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.

Pathologic Fracture Management

Back to Topics
Contents
0%

Pathologic Fracture Management

Comprehensive guide to diagnosis, surgical decision-making, and reconstruction techniques for pathologic fractures through benign and malignant bone lesions

complete
Updated: 2025-01-25

Pathologic Fracture Management

Exam Essential Concepts:

  • Impending vs completed pathologic fractures
  • Mirels' scoring system for fracture risk stratification
  • Biopsy before fixation principle (with exceptions)
  • Reconstruction options based on expected survival
  • Complications of instrumentation through tumor

Visual One-Pager

Visual summary content - See sections below for detailed information on Mirels scoring, surgical algorithms, and reconstruction techniques.

Definition & Classification

High Yield

At a Glance

Pathologic fractures occur through bone weakened by underlying disease, most commonly metastatic carcinoma (breast, lung, prostate, renal, thyroid) or multiple myeloma. The Mirels' scoring system (site, pain, lesion type, size) guides prophylactic fixation decisions - a score ≥9 indicates high fracture risk warranting stabilization. The principle of biopsy before fixation applies unless the primary tumor is known with certainty. Reconstruction choice depends on expected survival: short survival favours load-sharing devices (IM nails, endoprostheses), while longer survival may warrant more durable reconstructions. Lytic lesions in the femur (especially peritrochanteric) carry highest fracture risk.

Mnemonic

MIRELSMIRELS Scoring Mnemonic

Memory Hook:Think of MIRELS as a mirror reflecting fracture risk - if the score shows high numbers, the fracture is about to appear in the mirror of reality

Pathophysiology

Bone Weakening Mechanisms

Clinical Presentation

High Yield

Pathologic Fracture Red Flags:

  • Progressive bone pain over weeks to months before fracture
  • Night pain unrelieved by rest (tumor characteristic)
  • Fracture with minimal trauma or normal activity
  • Known malignancy history (even if remote)
  • Constitutional symptoms: weight loss, fatigue, fever
  • Multiple sites of bone pain (polyostotic involvement)

History Components

Pain Characterization:

  • Onset: Gradual vs sudden (fracture event)
  • Duration: Weeks to months of preceding pain typical
  • Character: Dull, aching, progressive
  • Timing: Night pain suggests tumor
  • Relieving factors: Activity modification, NSAIDs often ineffective
  • Red flag symptoms: Fever, night sweats, weight loss, anorexia

Mechanism of Injury:

  • Detailed mechanism assessment critical
  • "Twisted getting out of chair" or "stepping off curb" suggests pathologic
  • High-energy trauma can occur through pathologic bone (confounding)
  • Pain before the fall indicates pre-existing pathology
  • Multiple witnesses may clarify mechanism

Medical History:

  • Current or previous malignancy (type, stage, treatments)
  • Radiation therapy to bone (radiation-induced fractures)
  • Prolonged corticosteroid use (osteoporosis, osteonecrosis)
  • Metabolic bone disease history
  • Previous fractures (pattern recognition)
  • Family history (hereditary bone disorders)

Functional Impact:

  • Pre-fracture ambulatory status
  • Weight-bearing ability
  • Pain limiting function
  • Social support and home environment
  • Goals and expectations (align with prognosis)

Physical Examination

Clinical Pearl: Examination Priorities:

  1. Neurovascular status (baseline documentation)
  2. Skin integrity (open fracture risk with minimal soft tissue trauma)
  3. Gross deformity and limb alignment
  4. Palpable mass (soft tissue extension)
  5. Regional lymphadenopathy (rare but possible)
  6. Systematic examination for additional lesions

Inspection:

  • Swelling, ecchymosis (may be disproportionate)
  • Deformity, limb shortening, rotation
  • Previous surgical scars (biopsy sites)
  • Skin changes (radiation, infection, tumor ulceration)
  • Muscle wasting (chronic pain, denervation)

Palpation:

  • Point tenderness over fracture site
  • Palpable mass or cortical defect
  • Temperature (infection, inflammation)
  • Crepitus with gentle range of motion
  • Proximal and distal joint examination

Neurovascular Examination:

  • Pulse assessment (ABI if concern)
  • Capillary refill
  • Sensory examination (nerve compression or injury)
  • Motor function (avoid stressing fracture)
  • Document findings precisely (medicolegal, surgical planning)

Systematic Survey:

  • Spine palpation and percussion
  • Pelvis compression and distraction
  • Contralateral limb examination
  • Abdominal examination (organomegaly)
  • Chest auscultation (lung metastases)

The examination should identify fracture complications while gathering clues to underlying diagnosis without causing additional patient discomfort or fracture displacement.

Investigations

Imaging Modalities

Mnemonic

STABILIZEWorkup Sequence for Pathologic Fractures

Memory Hook:STABILIZE the patient, STABILIZE the diagnosis, STABILIZE the bone - all three must occur for optimal outcomes

Surgical Decision-Making

Biopsy Principles

Biopsy Golden Rules:

  1. Biopsy before definitive treatment (except known metastatic disease)
  2. Biopsy tract must be excisable with tumor (if primary sarcoma)
  3. Avoid contaminating uninvolved compartments
  4. Coordinate with treating oncologic surgeon before biopsy
  5. "Whoops" procedures drastically worsen sarcoma outcomes

Treatment Strategies

Non-Operative Management

Surgical Management

Mnemonic

DURABLESurgical Construct Selection

Memory Hook:A DURABLE construct provides pain-free function for the patient's remaining lifespan - match invasiveness to prognosis

Complications

Prognosis & Outcomes

Survival After Pathologic Fracture

2
J Bone Joint Surg Am (2005)
Clinical Implication: This evidence guides current practice.

Prognostic Factors

Primary Tumor Type (Most Important):

Favorable Prognosis (Median Survival greater than 12 Months):

  • Breast cancer (especially hormone receptor positive)
  • Prostate cancer
  • Thyroid cancer (follicular)
  • Multiple myeloma
  • Renal cell carcinoma (selected patients)

Intermediate Prognosis (6-12 Months):

  • Renal cell carcinoma
  • Colorectal cancer
  • Melanoma
  • Unknown primary

Poor Prognosis (Less than 6 Months):

  • Lung cancer (especially small cell)
  • Pancreatic cancer
  • Gastric cancer
  • Hepatocellular carcinoma

Burden of Disease:

  • Solitary skeletal metastasis: better prognosis
  • Multiple skeletal sites: intermediate
  • Visceral metastases present: poor prognosis
  • Spinal cord compression: worse outcomes
  • Hypercalcemia: poor prognostic sign

Performance Status:

  • Ambulatory, independent: better survival and quality of life
  • Requires assistance: intermediate
  • Bedridden: poor prognosis, limited benefit from surgery

Laboratory Markers:

  • Elevated alkaline phosphatase: worse prognosis
  • Anemia: associated with reduced survival
  • Hypoalbuminemia: malnutrition, poor outcomes
  • Hypercalcemia: advanced disease

Functional Outcomes

Functional Recovery After Surgical Stabilization

2
Clin Orthop Relat Res (2003)
Clinical Implication: This evidence guides current practice.

Expected Functional Recovery:

Lower Extremity Fractures:

  • 75-85% regain ambulatory status
  • Median time to weight-bearing: 3-7 days
  • Ambulation level may not return to baseline
  • Walking aids often required
  • Rehabilitation limited by systemic disease progression

Upper Extremity Fractures:

  • Greater than 90% achieve functional use
  • Earlier return to activities of daily living
  • Pain relief more consistent
  • Better overall satisfaction

Quality of Life Improvements:

  • Pain reduction (most consistent benefit)
  • Independence in activities of daily living
  • Psychological benefit (sense of control)
  • Reduced caregiver burden
  • Ability to receive oncologic treatments
  • Facilitation of hospice care at home vs hospital

Factors Limiting Recovery:

