Reconstructive surgery for locally advanced malignant tumors periacetabular region

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article presents the history of development and improvement of various methods of surgical treatment of patients with tumor lesions of the pelvic bones, as well as modern types of operations in this category of patients. Based on the analysis of literature data of domestic and foreign sources are considered possible complications and their causes, summarizes the surgical and oncologic results of the most relevant studies devoted to this subject.

About the authors

Nikolaii V. Zagorodnii

N.N. Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Email: cito@cito-priorov.ru

MD, PhD, Professor, Head of the division of endoprosthetics

Russian Federation, Moscow

Vadim Y. Karpenko

N.N. Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Email: doctor-kv@yandex.ru

MD, PhD, Head of the division of bone pathology

Russian Federation, Moscow

Anatolii L. Karasev

N.N. Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Email: karaseva81@mail.ru

oncologist

Russian Federation, Moscow

Aleksandr S. Zelyanin

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University) of the Ministry of Heathcare of the Russia Federation

Email: microsurgery@inbox.ru

MD, PhD, Professor at the department of plastic surgery

Russian Federation, Moscow

Ivan S. Lysenko

N.N. Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Author for correspondence.
Email: ilysenko761@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1434-6742

resident

Russian Federation, Moscow

Georgii D. Iluridze

N.N. Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Email: iluridze01@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7847-4861

