The Relationship Between Lesion Size and Load to Failure After Stabilization of Simulated Metastatic Lesions of the Proximal Femur

Abstract

Background: As overall cancer survival continues to improve, the incidence of metastatic lesions to the bone continues to increase. The subsequent skeletal related events that can occur with osseous metastasis can be debilitating. Complete and impending pathologic femur fractures are common with patients often requiring operative fixation. However, the efficacy of an intramedullary nail construct, on providing stability, continue to be debated. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to utilize a synthetic femur model to determine 1) how proximal femur defect size and cortical breach impact femur load to failure (strength) and stiffness, and 2) and how the utilization of an IMN, in a prophylactic fashion, subsequently alters the overall strength and stiffness of the proximal femur.

Methods: A total of 21 synthetic femur models were divided into four groups: 1) intact (no defect), 2) 2 cm defect, 3) 2.5 cm defect, and 4) 4 cm defect. An IMN was inserted in half of the femur specimens that had a defect present. This procedure was performed using standard antegrade technique. Specimens were mechanically tested in offset torsion. Force-displacement curves were utilized to determine each constructs load to failure and overall torsional stiffness. The ultimate load to failure and construct stiffness of the synthetic femurs with defects were compared to the intact synthetic femur, while the femurs with the placement of the IMN were directly compared to the synthetic femurs with matching defect size.

Results: The size of the defect invertedly correlated with the load the failure and overall stiffness. There was no difference in load to failure or overall stiffness when comparing intact models with no defect and the 2 cm defect group (p=0.98, p=0.43). The 2.5 cm, and 4.5 cm defect groups demonstrated significant difference in both load to failure and overall stiffness when compared to intact models with results demonstrating 1313 N (95% CI: 874-1752 N; p<0.001) and 104 N/mm (95% CI: 98-110 N/mm; p=0.03) in the 2.5 cm defect models, and 512 N (95% CI: 390-634 N, p<0.001) and 21 N/mm (95% CI: 9-33 N/mm, p<0.001) in the models with a 4 cm defect. Compared to the groups with defects, the placement an IMN increased overall stiffness in the 2.5 cm defect group (125 N/mm; 95% CI:114-136 N/mm; p=0.003), but not load to failure (p=0.91). In the 4 cm defect group, there was a significant increase in load to failure (1067 N; 95% CI: 835-1300 N; p=0.002) and overall stiffness (57 N/mm; 95% CI:46-69 N/mm; p=0.001).

Conclusion: Prophylactic IMN fixation significantly improved failure load and overall stiffness in the group with the largest cortical defects, but still demonstrated a failure loads less than 50% of the intact model. This investigation suggests that a cortical breach causes a loss of strength that is not completely restored by intramedullary fixation. Level of Evidence: II.

Keywords: metastases; musculoskeletal oncology; pathologic fracture; prophylactic intramedullary nail.