  • Disease progression (new metastases, visceral involvement)
  • Complications (infection, nonunion, implant failure)
  • Deconditioning during recovery
  • Chemotherapy side effects
  • Depression and anxiety
  • Inadequate social support

Survival Data by Treatment

Survival Outcomes: Operative vs Non-Operative Management

Key Insights:

  • Surgery does not prolong survival (systemic disease determines longevity)
  • Surgery dramatically improves quality of life metrics
  • Functional outcomes justify surgical morbidity in appropriate candidates
  • Patient selection critical (avoid surgery in moribund patients)
  • Goals: palliation, function, independence - not cure

The evidence supports surgical stabilization for functional restoration and quality of life, even in patients with limited prognosis, provided they are medically fit for anesthesia.

Special Populations

Pelvic & Acetabular Lesions

Spine Metastases with Pathologic Fracture

Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS):

Predicts spinal instability in metastatic disease (score 0-18):

Components:

  1. Location (junctional vs non-junctional)
  2. Pain (mechanical vs positional vs none)
  3. Bone lesion (lytic vs mixed vs blastic)
  4. Spinal alignment (subluxation, kyphosis, scoliosis)
  5. Vertebral body collapse (greater than 50%, less than 50%, none)
  6. Posterolateral involvement (bilateral, unilateral, none)

Score Interpretation:

  • 0-6: Stable (radiation ± chemotherapy)
  • 7-12: Potentially unstable (individualized decision)
  • 13-18: Unstable (surgical stabilization indicated)

Surgical Indications:

  • Spinal instability (SINS greater than or equal to 13)
  • Neurologic deficit (cord compression, radiculopathy)
  • Intractable pain despite radiation
  • Radioresistant tumor
  • Tissue diagnosis needed

Surgical Options:

Decompression + Instrumented Fusion:

  • Relieves neural compression
  • Provides immediate stability
  • Allows early mobilization
  • Does not address anterior column destruction (may fail)

Separation Surgery + Stereotactic Radiation:

  • Minimal decompression (create space for radiation)
  • Short-segment stabilization
  • High-dose focused radiation post-op
  • Emerging paradigm for radiosensitive tumors

Vertebroplasty/Kyphoplasty:

  • Compression fractures without instability or cord compression
  • Cement stabilization
  • Pain relief in 70-90%
  • Complications: cement leak, neural injury (rare)

Corpectomy + Reconstruction:

  • Anterior column structural support
  • Expandable cage or cement
  • Combined with posterior stabilization
  • Major surgery, reserved for longer survival expected

Spine pathologic fractures require neurosurgical or spine surgery expertise with oncology multidisciplinary team involvement.

Pediatric Pathologic Fractures

Unique Considerations:

Etiology Differences:

  • Benign lesions more common (unicameral bone cyst, fibrous dysplasia, enchondroma)
  • Primary malignant tumors (osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma) vs metastatic
  • Langerhan cell histiocytosis
  • Leukemia/lymphoma

Growth Considerations:

  • Avoid physeal injury if possible
  • Limb-length discrepancy potential
  • Remodeling potential greater than adults
  • Long-term implant effects

Management Principles:

Benign Lesions:

  • Many heal spontaneously after fracture (unicameral bone cyst 15%)
  • Initial treatment: fracture immobilization
  • Definitive treatment after healing (curettage, grafting)
  • Avoid unnecessary surgery during acute phase

Malignant Lesions:

  • Multimodal treatment (chemotherapy + surgery ± radiation)
  • Limb salvage preferred when feasible
  • Physeal-sparing techniques when possible
  • Expandable prostheses for young children (accommodate growth)

The pediatric population requires subspecialty expertise with different treatment paradigms focused on cure and long-term function.