oncologist

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Петрова Г.В. Злокачественные новообразования в России в 2014 году (заболеваемость и смертность). — М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена — филиал ФГБУ «ФМИЦ им. П.А. Герцена» Минздрава России. 2016. — С. 10-16. [Kaprin AD, Starinsky VV, Petrova GV. Incidence of malignant neoplasms in the population of Russia (incidence and mortality). Moscow: MNIOI of P.A. Herzen Federal State Budgetary Institution NMIRTs branch of the Russian Ministry of Health, 2016; 250 p. (In Russ.)]
  2. Карпенко В.Ю. Реконструктивный и реконструктивно-пластический этапы при радикальных операциях в онкологической ортопедии: Авторреф. дис. ... д-ра мед. наук. — М., 2015. [Karpenko VU. Reconstructive and reconstructive-plastic stages in radical operations in oncological orthopedics. [dissertation abstract] Moscow; 2015. (In Russ.)]
  3. Kocher T. Doctrine of Surgical Treatment. Under Edition of N.V. Sklifasovsky, 1899.
  4. Savariaud M. Un cas de disarticulation inter-ilio-abdominale. Rev Chir (Paris). 1902;26:345-350.
  5. Dawson W, Ebbell B. The Papyrus Ebers; the greatest Egyptian medical document. J Egypt Archaeol. 1938:24(2):250. https://doi.org/10.2307/3854804.
  6. Vesalius A. De Humani Corporis Fabrici. Base; 1543.
  7. Abernathy J. Surgical observations on tumors. London: Longman and Rees; 1804.
  8. Салищев Э.Г. Вылущивание всей нижней конечности вместе с ее безымянной костью. Врач. 1899;(26):757-761. [Salishchev EG. Husking the entire lower limb along with its nameless bone. Vrach. 1899;(26):757-761. (In Russ.)]
  9. Зацепин С.Т. Костная патология взрослых: Руководство для врачей. — М.: Медицина, 2001. [Zatsepin ST. Bone pathology of adults: a guide for physicians. Moscow: Medicine; 2001. (In Russ.)]
  10. Enneking W, Dunham W, Gebhardt M, et al. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res. 1993(286):241-246. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199301000-00035.
  11. Jaiswal P, Aston W, Grimer R, et al. Peri-acetabular resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumours of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg. 2008;90B(9):1222-1227. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.90b9.20758.
  12. Apffelstaedt J, Driscoll D, Spellman J, et al. Complications and outcome of external hemipelvectomy in the management of pelvic tumors. Ann Surg Oncol. 1996;3(3):304-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02306287.
  13. Prewitt T, Alexander H, Sindelar W. Hemipelvectomy for soft tissue sarcoma: clinical results in fifty-three patients. Surg Oncol. (1995);4(5):261-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-7404(10)80005-2.
  14. Asavamongkolkul A, Pimolsanti R, Waikakul S, Kiatsevee P. Periacetabular limb salvage for malignant bone tumours. J Orthopaed Surg. 2005;13(3):273-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/230949900501300310.
  15. Enneking W. Local resection of malignant lesions of the hip and pelvis. J Bone Joint Surg. 1966;48(5):991-1007. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-196648050-00019.
  16. Wedemeyer C, Kauther M. Hemipelvectomy — only a salvage therapy? Orthoped Rev. 2011;3(1):4. https://doi.org/10.4081/or.2011.e4.
  17. Harrington K. The use of hemipelvic allografts or autoclaved grafts for reconstruction after wide resections of malignant tumors of the pelvis. J Bone Joint Surg. 1992;74(3):331-341. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199274030-00003.
  18. Steel H. Partial or complete resection of the hemipelvis. An alternative to hindquarter amputation for periacetabular chondrosarcoma of the pelvis. J Bone Joint Surg. 1978;60(6):719-730. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197860060-00001.
  19. OʼConnor M, Sim F. Salvage of the limb in the treatment of malignant pelvic tumors. J Bone Joint Surg. 1989;71(4):481-494. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198971040-00002.
  20. Nagoya S, Usui M, Wada T, et al. Reconstruction and limb salvage using a free vascularised fibular graft for periacetabular malignant bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg. 2000;82(8):1121-1124. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.82b8.11004.
  21. Stephenson R, Kaufer H, Hankin F. Partial pelvic resection as an alternative to hindquarter amputation for skeletal neoplasms. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res. 1989;(242):201-211. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198905000-00021.
  22. Fuchs B, O’Connor M, Kaufman K, et al. Iliofemoral arthrodesis and pseudarthrosis: a long-term functional outcome evaluation. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res. 2002;397:29-35. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200204000-00005.
  23. Enneking WF, Menendez LR. Functional evaluation of various reconstructions after periacetahular resection of iliac lesions. In: Zimmer Orthopaedic Symposium. Limb salvage in musculoskeletal oncology. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1987. P. 117-135.
  24. Delloye C, Banse X, Brichard B, et al. Pelvic reconstruction with a structural pelvic allograft after resection of a malignant bone tumor. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007;89(3):579-587. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200703000-00015.
  25. Biau D, Thévenin F, Dumaine V, et al. Ipsilateral femoral autograft reconstruction after resection of a pelvic tumor. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;91(1):142-151. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.g.01061.
  26. Gebert C, Wessling M, Hoffmann C., et al. Hip transposition as a limb salvage procedure following the resection of periacetabular tumors. J Surg Oncol. 2010;103(3):269-275. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21820.
  27. Ozaki T, Hillmann A, Bettin D, et al. High complication rates with pelvic allografts: experience of 22 sarcoma resections. Acta Orthopaed Scand. 1996;67(4):333-338. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679609002326.
  28. Langlais F, Lambotte J, Thomazeau H. Long-term results of hemipelvis reconstruction with allografts. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res. 2001;388:178-186. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200107000-00025.
  29. Hornicek F, Gebhardt M, Tomford W, et al. Factors affecting nonunion of the allograft-host junction. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res. 2001;382:87-98. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200101000-00014.
  30. Jaiswal P, Aston W, Grimer R, et al. Peri-acetabular resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumours of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg. 2008;90-B(9);1222-1227. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.90b9.20758.
  31. Nieder E, Elson R, Engelbrecht E, et al. The saddle prosthesis for salvage of the destroyed acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg. 1990;72-B(6):1014-1022. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.72b6.2246283.
  32. Aljassir F, Beadel G, Turcotte R, et al. Outcome after pelvic sarcoma resection reconstructed with saddle prosthesis. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res. 2005;(438):36-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200509000-00009.
  33. Menendez L, Ahlmann E, Falkinstein Y, Allison D. Periacetabular reconstruction with a new endoprosthesis. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res. 2009;467(11):2831-2837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1043-z.
  34. Schoellner C, Schoellner D. Die Sockelpfannenoperation bei acetabulären Defekten nach Hüftpfannenlockerung. Ein progress report. Zeitschrift Für Orthopädie Und Ihre Grenzgebiete. 2000;138(3);215-221. (In German). https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-10139.
  35. Илуридзе Г.Д., Бухаров А.В., Карпенко В.Ю., Державин В.А. Результаты модульного эндопротезирования параацетабулярной области при опухолевом поражении вертлужной впадины и тазобедренного сустава. Сибирский онкологический журнал. 2019;19(2):90-99. [Iluridze GD, Bukharov AV, Karpenko VYu, Derzhavin VA. The results of modular endoprosthesis of periacetabular region in tumor lesions of the acetabulum and hip joint. Sibirskii onkologicheskii zhurnal. 2019;19(2):90-99. (In Russ.)] https://doi.org/10.21294/1814-4861-2020-19-2-90-99
  36. Fisher N, Patton J, Grimer R, et al. Ice-cream cone reconstruction of the pelvis: a new type of pelvic replacement. J Bone & Joint Surg. 2011;93-B(5):684-688. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.93b5.25608.
  37. Stihsen C, Hipfl C, Kubista B, et al. Review of the outcomes of complex acetabular reconstructions using a stemmed acetabular pedestal component. J Bone & Joint Surg, 2016;98-B(6):772-779. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.98b6.36469.
  38. De Paolis M, Biazzo A, Romagnoli C, et al. The use of iliac stem prosthesis for acetabular defects following resections for periacetabular tumors. Scientific World J. 2013;2013:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/717031.
  39. Johnson JT. Reconstruction of the pelvic ring following tumor resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(6):747-51.
  40. Gordon-Taylor G, Wiles P. Interinnomino-abdominal (hindquarter) amputation. Br J Surg. 1934;22:671-695.
  41. Napalkow PN. Late results from extended excision of the ilium. Arch Orthop. 1931;29:203-209.
  42. Юдин С.С. Показания и оценка больших операций на костном тазу. Новая хирургия. 1926;3(1):33-48. [Yudin SS. Pokazaniya i ocenka bol’shih operacij na kostnom tazu. Novaya hirurgiya. 1926;3(1):33-48. (In Russ.)]
  43. Pringle JH. The interpelvi-abdominal amputation. Br J Surg. 1916;4:283-296.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Roentgenogram of the pelvic bones, the reconstruction was performed using a combination of titanium rods, bone cement and hip endoprosthesis [39]

