invasive)
PatternSurgical exchange of modular components
TreatmentHigher infection risk, technically reliable
Self-Expanding (Phenix)
PatternSpring-loaded mechanism with locking pin
TreatmentSingle surgery to unlock each expansion

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

MechanismProcedure RequiredAdvantagesDisadvantages
Non-invasive magnetic (REPIPHYSIS, JTS)Outpatient, external magnetic fieldNo surgical procedures, lower infection riskMechanical failure 15-20%, MRI incompatible
Minimally invasive (Lewis-Roye)Small incision to access portLower infection than modular, reliableRequires anaesthesia, incision each time
Modular surgical (Stanmore)Open surgery to exchange segmentsTechnically reliable, proven track recordHighest infection risk, multiple surgeries
Self-expanding (Phenix)Remove locking pin (day surgery)Controlled expansion with springLimited total expansion, pin retrieval issues
Mnemonic

GROW - Indications for Expandable Prosthesis

G
Growth remaining
Significant skeletal growth remaining (greater than 4cm predicted)
R
Resection includes physis
Physeal resection results in growth arrest
O
Oncological clearance achievable
Wide margins can be obtained with limb salvage
W
Willing and compliant patient/family
Multiple procedures and follow-up required

Memory Hook:Think GROW - these prostheses allow continued skeletal growth in children

Mnemonic

SAFE - Pre-operative Planning

S
Skeletal age assessment
Bone age X-ray for accurate growth prediction
A
Anticipated discrepancy calculation
Multiplier method for LLD prediction
F
Family counselling
Expectations, complications, multiple procedures
E
Expansion mechanism selection
Non-invasive vs modular based on centre expertise

Memory Hook:SAFE planning prevents complications and sets realistic expectations

Mnemonic

FAIL - Complications to Anticipate

F
Failure of mechanism
Mechanical failure in 15-20% of non-invasive devices
A
Aseptic loosening
20-30% experience loosening requiring revision
I
Infection
10-15% deep infection - major cause of amputation
L
Leg length issues
Over- or under-correction, joint contractures

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:

PhysisContribution to Bone LengthGrowth Rate
Distal femur70% of femur10mm/year
Proximal tibia57% of tibia6mm/year
Proximal femur30% of femur4mm/year
Distal tibia43% of tibia5mm/year

Upper Limb:

PhysisContribution to Bone LengthGrowth Rate
Proximal humerus80% of humerus8mm/year
Distal radius75% of radius5mm/year
Distal ulna80% of ulna5mm/year

The Multiplier Method

The Multiplier Method (Paley) provides the most accurate prediction of limb length discrepancy using skeletal age:

Calculation Steps:

  1. Obtain bone age radiograph (left hand and wrist)
  2. Determine multiplier value from published tables based on skeletal age and sex
  3. Calculate expected remaining growth: Remaining growth = Current limb length x (Multiplier - 1)
  4. 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:

  1. Tumour staging: MRI of entire bone, CT chest, bone scan/PET
  2. Biopsy: Core needle biopsy with tract planning for excision
  3. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy response: Assess clinically and radiologically
  4. Margins: Plan for wide surgical margins (minimum 2cm from tumour)

Growth and Skeletal Assessment:

  1. Bone age radiograph: Left hand and wrist for skeletal age
  2. Limb length measurement: Scanogram or CT for accurate measurement
  3. Joint range of motion: Document baseline for comparison
  4. Multiplier calculation: Predict LLD at skeletal maturity

Patient and Family Assessment:

DomainAssessmentImplication
AgeChronological and skeletalExpansion capacity needed
ComplianceAbility to attend follow-upCritical for outcomes
UnderstandingExpectations of multiple proceduresCounselling required
Social supportFamily circumstancesImpacts rehabilitation
PsychologicalCoping mechanismsMental 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

FactorFavouring ExpandableFavouring Non-Expandable
Predicted LLDGreater than 4cmLess than 2cm
Patient ageYounger (greater than 4 years growth remaining)Adolescent near skeletal maturity
Tumour locationDistal femur, proximal tibiaUpper limb (discrepancy better tolerated)
Soft tissue envelopeAdequate for reconstructionCompromised by tumour/radiation
PrognosisExpected survival greater than 2 yearsPoor 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.

Modular Surgical Expansion

The traditional approach involves surgical exchange of modular segments to achieve lengthening.

