Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Does Patellar Tendon Repair With Gastrocnemius Flap Augmentation Effectively Restore Active Extension After Proximal Tibial Sarcoma Resection?

Cipriano, Cara A. MD, MSc; Dalton, Jonathan BA; McDonald, Douglas J. MD

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®: March 2019 - Volume 477 - Issue 3 - p 584–593
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000564

Background A rotational gastrocnemius flap is often used for soft tissue reconstruction after proximal tibia sarcoma resection. However, little is known about the frequency and severity of complications and the recovery of extensor function after this procedure.

Questions/purposes After gastrocnemius flap reconstruction with split-thickness skin grafting (STSG) to augment the extensor mechanism repair after proximal tibial resection for sarcoma, we asked: (1) What ROM was achieved (including extensor lag and active flexion)? (2) How often did complications and reoperations occur and what caused them?

Methods Between 1991 and 2014, one surgeon treated 26 patients with proximal tibial resections for primary bone sarcoma. Of these, 18 were reconstructed with the preferred approach: resecting the proximal tibia leaving the patellar tendon in continuity with the tibialis anterior fascia whenever possible (10), cementing a stemmed proximal tibial endoprosthesis, suturing the patellar tendon to the implant, rotating a medial (16) or lateral (two) gastrocnemius flap over the tendon and prosthesis to augment the repair, and covering the flap with STSG. Alternative methods were used when this was technically impossible (one patient), when there was no advantage to secondary soft tissue coverage (two patients), or when the limb could not be salvaged (five patients). Of the 18 treated with gastrocnemius flaps, two were lost to followup or died of disease before the 24-month minimum and excluded; the median followup of the remaining 16 was 6 years (mean, 9.9 years; range, 2.3-21.7 years); three patients died of disease, and four have not been seen within the last 5 years. We reviewed medical records for passive and active extension, maximum flexion achieved, and complications requiring reoperation. ROM in patients with successful limb salvage was graded as excellent (flexion ≥ 110° and no lag), good (flexion 90°-110° and lag ≤ 10°), fair (one function limited: either flexion < 90° or lag > 10°), or poor (both functions limited: flexion < 90° and lag > 10°).

Results At latest followup, three patients had undergone amputation for deep infection. Of those remaining, median active flexion was 110° (mean, 104°; range, 60°-120°) and extensor lag was 0° (mean, 4°; range, 0°-10°). ROM was excellent in nine patients, good in three, fair in one, and poor in none. We observed 18 complications requiring reoperation in 12 patients, including deep infection (four), patellar tendon avulsion/attenuation (three), and flap necrosis (one). Survivorship free from revision or loss of the gastrocnemius flap was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6-95.8) at 2, 5, and 10 years. Survivorship free from reoperation for any cause was 74% (95% CI, 52.0-96.0) at 2 years, 52% (95% CI, 25.8-77.8) at 5 years, and 35% (95% CI, 0-61.5) at 10 years using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

Conclusions Although most patients regained functional ROM including active extension, 12 required reoperation for complications including infection and early extensor mechanism failures. Despite the observed risks, we believe the gastrocnemius flap with STSG should be considered a suitable approach to provide active extension and soft tissue coverage given the paucity of good surgical options for extensor mechanism reconstruction in this challenging clinical setting.

Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study.

C. A. Cipriano, D. J. McDonald , Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA

J. Dalton , School of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA

C. Cipriano, Musculoskeletal Oncology Service, Washington University Orthopedics, 425 S Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8233, St Louis, MO 63110, USA, email:

Each author certifies that neither he or she, nor any member of his or her immediate family, has funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

This work was performed at Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA.

Received April 18, 2018

Accepted October 16, 2018

© 2019 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins LWW
You currently do not have access to this article

To access this article:

Note: If your society membership provides full-access, you may need to login on your society website