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOModerate

Impending Subtrochanteric Fracture in Metastatic Breast Cancer

EXAMINER

"A 68-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer (ER+/PR+) presents with 3 months of progressive right thigh pain. She is ambulatory with a cane. Radiograph shows a 4cm lytic lesion in the subtrochanteric region with greater than 50% cortical destruction on the lateral cortex. She is currently on an aromatase inhibitor. How do you approach this case?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This patient has a high-risk impending pathologic fracture requiring prophylactic surgical stabilization. The Mirels score is 10-11 (site 3, pain 2-3, lytic lesion 3, size 3), indicating greater than 50% fracture risk. The subtrochanteric location is biomechanically demanding with high bending moments, making fracture likely with continued ambulation.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Calculate Mirels score: site (subtrochanteric=3) + pain (moderate=2) + lesion (lytic=3) + size (greater than 2/3 cortex=3) = 11 points
Staging workup: ensure no spinal metastases requiring urgent treatment, assess visceral disease burden, bone scan or PET-CT for additional lesions
Surgical planning: long cephalomedullary nail (prophylactically stabilizes entire femur), curettage of lesion and cement augmentation, multiple interlocking screws proximally and distally
Biopsy consideration: known metastatic breast cancer with typical lytic lesion - can obtain tissue at surgery, not mandatory pre-operatively
Adjuvant treatment: coordinate with oncology for post-operative radiation (external beam 30 Gy in 10 fractions), continue systemic hormonal therapy, consider bisphosphonate or denosumab
Expected outcome: early weight-bearing as tolerated (day 1-2 post-op), pain improvement, maintain ambulatory status, median survival 18-24 months for ER+ breast cancer with skeletal metastases
COMMON TRAPS
✗Underestimating fracture risk - observation inappropriate with Mirels score greater than or equal to 9; patient will fracture and outcomes worse than prophylactic fixation
✗Short construct - must use long nail to protect against skip lesions; plate insufficient for subtrochanteric location (load-bearing, high failure rate)
✗Delaying surgery for radiation - radiation takes 2-4 weeks to work and initially weakens bone; fracture during radiation worsens outcome
✗Inadequate medical optimization - assess cardiac and pulmonary status, nutritional status, ensure adequate DVT prophylaxis (cancer hypercoagulable)
✗Not coordinating with oncology - radiation timing, chemotherapy plans, and systemic bone-targeted therapy critical to comprehensive care
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"If she fractures before surgery, does your management change? (Same surgical plan but more urgent, more difficult reduction, higher complication risk)"
"What if the lesion extends into the femoral neck? (Consider endoprosthetic replacement vs long nail with capture of femoral neck, cement augmentation critical)"
"She has back pain - what additional imaging do you need? (MRI entire spine, assess for cord compression requiring urgent decompression before femur fixation)"
"Post-operatively she has foot drop - differential diagnosis? (Sciatic nerve palsy from positioning, cement extrusion, hematoma compression, traction injury; urgent imaging and neurologic consultation)"
"Two years later the nail fails - what now? (Assess disease status, if progressing consider endoprosthesis, if controlled re-nail with larger diameter or convert to prosthesis)"
VIVA SCENARIOModerate

Completed Humeral Shaft Fracture Through Unknown Lesion

EXAMINER

"A 55-year-old man presents with acute pain and deformity of his left arm after lifting a bag of groceries. Radiograph shows a mid-diaphyseal humeral fracture through a 3cm lytic lesion. He has no history of malignancy. Radial nerve is intact. How do you manage this patient?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a pathologic fracture through a lytic lesion in a patient without known primary malignancy. The priorities are establishing a diagnosis, comprehensive staging to identify primary tumor source, and stabilizing the fracture to restore function and alleviate pain. The humerus tolerates non-operative management better than lower extremity bones, allowing time for workup before surgical intervention.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Initial management: functional brace or coaptation splint for comfort, sling support, adequate analgesia (multimodal including opioids if needed)
Staging workup: CT chest/abdomen/pelvis (identify primary tumor and other metastases), skeletal survey or bone scan (additional skeletal lesions), laboratory studies (CBC, CMP, LFTs, PSA, SPEP/UPEP, calcium)
Biopsy: mandatory before definitive treatment; coordinate with orthopedic oncologist regarding biopsy site (anterolateral approach, in line with planned surgical incision); core needle biopsy preferred if accessible; send fresh tissue for cytogenetics and culture
Surgical options based on diagnosis: if metastatic disease - intramedullary nail (allows radiation, load-sharing) with cement augmentation, or plate fixation with curettage and cement; if primary sarcoma - refer to tertiary center for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and limb salvage resection
Multidisciplinary discussion: involve oncology, radiation oncology, radiology before finalizing surgical plan
Expected functional outcome: 90% regain functional use of arm, earlier weight-bearing than lower extremity, radial nerve function preserved in greater than 95%
COMMON TRAPS
✗Operating without tissue diagnosis - if this is primary sarcoma, stabilization contaminates field and worsens prognosis; must have histology
✗Inadequate staging - may find lung primary, multiple other skeletal metastases, or visceral disease affecting prognosis and treatment plan
✗Rushing to surgery - humerus fractures tolerate non-operative management; take time for proper workup unless neurovascular compromise
✗Wrong surgical approach - biopsy tract must be excisable with tumor if sarcoma; random incisions contaminate compartments
✗Not considering non-operative management - if moribund patient with widely metastatic disease and weeks prognosis, functional brace may suffice
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"Biopsy returns renal cell carcinoma metastasis - what additional imaging? (MRI brain for CNS metastases, consider embolization pre-op given hypervascularity of renal cell)"
"What if radial nerve was palsied on presentation? (Likely neuropraxia from fracture displacement; splint wrist/fingers, explore nerve at surgery, likely recover)"
"CT chest shows large lung mass - does this change management? (Coordinate with thoracic surgery/oncology for lung biopsy/treatment, may be primary lung with humerus metastasis or primary bone tumor with lung metastasis)"
"Patient declines surgery - acceptable? (Yes, if informed consent about continued pain, potential nonunion, deformity; functional brace can provide acceptable function for upper extremity)"
"Four months post-nail the fracture is healing - expected? (Unusual for metastatic disease but possible at periphery of lesion, does not change need for durable construct)"

Exam Day Cheat Sheet

MCQ Practice Points

Exam Pearl

Q: What is the Mirels scoring system for impending pathological fractures?

A: Scores 1-3 points for each: Site (upper limb/lower limb/peritrochanteric), Pain (mild/moderate/functional), Lesion type (blastic/mixed/lytic), Size (less than 1/3, 1/3-2/3, greater than 2/3 of cortex). Total ≥8: Consider prophylactic fixation. Sensitivity ~90%, specificity ~35% for predicting fracture. Guides surgical decision-making for impending fractures.

Exam Pearl

Q: What are the principles of surgical fixation for pathological fractures?

A: Load-sharing constructs preferred - assume tumor will NOT heal. Locked intramedullary nails for long bone diaphyses. Endoprosthetic replacement for periarticular lesions or extensive bone loss. Cement augmentation fills defects and provides immediate stability. Span entire bone - protect against additional lesions. Radiation post-operatively.

Exam Pearl

Q: When should pathological lesions be biopsied before fixation?

A: Biopsy first if: Unknown primary, solitary lesion in patient without cancer history, atypical features, suspicion of primary bone tumor. Direct to surgery if: Known cancer with typical metastatic pattern, multiple skeletal lesions, characteristic imaging (renal, breast, lung, prostate patterns). Wrong diagnosis changes entire treatment approach.

Exam Pearl

Q: What is the life expectancy consideration in pathological fracture surgery?

A: Surgery indicated if expected survival greater than 6 weeks. Prognosis scoring (eg, Katagiri, PATHFx) helps estimate survival. Poor prognosis tumors: Lung, melanoma, hepatocellular. Better prognosis: Breast, prostate, renal (may survive years). Match surgical complexity to prognosis - endoprosthesis for long survivors, simple fixation for poor prognosis.

Exam Pearl

Q: What is the role of radiation in pathological fracture management?

