Open Access

Is superior tibiofibular joint resection necessary in extraarticular knee resection for sarcomas? A systematic review

  • Magdalena M. Gilg1Email author,
  • Christine Wibmer1,
  • Dimosthenis Andreou2,
  • Patrick Sadoghi1,
  • Georg Gosheger2 and
  • Andreas Leithner1
World Journal of Surgical Oncology201614:28

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-0783-y

Received: 28 September 2015

Accepted: 26 January 2016

Published: 3 February 2016

Abstract

Background

Sarcomas infiltrating the knee joint require extraarticular resection to achieve wide margins. Opinions differ as to whether the superior tibiofibular joint (STFJ) is part of the knee joint and should be removed in the course of extraarticular resection. Thus, we investigated the frequency of communication between the tibiofemoral joint (TFJ) and the STFJ, and the reported local recurrence rates (LRR) following extraarticular knee resection.

Methods

A systematic literature review on STFJ and TFJ communication and local recurrence rates following extraarticular knee resections was undertaken.

Results

Cadaver studies detected communication between the TFJ and STFJ in 10–64 % of the cases. Direct arthrography with physical loading verified a 100 % communication rate. Regarding the extent of extraarticular knee resection, two institutions where the STFJ was resected had a LRR of 4–8 %, while studies from another three where the STFJ was not routinely resected reported a LRR of 0–21 %.

Conclusions

Since the literature reports about a 100 % communication rate between the TFJ and the STFJ, resection of the STFJ in patients with sarcomas involving the knee joint would seem to be indicated, although it is not clear whether resection of the STFJ reduces local recurrence rates.

Keywords

SarcomaSuperior tibiofibular jointExtraarticular resection

Background

Surgical resection of the primary tumor with wide margins remains, with a few exceptions, the gold standard for local treatment of patients with soft tissue and bone sarcomas [1, 2]. The extent of resection varies depending on the extension of the tumor along anatomical structures or compartments. Only a small number of patients have sarcomas that involve the knee joint and require extraarticular knee resection [1]. This involvement can be the result of inappropriate placement of the biopsy tract, tumor extension along the cruciate ligaments, previous pathological fracture due to localization of a primary tumor within the joint, or direct infiltration of the joint [1, 35]. Surgical reconstruction techniques include modular tumor endoprotheses, muscle flaps, tendon transfers, allograft-prosthetic composites, or knee arthrodeses [3], all with varying functional outcomes [1]. Reconstruction of the extensor mechanism of the knee can be achieved either by splitting the tendons and patella during tumor resection or by removing the entire extensor apparatus followed by muscle flap or allograft reconstruction [3]. In contrast to intraarticular resection, complication rates and secondary amputation rates are reported to be higher in extraarticular knee resections [4]. Gosheger et al. [6] found a 6.2-fold higher risk of infection in extraarticular resection with distal femoral replacement than with intraarticular resection (p = 0.004).

Anatomically, the knee joint is composed of the tibiofemoral joint (TFJ) and the femoropatellar joint [7]. The superior tibiofibular joint (STFJ) is in close proximity to the knee joint. According to anatomy textbooks, it is not considered to be a part of the knee joint, since there is no connecting capsule or communication between the compartments [79]. However, several anatomical studies have reported communication between the TFJ and STFJ after histopathological dissection of the knee joint [1013]. The exact extent of sarcoma resection is of particular relevance for orthopedic tumor surgery and sarcoma management since inadequate resection margins result in high local recurrence rates [1, 14, 15].

To clarify whether the STFJ is to be removed when an extraarticular knee joint resection is performed, we conducted a systematic literature review about the frequency of communication between the TFJ and the STFJ as well as about reported local recurrence rates (LRR) following extraarticular knee resections for sarcomas.

