| pubmed-article:12071194 | pubmed:abstractText | AIM OF THE STUDY, METHOD: The advantages of a prophylactic care of fracture-endangered, osseous metastasis of the mammary cancer stand opposite to the perioperative risk and to conservative alternatives. As a pathologic fracture cannot surely be excluded while performing a conservative proceeding, a retrospective trial was set up to compare the results of treatment after a pathologic fracture (n = 35) with those undergoing a prophylactic attendance (n = 44). RESULTS: The intraoperative, cardio-pulmonary complications were distributed in balance totally amounting to 20.3% (n = 16). Intraoperative complications concerning surgical procedure (n = 3) exclusively occurred within the fracture group. Generally, postoperative complications arose in 20.3% (n = 16) of all cases, in which the patients belonging to the fracture group were increasingly afflicted [28.6% (n = 11/35) vs. 11.4% (n = 5/44); p < 0.02]. While there were no differences between both groups concerning the postoperative, surgery-technical complications, significantly more patients (91.8% [n = 40/44]) of the prophylactic-care group achieved a complete postoperative usability of the operated area than in the fracture-group [74.3% (n = 26/35)] (p < 0.05). The average survival time tended to be longer within the prophylactic-care group [19.3 +/- 15.6 month (prophylactic-care group) vs. 15.0 +/- 16.9 month (fracture group)]. CONCLUSIONS: The prophylactic treatment of fracture endangered, osseous metastasis of the mammary cancer leads to reduction of the general, postoperative complications compared to the patients with a pathologic fracture. Further, those patients have a better chance to recover full mobility after surgery. Considering the long survival time after the incidence of osseous metastasis at the mammary cancer a prophylactic treatment represents the method of first choice compared with the conservative treatment which persistently contains the risk of fracturing. | lld:pubmed |