A: Postoperative radiation (typically 8Gy single fraction or 30Gy/10 fractions) for: Tumor control, pain relief, prevention of progression. Not a substitute for adequate fixation. Begin 2-4 weeks post-op to allow wound healing. Preoperative radiation occasionally used for highly vascular tumors (renal) to reduce intraoperative bleeding.

Australian Context

Australian Epidemiology and Practice

Cancer Australia Epidemiology:

  • Skeletal metastases affect approximately 30-40% of advanced cancer patients in Australia
  • Breast cancer remains the most common primary source for bone metastases in Australian women
  • Prostate cancer is the most common cause in Australian men
  • Lung, renal, and thyroid cancers also frequently metastasize to bone
  • Rising cancer incidence with aging population increases pathologic fracture burden

Australian Orthopaedic Oncology Services:

  • Specialist bone tumour services located at major tertiary centres across Australia
  • Major centres: Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (Melbourne), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (Sydney), Princess Alexandra Hospital (Brisbane), Royal Perth Hospital
  • Multidisciplinary team approach mandated for complex oncology cases
  • Access to tumour prostheses and custom implants through specialist suppliers

RACS Orthopaedic Training Relevance:

  • Pathologic fracture management is a core FRACS examination topic
  • Viva scenarios commonly test Mirels scoring, biopsy principles, and reconstruction decision-making
  • Key exam focus: distinguishing prophylactic fixation indications, understanding prognosis by primary tumour type
  • Examiners expect knowledge of staging workup sequence and multidisciplinary care principles

Australian Bone Tumour Guidelines:

  • Bone Tumours Australia provides patient and clinician resources
  • Australian and New Zealand Sarcoma Association (ANZSA) guidelines inform management
  • State-based cancer networks coordinate care pathways
  • Tumour registry data contributes to outcomes research

Radiation Oncology Considerations:

  • Adjuvant radiation typically delivered 2-3 weeks post-operatively
  • Australian radiation oncology services available at all major cancer centres
  • Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) increasingly available for spinal metastases
  • Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) research informs Australian practice

Prostheses and Implant Access:

  • Tumour prostheses available through major orthopaedic implant companies
  • Custom implants (3D printed, patient-specific) available for complex reconstructions
  • Prostheses List determines private health insurance coverage
  • Public hospital access to specialised implants through health service procurement

High-Yield Exam Summary

Mirels Score - Know Cold

  • •Site: Upper limb (1), Lower limb (2), Peritrochanteric (3)
  • •Pain: Mild (1), Moderate (2), Functional (3)
  • •Lesion: Blastic (1), Mixed (2), Lytic (3)
  • •Size: Less than 1/3 (1), 1/3-2/3 (2), Greater than 2/3 (3)
  • •Score greater than or equal to 9 = Prophylactic fixation indicated
  • •Score 8 = Individualized decision, consider fixation
  • •Score less than or equal to 7 = Observation acceptable with monitoring

Biopsy Principles (Common Exam Question)

  • •Biopsy before treatment EXCEPT: known metastatic disease with typical lesion, life/limb emergency
  • •Coordinate with treating oncologic surgeon BEFORE biopsy
  • •Biopsy tract must be excisable en bloc with tumor
  • •Longitudinal incision in line with definitive surgery
  • •Core needle preferred (80-90% diagnostic, minimal contamination)
  • •Never violate adjacent compartments or joint
  • •Mark tract with clip/suture for later excision
  • •Whoops procedures devastate sarcoma outcomes

Surgical Construct Principles

  • •Stabilize entire bone (nail) vs lesion only (plate)
  • •Bypass lesion by minimum 2 cortical diameters each direction
  • •Load-sharing (nail) preferred over load-bearing (plate)
  • •Cement augmentation: immediate stability, thermal necrosis, improved screw purchase
  • •Early weight-bearing priority (quality of life in palliative care)
  • •Durability must match prognosis: short (less than 6m) simple, intermediate (6-12m) durable, long (greater than 12m) prosthesis
  • •Nail advantages: minimally invasive, entire bone, allows radiation
  • •Plate advantages: periarticular, allows curettage, upper extremity