Methods

To answer our two research questions, two separate systematic literature reviews were performed, searching MEDLINE (via PubMed) and EMBASE (via OVID) for relevant studies published up to January 2014. The search algorithm for joint communication was “communication AND tibiofibular AND (knee OR tibiofemoral)”. Of 26 studies retrieved, 11 were duplicates, four were case reports or literature reviews, and seven did not contain data about joint communication. Reviewing bibliographies and manual literature research revealed one additional study. Finally, five studies could be included in our analysis (see Fig. 1). For inclusion, communication rates between the superior tibiofibular joint and the knee joint had to be reported based either on (A) in vivo investigation or (B) histopathological dissection. Regarding local recurrence rates, the search algorithm “resection AND knee AND (extraarticular OR extra-articular)” was used. Fifty-eight studies plus ten studies identified by manual research (bibliographies and searching peer reviewed orthopedic journals for relevant articles) were identified (see Fig. 2). Five studies fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: (1) local recurrence rate data available either from the text or calculable from data included in the text unequivocally analyzed for extraarticular knee resection, (2) English language publication in a peer reviewed journal, and (3) description of the surgical technique used for extraarticular knee resection. Forty studies were excluded due to absence of local recurrence rates; 13 were case reports, meeting proceedings or literature reviews and in ten cases, the surgical technique was not described clearly or there was no separate analysis of extraarticular and intraarticular knee resection.
Fig 1.

This shows the trial flow of study identification for the search algorithm of joint communication

Fig 2.

This shows the trial flow of study identification for the search algorithm of local recurrence rates

All studies included for the analysis of communication were anatomical studies on cadavers or surgical specimens; there was also one in vivo study with arthrography and weight bearing. Regarding the level of evidence for the studies analyzing LRR, no RCT or observational study was retrieved [16]. Three retrieved studies were retrospective analyses, and two were non-randomized prospective case series. Two orthopedic surgeons independently reviewed the quality of the retrieved studies (MMG, CW). Disagreements were resolved by consensus. A third author (AL) was consulted if necessary.

Results

Reported rates of communication between the TFJ and the STFJ ranged from 10 to 100 % [1013, 17]. The studies were published between 1999 and 2013 and included a mean number of 15 patients. Four studies [1012, 17] were conducted on cadavers using histopathological dissection and/or MRI arthrography and demonstrated consistent communication between the TFJ and the STFJ in 10 to 64 % of cases (see Table 1). There was one in vivo study in which, following contrast medium injection plus weight bearing, delayed MRI or CT showed a 100 % communication rate [13] (see Table 1).
Table 1

This table shows the results of the literature review regarding communication rates between STFJ and TFJ

Author

Study title

Journal

Number of specimen

Type of specimen

Method

Frequency of communication (%)

Espregueira-Mendes J. D. et al. (2005) [12]

Anatomy of the proximal tibiofibular joint

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

20

Autopsy

Histopathological dissection

10

Bozkurt M. et al. (2003) [10]

The Proximal Tibiofibular Joint An Anatomic Study

Clin Orthop Relat Res

14

Autopsy

MRI arthrography plus histopathological dissection

64

Puffer R. C. et al. (2013) [13]

CT and MR Arthrograms Demonstrate a Consistent Communication Between the Tibiofemoral and Superior Tibiofibular Joints

Clin Anat

17

In vivo

MRI/ CT arthrography plus weight bearing

100

Dirim B. et al. (2008) [11]

Communication Between the Proximal Tibiofibular Joint and Knee via the Subpopliteal Recess: MR Arthrography with Histologic Correlation and Stratigraphic Dissection

AJR

12

Autopsy

MRI arthrography plus histopathological dissection

27.5

Hyman J. et al. (1999) [17]

Anatomy Of The Distal Knee Joint And Pyarthrosis Following External Fixation

J Orthop Trauma

12

Autopsy

MRI arthrography plus histopathological dissection

50

In our systematic review of LRR, the mean number of patients per study was 20.2 (range, 9–55 patients), with a mean follow-up of 46 months (range, 1–204 months) (see Table 2). The distal femur was affected in three out of four patients, followed by the soft tissue (11 %), the proximal tibia (7 %), and patella (2 %). Local recurrence rates following extraarticular knee resections for sarcomas varied between 0 and 21 % [35, 18, 19]. Hardes et al. [4] and Nakamura et al. [19] routinely resected the STFJ, whereas Anract et al. [18] and Zwolak et al. [5] did not. Capanna et al. [3] reported that the exact extent of resection depended on tumor localization. The analysis of subgroups showed a LRR for “no resection of STFJ” between 0 and 21 %, in contrast to the group including resection of STFJ with LRR between 4 and 8 %.
Table 2