Stanmore Modular System:

  • Mechanism: Surgical exposure with exchange of spacer segments
  • Procedure: Day surgery or short stay, general anaesthesia
  • Expansion: 10-20mm per procedure
  • Reliability: High mechanical reliability

Procedure:

  1. Small incision over prosthesis
  2. Identify locking mechanism
  3. Release locking collar
  4. Insert additional segment or longer spacer
  5. Re-secure locking mechanism
  6. Wound closure

Advantages:

  • Proven long-term track record
  • High mechanical reliability
  • Available at most sarcoma centres
  • MRI compatible

Disadvantages:

  • Repeated surgical procedures (every 3-6 months)
  • Cumulative infection risk with each surgery
  • General anaesthesia exposure
  • Psychological burden

Cumulative Infection Risk

Each modular expansion procedure carries 2-3% infection risk per operation. With 10+ procedures over growth, cumulative infection risk reaches 20-30%. This is the major advantage of non-invasive systems.

Self-Expanding Mechanisms

Self-expanding prostheses use stored mechanical energy to achieve lengthening.

Phenix System:

  • Mechanism: Compressed spring with locking pins
  • Procedure: Remove locking pin under brief anaesthesia
  • Expansion: Spring extends prosthesis (predetermined amount)
  • Capacity: Multiple pins for staged expansion

MUTARS (Modular Universal Tumour And Revision System):

  • Available in expandable configurations
  • Combines modular exchange with anchor mechanisms
  • Versatile for complex reconstructions

Advantages:

  • Simpler mechanism than magnetic
  • Less expensive than non-invasive
  • Predictable expansion per stage

Disadvantages:

  • Still requires procedure for each expansion
  • Pin retrieval can be technically difficult
  • Limited total expansion capacity
  • Spring mechanism less precise than active expansion

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:

ConsiderationDecision
Expansion mechanismBased on centre expertise and availability
Stem typeCemented vs cementless (age-dependent)
Stem lengthAdequate fixation in remaining bone
Joint constraintBased on soft tissue sacrifice
Total expansion capacityPredicted 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%)

Intraoperative Technique

Positioning:

  • Supine on radiolucent table
  • Tourniquet on thigh (if lower limb)
  • Entire limb prepared and draped

Surgical Steps:

Step 1: Approach and Tumour Exposure

  • Longitudinal incision incorporating biopsy tract
  • Wide exposure with biopsy tract excision
  • Identify and protect neurovascular structures

Step 2: Osteotomy Planning

  • Mark osteotomy level with fluoroscopy
  • Ensure adequate margin (minimum 2cm from tumour on MRI)
  • Consider intraoperative frozen section for margin assessment

Step 3: Tumour Resection

  • Perform proximal and distal osteotomies
  • Complete soft tissue dissection with wide margin
  • Protect adjacent joint if not involved
  • Specimen orientation for pathology

Step 4: Canal Preparation

  • Ream canal for stem accommodation
  • Sequential reaming to appropriate size
  • Trial stem insertion to assess rotation and length

Step 5: Prosthesis Assembly

  • Assemble expandable prosthesis on back table
  • Confirm expansion mechanism function
  • Set initial length to slightly short (allows expansion to correct)

Step 6: Implantation

  • Insert stem (cemented or press-fit based on design)
  • Confirm alignment and rotation
  • Check joint reduction and stability
  • Assess limb length

Step 7: Soft Tissue Reconstruction

  • Muscle flap coverage of prosthesis
  • Gastrocnemius rotational flap for proximal tibia
  • Meticulous haemostasis
  • Drain placement

Step 8: Closure

  • Layered closure over prosthesis
  • Avoid tension on wound
  • Sterile dressing

Soft Tissue Coverage

Adequate soft tissue coverage is essential for prosthesis survival. For proximal tibial prostheses, gastrocnemius rotational flap provides vascularised muscle coverage and reduces infection risk. Free flap may be required if local options inadequate.

Non-Invasive Expansion Technique

Pre-procedure:

  • Outpatient clinic setting
  • Radiograph to confirm mechanism function
  • Mark prosthesis position on skin

Procedure (REPIPHYSIS/JTS):

  1. Position electromagnetic coil around limb
  2. Activate expansion device
  3. Monitor for pain or neurological symptoms
  4. Target 4-8mm expansion per session
  5. Post-procedure radiograph to confirm

Monitoring:

  • Assess for nerve irritation (numbness, weakness)
  • Document actual expansion achieved
  • Plan next expansion date

Modular Expansion Technique

Setting:

  • Day surgery or short inpatient stay
  • General or regional anaesthesia

Procedure:

  1. Small incision over expansion mechanism
  2. Identify and expose locking collar
  3. Disengage locking mechanism
  4. Insert additional modular segment
  5. Re-engage locking mechanism
  6. Confirm expansion on fluoroscopy
  7. Wound closure

Post-operative:

  • Wound care
  • Mobilise when comfortable
  • Follow-up radiograph at 2 weeks

Complications

Prosthesis-Related Complications

Major Complications

ComplicationIncidenceRisk FactorsManagement
Deep periprosthetic infection10-15%Multiple surgeries, chemotherapy immunosuppressionDebridement and antibiotics, often requires amputation
Aseptic loosening20-30%Young active patients, cemented stemsRevision surgery with longer stem
Mechanical failure15-20%Non-invasive mechanisms, patient weightProsthesis exchange or conversion
Soft tissue failure10-15%Poor initial coverage, radiationFlap coverage, revision
Nerve palsy (expansion)5-10%Rapid expansion, cumulative lengtheningShortening, observation, rarely permanent

Infection Management

Classification:

TypeTimingManagement
SuperficialLess than 4 weeksAntibiotics, wound care
Deep earlyLess than 6 weeksDAIR (debridement, antibiotics, implant retention)
Deep lateGreater than 6 weeksTwo-stage revision or amputation
ChronicRecurrentAmputation 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

Broken expansion mechanism in proximal humeral expandable prosthesis
Click to expand
Expansion mechanism breakage in a proximal humeral Repiphysis prosthesis. The AP radiograph demonstrates discontinuity at the threaded expansion rod, a recognized mechanical failure mode requiring revision surgery or conversion to non-expandable prosthesis.Credit: Benevenia J et al., SpringerPlus/PMC4688289 (CC BY 4.0)
Elbow dislocation after distal humeral endoprosthesis
Click to expand
Elbow dislocation/contracture complication following distal humeral expandable prosthesis. The ulna and radius are displaced posteriorly relative to the prosthesis, demonstrating soft tissue failure and joint instability - a challenging complication requiring revision or flap coverage.Credit: Benevenia J et al., SpringerPlus/PMC4688289 (CC BY 4.0)
Periprosthetic tibial fractures managed non-operatively with healing
Click to expand
Periprosthetic tibial fractures successfully managed non-operatively. (a) Distal femoral prosthesis with proximal tibial fracture; (b) Proximal tibial prosthesis with mid-shaft tibial fracture; (c,d) Follow-up radiographs demonstrating fracture union. This series demonstrates that selected periprosthetic fractures can heal without surgery.Credit: Benevenia J et al., SpringerPlus/PMC4688289 (CC BY 4.0)

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

Protection and Early Motion

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
Progressive Loading

Goals: Increase weight bearing, strengthen muscles

  • Progress to full weight bearing as tolerated
  • Strengthening exercises
  • Gait training
  • Hydrotherapy if wound healed
Functional Recovery

Goals: Return to school/activities, independent mobility

  • Sport-specific rehabilitation (non-contact)
  • Stair climbing, community ambulation
  • Psychological support
  • Ongoing expansion procedures
Lifelong Surveillance

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

TimepointImplant SurvivalNotes
5 years70-80%Higher with non-invasive
10 years50-65%Revision or conversion expected
15 years30-40%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

Level IV
Key Findings:
  • 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
Clinical Implication: Non-invasive expansion reduces infection risk but increases mechanical failure risk - discuss trade-offs with families
Source: Groundland et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; Multi-institutional review

Long-term Outcomes of Expandable Prostheses

Level IV
Key Findings:
  • 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
Clinical Implication: Counsel families that multiple revisions are expected over the patient's lifetime
Source: Hwang et al. JBJS Br 2012; Grimer et al. JBJS Br 2000

Functional Outcomes After Limb Salvage

Level IV
Key Findings:
  • 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
Clinical Implication: Limb salvage provides equivalent or better function than amputation for most lower limb tumours
Source: Henderson et al. CORR 2014; Kotz et al. Multi-centre series

Soft Tissue Coverage Impact on Outcomes

Level IV
Key Findings:
  • 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%)
Clinical Implication: Plan soft tissue coverage at primary surgery - gastrocnemius flap standard for proximal tibia
Source: Jeys et al. JBJS Br 2005; Institutional series

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Distal Femoral Osteosarcoma in a Child

EXAMINER

"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."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
**Opening Statement:** "This is a young child with significant remaining skeletal growth. Limb salvage with an expandable endoprosthesis is my preferred approach, providing wide margins can be achieved." **Growth Calculation:** "First, I need to calculate the expected limb length discrepancy: - Skeletal age assessment with bone age radiograph - The distal femur contributes 70% of femoral growth (approximately 1cm/year) - At age 8, he has approximately 8 years of growth remaining - Expected discrepancy is approximately 5-6cm This exceeds the 4cm threshold, confirming the need for an expandable prosthesis." **Surgical Planning:** "I would plan: 1. Wide en bloc resection with minimum 2cm margins 2. Excision of biopsy tract 3. Non-invasive expandable prosthesis if available (REPIPHYSIS or JTS) 4. Cemented stem fixation given his age I would select a prosthesis with at least 100mm expansion capacity." **Key Counselling Points:** "I would discuss with the family: - Infection risk (10-15%) which may require amputation - Need for expansion procedures every 3-4 months - Mechanical failure risk with non-invasive systems - Conversion to adult prosthesis at skeletal maturity - Activity restrictions (avoid contact sports)"
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Calculate expected LLD using multiplier method
Non-invasive expansion preferred to reduce infection risk
Counsel about multiple procedures and potential amputation
Plan adequate expansion capacity for predicted growth
COMMON TRAPS
✗Failing to calculate expected limb length discrepancy
✗Not discussing the trade-offs between expansion mechanisms
✗Underestimating infection risk and need for amputation counselling
✗Forgetting to mention conversion to adult prosthesis
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What if the tumour extends to the articular surface?"
"How would you manage if he develops deep infection at 2 years?"
"What are the advantages of non-invasive vs modular expansion?"
"When and how would you convert to an adult prosthesis?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Infected Expandable Prosthesis

