title: Is the Induced-membrane Technique Successful for Limb Reconstruction After Resecting Large Bone Tumors in Children?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Resection of primary malignant tumors often creates large bony defects. In children, this creates reconstructive challenges, and many options have been described for limb salvage in this setting. Studies have supported the use of an induced-membrane technique after placement of a cement spacer to aid in restoration of bone anatomy.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  We asked: (1) What complications are associated with the induced-membrane technique? (2) How often is bone healing achieved after resection greater than 15 cm using this technique? (3) What is the functional outcome of patients treated with this technique?
  
  
  METHODS
  We performed a retrospective evaluation of eight patients with a mean age of 13.3 years (range, 11-17 years) treated for a malignant bone tumor between 2002 and 2012 at our centers. The primary malignant tumors involved the proximal humerus, femur, and tibia. All patients were treated using the induced-membrane technique after a resection with mean bone loss of 18 cm (range, 16-23 cm). The general indication for using the induced-membrane technique during this time was a large diaphyseal defect after resection of the tumor. In addition to using cancellous graft as with the original technique, in the current patients an autogenous nonvascularized fibula was used to enhance stability. The patients were assessed at the last followup using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system. Mean followup was 47.1 months (range, 24-120 months), and none of the patients were lost to followup before 2 years.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of four unplanned reoperations were performed in these eight patients. A fracture of the reconstruction occurred in three patients and all were treated successfully, two with surgery and one with immobilization. Bone fusion was obtained in all patients within 4 to 8 months (mean, 5.6 months) after the reconstruction. The mean healing index was 0.31 month/cm of reconstruction (range, 0.23-0.5 month/cm). At last followup, the mean MSTS score was 74% (range, 67%-80%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our findings suggest that the modified induced-membrane technique is a reasonable alternative to other limb reconstruction techniques for bone tumors in children and has the advantage of not requiring a bone bank or an expensive metal prosthesis. Although more patients will be needed to substantiate our findings, it has become a standard part of our arsenal in the treatment of large bone defects after resection of pediatric primitive bone tumors.
  
  
  METHODS
  Level IV, therapeutic study.
authors: Pediatric Orthopedic and Reconstructive Surgery, Trousseau Hospital, Paris 6 University, Paris, France, franck.fitoussi@trs.aphp.fr.
authors: Frank
authors: F
authors: Fitoussi
authors: Brice
authors: B
authors: Ilharreborde
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000367:Age Factors; D064592:Autografts; D001859:Bone Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D016723:Bone Remodeling; D016025:Bone Transplantation / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D002648:Child; D005260:Female; D005266:Femoral Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D005360:Fibula / Q000637:transplantation*; D017102:Fracture Healing; D006801:Humans; D006811:Humerus / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D023821:Limb Salvage; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008297:Male; D010027:Osteotomy / Q000009:adverse effects; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013977:Tibia / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D013997:Time Factors; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references: J Pediatr Orthop. 2011 Jul-Aug;31(5):570-6
references: 21654468
references: J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 10;28(20):3284-91
references: 20547982
references: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013 Jun;99(4):479-83
references: 23608487
references: Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2000 Jun;45(3):346-53
references: 10929461
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Apr 3;95(7):597-604
references: 23553294
references: Orthop Clin North Am. 2010 Jan;41(1):27-37; table of contents
references: 19931050
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 May;84-A(5):716-20
references: 12004011
references: Br J Plast Surg. 2002 Oct;55(7):596-8
references: 12529009
references: J Pediatr Orthop B. 2003 Jul;12(4):233-43
references: 12821839
references: J Orthop Res. 2004 Jan;22(1):73-9
references: 14656662
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980 Nov-Dec;(153):106-20
references: 7449206
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992 Jul;(280):7-10
references: 1611766
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Jan;(286):241-6
references: 8425352
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jan;77(1):54-64
references: 7822356
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996 Feb;78(2):204-11
references: 8609110
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Jul;78(4):652-7
references: 8682837
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Jan;79(1):36-42
references: 9020442
references: Acta Orthop Scand. 1997 Aug;68(4):387-91
references: 9310046
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 May;(434):258-64
references: 15864062
references: J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(10 Spec No.):S175-6
references: 17003193
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jan;90(1):93-100
references: 18171962
references: Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008 Dec;34(12):1271-6
references: 18191363
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Feb;467(2):572-7
references: 19009325
references: Microsurgery. 2009;29(5):361-72
references: 19533742
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Jun;92(6):867-74
references: 20513887
references: Orthopedics. 2000 Aug;23(8):795, 799, 802, 804
references: 10952041
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Jan;(382):87-98
references: 11154010
references: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010 Jun;96(4):340-7
references: 20471344