This table shows the results of the literature review regarding local recurrence rates after extraarticular knee resection

Author

Journal

Number of patients

Location distal femur

Location proximal tibia

Knee joint

Patella

Follow-up (months)

Time

Resection of STFJ

Local recurrence rate

Details on local recurrence rate

Hardes et al. (2013) Hardes et al. [4]

Bone Joint J

55

51

3

4

1

56 (1–204)

1992–2011

Yes

n = 2 (4 %)

2 patients with high- grade osteosarcoma, not treated according to the COSS protocol

Nakamura et al. (2001) Nakamura et al. [19]

Oncol Rep

13

NA

NA

NA

NA

61 (17–45)

1987–1998

Yes

n = 1 (8 %)

NA

Zwolak et al. (2011) Zwolak et al. [5]

Clin Orthop Relat Res

11

11

0

0

0

38 (14–80)

2000–2008

No (biceps femoris tendons are kept intact)

n = 1 (9 %)

Patient with fibromyxoid sarcoma

Capanna et al. (2010) [3]

Clin Orthop Relat Res

13

4

2

6

1

54 (12–144)

1996–2009

No (depending on the location of the tumor)

n = 0–3 (0–21 %)

All recurrences were in the three patients who had marginal or contaminated excisions

Anract et al. (2001) Anract et al. [18]

Clin Orthop Relat Res

9

6

2

1

0

23 (6–30)

1992–1997

No

n = 0 (0 %)

NA

COSS cooperative osteosarcoma study group, NA not available

Discussion

To clarify whether the STFJ is to be resected in the course of extraarticular knee joint resection in sarcoma patients, we conducted a systematic literature review concerning the frequency of a communication between the TFJ and the STFJ and the reported LRR following extraarticular knee resections for bone or soft tissue sarcomas.

Our review has several limitations. First, only a small number of studies for each research question could be retrieved, and there were no level I or II studies (according to [16]). Second, the follow-up times for LRR as well as tumor entities (soft tissue and bone sarcomas) varied (range 1–204 months), minimizing the comparability of the results. Third, our study question as to whether the STFJ is part of the knee joint was not the primary question of any of the studies investigating LRR.

In contrast to previous studies, Puffer et al. [13] found 100 % communication between the STFJ and the TFJ. This was also the only in vivo study retrieved including weight bearing prior to MR arthrography. Bozkurt et al. [10] had previously shown that the communication rate is higher if histopathological dissection is augmented by MRI. It might be that due to lower intracompartimental pressure in cadavers, which lack synovial fluid, a histopathologist would not see any communication between the STFJ and the TFJ. Instillation of contrast medium in MRI studies compensates for this low intraarticular pressure, even in cadaver studies. Therefore, studies combining histopathological dissection with MRI arthrography might detect increased assess communication rates more accurately [10]. The 100 % communication rate between TFJ and STFJ in the sole in vivo study cannot be ignored, although these results would have to be reproduced in further studies before the STFJ can be considered to be part of the knee.

Again, it is difficult to compare LRR due to the variety of surgical techniques encountered in the studies we identified as relevant. Hardes et al. [4] always resected the STFJ whereas Capanna et al. [3] chose disarticulation of the proximal tibiofibular joint or excision of proximal fibula en bloc depending on the exact location of the tumor. They did not, however, report whether the STFJ was resected in their three patients with LR.

Arguably, tumors involving the STFJ might require extraarticular knee resection if the STFJ is considered to be part of the knee joint. This is a major orthopedic intervention with extensive rehabilitation time and a higher risk for complications [4]. Abdel et al. [20] reported a series of 112 patients with a malignant tumor in the STFJ for whom treatment options were either local extraarticular resection at the STFJ or amputation. There was no case of extraarticular knee resection in that study which, to the best of our knowledge, is the largest published series to date on malignant STFJ tumors [20].

Conclusions

In conclusion, we found a communication rate between the TFJ and the STFJ of up to 100 %. We feel that despite our small number of studies and low evidence, extraarticular resection without resection of the STFJ should be considered—at least—as contaminated. The influence of the choice of surgical approach on the LRR unfortunately remains unclear. Due to the low number of available studies as well as major differences in study design, current literature does not allow a conclusive interpretation.

