Purpose of review: Megaprosthesis and Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC) are the established treatment modalities for massive skeletal defects. There are a handful of studies comparing the use of megaprosthesis and APC in the management of substantial bone loss and it has always been a topic of debate regarding the superiority of one modality over the other. Therefore, we aim to compare the functional outcome and implant survivorship of each modality including complications, revision rates, amputation rate and mortality.
Recent findings: The Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC) constitutes a skeletal allograft implanted with a revision type prosthesis in it. The biological environment provided by the allograft allows attachment of the muscles and tendons imparting better stability and function. However, the literature is not kind enough with APC due to associated risk of infection, disease transmission and nonunion at the graft-host junction. The megaprosthesis (MP) on the other hand is a nonbiologic modality with better survivorship but subservient functional outcome. Infection has been a major issue in both the modalities. Advancement in metallurgy using silver coated megaprosthesis also failed to provide strong evidence in preventing infection. The functional outcome is better with APC in both the upper and lower limbs. However, the survivorship is better with megaprosthesis, especially in the upper limb when revision rates were compared between the two modalities. Deep infection and mechanical complications were significantly higher in the APC group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of amputation rate, mortality, and local recurrence.
Level of evidence (cebm): 2a.
Keywords: Allograft Prosthesis Composite; Bone tumors; Comparative study; Massive skeletal defects; Megaprosthesis; Meta-analysis.