Staging Workup Sequence

  • •Radiographs: AP/lateral affected bone + joints above/below
  • •Skeletal survey: multiple myeloma or identify additional lesions
  • •CT chest/abdomen/pelvis: identify primary tumor, visceral mets
  • •MRI affected bone: marrow involvement, soft tissue extent, skip lesions
  • •Bone scan or PET-CT: systemic skeletal survey
  • •Labs: CBC, CMP, LFTs, calcium, ALP, SPEP/UPEP, PSA (if appropriate)
  • •Biopsy: tissue diagnosis (coordinate with oncologist)
  • •MDT discussion: oncology, radiation oncology, radiology

Prognosis by Primary Tumor

  • •Long survival (greater than 12m): Breast (ER+), Prostate, Thyroid, Myeloma
  • •Intermediate (6-12m): Renal, Colon, Melanoma, Unknown primary
  • •Short (less than 6m): Lung (especially small cell), Pancreas, Liver
  • •Presence of visceral metastases cuts survival in half
  • •Ambulatory status crucial predictor of functional recovery
  • •Surgery improves quality of life but NOT survival duration
  • •Use Katagiri score or similar to guide reconstruction durability

Complications to Discuss

  • •Intraoperative: hemorrhage (hypervascular tumors - embolize), cement extravasation (joint/nerve), fracture propagation
  • •Early: infection (5-15%, higher with chemo/radiation), wound dehiscence, VTE
  • •Late: implant failure (5-15% at 1 year), nonunion (expected, construct must not rely on healing), local progression
  • •Cement complications: thermal necrosis, embolization (rare, potentially fatal), joint penetration
  • •Revision: escalate construct durability (plate to nail to prosthesis), higher complication rate, balance with prognosis

Special Situations

  • •Pelvis/Acetabulum: Harrington classification (I-IV), Class III-IV need THA/custom implant
  • •Spine: SINS score (greater than or equal to 13 unstable, needs fixation), vertebroplasty for compression fractures without instability
  • •Pediatric: benign lesions common, fracture may induce healing (UBC), malignant needs multimodal treatment
  • •Radiation: adjuvant post-op (2-3 weeks delay for wound healing), NOT substitute for fixation in high-risk lesions
  • •Hypervascular tumors: renal, thyroid - preoperative embolization, crossmatch blood, anticipate hemorrhage

Prophylactic Fixation Reduces Complications vs Post-Fracture Fixation

2
J Bone Joint Surg Am (2011)
Clinical Implication: This evidence guides current practice.

Cement Augmentation Reduces Implant Failure

3
Clin Orthop Relat Res (2017)
Clinical Implication: This evidence guides current practice.

Intramedullary Nailing Superior to Plate Fixation for Diaphyseal Metastases

3
Bone Joint J (2016)
Clinical Implication: This evidence guides current practice.

Quality of Life Improves After Surgical Stabilization Despite No Survival Benefit

2
J Surg Oncol (2014)
Clinical Implication: This evidence guides current practice.

Key References:

  1. Mirels H. Metastatic disease in long bones: a proposed scoring system for diagnosing impending pathologic fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(249):256-264.

  2. Wedin R, Bauer HC, Wersäll P. Failures after operation for skeletal metastatic lesions of long bones. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(358):128-139.

  3. Harrington KD. The management of acetabular insufficiency secondary to metastatic malignant disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63(4):653-664.

  4. Steensma M, Boland PJ, Morris CD, Athanasian E, Healey JH. Endoprosthetic treatment is more durable for pathologic proximal femur fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(3):920-926.

  5. Weber KL, Lewis VO, Randall RL, et al. An approach to the management of patients with metastatic bone disease. Instr Course Lect. 2004;53:663-676.

Quick Stats
Reading Time177 min
Related Topics

Bone Island (Enostosis)

Chordoma

Expandable Prostheses in Pediatric Oncology

Fibrosarcoma of Bone