Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of modular endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) compared to proximal femur intramedullary nailing (IMN) for the treatment of proximal femur metastases. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the records of patients with proximal femur metastatic lesions treated with surgical stabilization between January 2007 and December 2014 in terms of operation time, blood loss, postoperative score, soreness, Karnofsky performance score (KPS) and survival time. RESULTS: There were 34 patients treated with surgical stabilization. The mean follow-up period was 12.1?.6 months (range: 10-47 months). Thirteen were treated with EPR and 21 were stabilized with IMN (20 males, 14 females; mean age: 68.7 years). The median survival time was 11.0 months for both groups (P=0.147). The operation time, blood loss and Harris score of IMN group were lower than those of EPR group (P=0.001, P=0.001, P=0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both EPR and IMN for treating proximal femur metastasis achieved effective clinical outcomes. Therefore, the suitable surgical methods depended on the general conditions and medical requirements of patients, as well as the technical advantages of the doctor.