Abbreviations

LR: 

local recurrence

LRR: 

local recurrence rate

RCT: 

randomized controlled trial

STFJ: 

superior tibiofibular joint

TFJ: 

tibiofemoral joint

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Orthopedics and Orthopedic Surgery, Medical University of Graz
(2)
Department of General Orthopedics and Tumor Orthopedics, University Hospital of Muenster

References

  1. Durr HR, Bakhshai Y, Rechl H, Tunn PU. Resection margins in bone tumors: what is adequate? Unfallchirurg. 2014;7:593–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA. A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;153:106–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Capanna R, Scoccianti G, Campanacci DA, Beltrami G, De Biase P. Surgical technique: extraarticular knee resection with prosthesis-proximal tibia-extensor apparatus allograft for tumors invading the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;10:2905–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Hardes J, Henrichs MP, Gosheger G, Gebert C, Höll S, Dieckmann R, et al. Endoprosthetic replacement after extra-articular resection of bone and soft-tissue tumours around the knee. Bone Joint J. 2013;10:1425–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Zwolak P, Kuhnel SP, Fuchs B. Extraarticular knee resection for sarcomas with preservation of the extensor mechanism: surgical technique and review of cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;1:251–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Gosheger G, Gebert C, Ahrens H, Streitbuerger A, Winkelmann W, Hardes J. Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;450:164–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Schünke M, Schulte E, Schuhmacher U. Prometheus-atlas of anatomy [in German]. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme; 2007.Google Scholar
  8. Drake RL, Vogl AW, Mitchell AWM, Tibbitts R, Richardson P. Gray’s atlas of anatomy. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2015.Google Scholar
  9. Rohen JW, Yokochi C, Lütjen-Drecoll E. Color atlas of anatomy. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams& Wilkins; 2010.Google Scholar
  10. Bozkurt M, Yilmaz E, Atlihan D, Tekdemir I, Havitçioglu H, Günal I. The proximal tibiofibular joint: an anatomic study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;406:136–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dirim B, Wangwinyuvirat M, Frank A, Cink V, Pretterklieber ML, Pastore D, et al. Communication between the proximal tibiofibular joint and knee via the subpopliteal recess: MR arthrography with histologic correlation and stratigraphic dissection. AJR. 2008;2:W44–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Espregueira-Mendes JD, da Silva MV. Anatomy of the proximal tibiofibular joint. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;3:241–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Puffer RC, Spinner RJ, Murthy NS, Amrami KK. CT and MR arthrograms demonstrate a consistent communication between the tibiofemoral and superior tibiofibular joints. Clin Anat. 2013;2:253–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Andreou D, Bielack SS, Carrle D, Kevric M, Kotz R, Winkelmann W, et al. The influence of tumor- and treatment-related factors on the development of local recurrence in osteosarcoma after adequate surgery. An analysis of 1355 patients treated on neoadjuvant cooperative osteosarcoma study group protocols. Ann Oncol. 2011;5:1228–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Trovik CS, Bauer HC, Alvegard TA, Anderson H, Blomqvist C, Berlin Ö, et al. Surgical margins, local recurrence and metastasis in soft tissue sarcomas: 559 surgically-treated patients from the Scandinavian Sarcoma Group Register. Eur J Cancer. 2000;6:710–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. The oxford 2011 Levels Of Evidence. 2011. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Accessed 21 August 2015.
  17. Hyman J, Moore T. Anatomy of the distal knee joint and pyarthrosis following external fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 1999;4:241–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Anract P, Missenard G, Jeanrot C, Dubois V, Tomeno B. Knee reconstruction with prosthesis and muscle flap after total arthrectomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;384:208–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Nakamura S, Kusuzaki K, Murata H, Takeshita H, Hirata M, Hashiguchi S, et al. Extra-articular wide tumor resection and limb reconstruction in malignant bone tumors invading the knee joint. Oncol Rep. 2001;2:365–8.Google Scholar
  20. Abdel MP, Papagelopoulos PJ, Morrey ME, Inwards CY, Wenger D, Rose PS, et al. Malignant proximal fibular tumors: surgical management of 112 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;22:e165.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Gilg et al. 2016

Advertisement