Download (98KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Reconstruction of the acetabulum using arthrodesis of the proximal femur with the ilium: a — scheme of operation; b — roentgenogram of the pelvis with ilio-femoral extramedullary metal osteosynthesis the plate and arthrodesis [19]

Download (144KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. Roentgenogram of the pelvic bones after reconstruction of the supraacetabular region with allograft with a fragment of the acetabulum, bone cement, rods and endoprosthesis [17]

Download (82KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. Roentgenogram of the pelvic bones after surgical treatment. The femur fragment was moved to the resection zone together with the hip endoprosthesis. Fixation was carried out with metal osteosynthesis [25]

Download (96KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 5. Periacetabular reconstruction using a “saddle” endoprosthesis: a — the appearance of periacetabular endoprosthesis; b — postoperative roentgenogram of the pelvic bones. The metal implant is fixed to the resected wing of the ilium [33]

Download (95KB)
Indexing metadata
7. Fig. 6. Postoperative roentgenogram of the pelvic bones: a — the tapered stem is implanted in the remaining part of the ileum after the removal of the tumor ileum; b — tapered stem is implanted into the pelvis after removal of half of the pelvis with the tumor

Download (145KB)
Indexing metadata
8. Fig. 7. Transposition of the femur with the formation of neoarthrosis; a — scheme of operation; b — postoperative roentgenogram of the pelvic bones. Femur bone with hip endoprosthesis using biosynthetic cuff fixed to sacroiliac joint

Download (139KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2020 Eco-Vector



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies