Improvements in survival for patients with renal cell carcinoma have resulted in an increase in the burden of disease due to skeletal metastases, which are often solitary and resistant to radiotherapy. Surgical intervention remains a valid treatment to improve function and relieve pain, and replacement is able to achieve this and improve disease free implant survival. The aim of this study was identify prognostic factors for reconstruction survival of skeletal metastases in renal cell carcinoma and to characterise the nature of the reconstruction related complications. A retrospective analysis of all patients treated for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in three international bone tumour units between 2000 and 2014 identified 268 surgical interventions suitable for inclusion. Reconstruction survivorship was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method whilst factors affecting reconstruction survival were assessed using Cox-regression multivariate analysis. Differences in proportions were assessed using Fisher's exact test. The overall rate of complications was 17%, which were classified as structural failure (7.1%), infection (4.9%) and tumour progression (3.7%). Endoprosthetic replacement when performed as the primary procedure demonstrate the best survivorship whilst factors associated with compromised reconstruction survival included previous surgical intervention and pre operative radiotherapy, and intralesional resection margins. We conclude that endoprosthetic replacement be considered as the index surgical intervention for skeletal metastases from renal cell carcinoma in certain locations as this carries the lowest incidence of complications. Revision of previous skeletal stabilisation, especially when combined with radiotherapy carries a high risk of complication, including infection, which often necessitates amputation.

Polls results

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
100% Article relates to my practice (2/2)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

50% Yes (1/2)
50% No (1/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/2)
100% No (2/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/2)
0% Level 2 (0/2)
100% Level 3 (2/2)
0% Level 4 (0/2)
0% Level 5 (0/2)