EXAMINER

"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)."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
**Opening Statement:** "This is a late deep periprosthetic infection - one of the most serious complications of expandable prostheses. The draining sinus indicates established deep infection, and the prognosis for prosthesis salvage is poor." **Assessment:** "I would: 1. Obtain blood cultures and sinus swab cultures 2. Plain radiographs to assess for loosening 3. CT scan for bone destruction assessment 4. Review original operative reports and prior culture results Key history: Duration of symptoms, prior antibiotics, wound healing issues, chemotherapy status." **Management Options:** "For late chronic infection with a sinus, options are limited: Option 1: Two-stage revision - Resection arthroplasty with antibiotic spacer - 6-8 weeks IV antibiotics - Reimplantation once infection controlled - Success rate only 50-60% in this population Option 2: Amputation - Definitive control of infection - May be necessary if: * Multiresistant organisms * Extensive bone loss * Failure of two-stage revision * Patient/family preference I would discuss both options with the family, noting that amputation may ultimately be required even if two-stage revision is attempted." **Key Principles:** - Oncological surveillance continues regardless of infection management - Multidisciplinary involvement (ID, orthopaedics, oncology) - Psychological support for patient and family
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Late infection with sinus has poor prognosis for implant salvage
Two-stage revision success rate only 50-60%
Amputation may be required for infection control
Multidisciplinary management essential
COMMON TRAPS
✗Attempting DAIR for late chronic infection
✗Being too optimistic about prosthesis salvage
✗Not discussing amputation as a realistic option
✗Forgetting ongoing oncological surveillance
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What organisms are most common in prosthetic joint infections?"
"What antibiotic regimen would you use for the spacer?"
"How would you counsel the family about amputation?"
"What is the functional outcome after transfemoral amputation?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Mechanical Failure of Non-Invasive Prosthesis

EXAMINER

"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."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
**Opening Statement:** "This represents mechanical failure of the non-invasive expansion mechanism, which occurs in 15-20% of these devices. I need to assess his remaining growth potential and plan accordingly." **Assessment:** "First, I would: 1. Review current limb length discrepancy (clinical and radiographic) 2. Assess remaining skeletal growth (bone age, multiplier calculation) 3. Review expansion history and total lengthening achieved to date 4. Confirm oncological status remains clear At age 14, he likely has 2-3cm remaining growth. The decision depends on the current LLD and remaining growth." **Management Options:** "Scenario A - Near skeletal maturity with acceptable LLD: - Convert to adult non-expandable prosthesis - Address any LLD with shoe raise - Most straightforward option if growth essentially complete Scenario B - Significant remaining growth or unacceptable LLD: - Revision to modular expandable prosthesis - Allows continued surgical expansion - Trades mechanical reliability for repeat surgical procedures Scenario C - Bridge to maturity: - Accept some LLD temporarily - Shoe raise management - Convert at skeletal maturity with appropriate stem length I would recommend Option A if within 1 year of skeletal maturity, Option B if greater than 2 years remaining, and Option C for the intermediate group." **Surgical Planning for Revision:** "If revision required: - Same approach as index procedure - Remove failed prosthesis - Assess bone stock and soft tissues - Insert modular expandable prosthesis - May need longer stems if bone quality compromised"
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Non-invasive mechanisms have 15-20% failure rate
Assess remaining growth to guide management
Options include conversion vs revision to modular
Near maturity favours conversion to adult prosthesis
COMMON TRAPS
✗Attempting further non-invasive expansion with a failed mechanism
✗Not assessing remaining skeletal growth potential
✗Ignoring current LLD in decision-making
✗Not considering simpler options like shoe raise if near maturity
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What causes mechanical failure in non-invasive systems?"
"How would you counsel the family about the revision options?"
"What are the advantages of conversion vs continued expansion?"
"What challenges do you anticipate at revision surgery?"

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
Quick Stats
Reading Time90 min
Related Topics

Bone Island (Enostosis)

Chordoma

Fibrosarcoma of Bone

Giant Cell Tumor of Tendon Sheath (GCTTS)