Fig 1.
Flow chart of all patients with infection following a primary replacement of a musculoskeletal tumour of the lower limb and reconstruction by a megaprosthesis.
Table 1.
Demographic data of 83 patients with infected megaprostheses.
Table 2.
Reinfection rate of the different op procedure: The total number of patients (N), the number of reinfections (n), the reinfection rate (%), and the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the reinfection rate separately for each op procedure.
2-stage revision = patients with and without complete removal of the well fixed stems for the first revision surgery.
Fig 2.
The cumulative incidence of reinfection (continuous line) and death (dashed line) after one-stage revision.
Fig 3.
The cumulative incidence of reinfection (continuous line) and death (dashed line) after two-stage revision (n = 16; patients with and without complete removal of well-fixed stems).
Table 3.
The reinfection rate (RR) depending on the localisations of the megaprostheses and OP procedures.
Table 4.
Cause-specific hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for reinfection from patients after 1-stage and 2-stage (with and without well fixed stems for the first revision surgery) revisions in accordance with different factors.
OSA = osteosarcoma, dist = distal, prox = proximal, KMFTR = Kotz Modular Femur and Tibia Reconstruction System, HMRS = Howmedica Modular Reconstruction System, GMRS = Global Modular Reconstruction System, CHT = chemotherapy, RTX = radiotherapy, Infection classification by Coventry and Fitzgerald [13, 14].
Table 5.
Outcome of the 38 patients with reinfection. In this cohort, seven patients died for a reason not related to infection.
Fig 4.
Flow diagram of all patients treated with a two stage revision during the entire study period.
Table 6.
Comparison of the literature of the reinfection rates (RR) after 1-stage procedures.
The follow-up period started after the first revision (m = months).
Table 7.
Comparison of the literature of the reinfection rates (RR) after 2-stage procedures.
The follow-up period started after the first revision (m = months). In the series of Flint et al. and Grimer et al. (*patient survival 109m), it is not clear at which point in time follow up began.