4.5 Article

Pelvic reconstruction following resection of malignant bone tumours using a stemmed acetabular pedestal cup

期刊

BONE & JOINT JOURNAL
卷 99B, 期 6, 页码 841-848

出版社

BRITISH EDITORIAL SOC BONE & JOINT SURGERY
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B6.BJJ-2016-0944.R1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Pelvic reconstruction after the resection of a tumour around the acetabulum is a challenging procedure due to the complex anatomy and biomechanics. Several pelvic endoprostheses have been introduced, but the rates of complication remain high. Our aim was to review the use of a stemmed acetabular pedestal cup in the management of these patients. Patients and Methods The study involved 48 patients who underwent periacetabular reconstruction using a stemmed pedestal cup (Schoellner cup; Zimmer Biomet Inc., Warsaw, Indiana) between 2000 and 2013. The indications for treatment included a primary bone tumour in 27 patients and metastatic disease in 21 patients. The mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 52 years (16 to 83). Results At a median follow-up of 6.6 years (95% confidence interval 4.6 to 8.2), local control was achieved in all patients; 19 patients had died (16 of disease). Complications occurred in 19 patients (40%), of which deep infection was the most common, affecting eight patients (17%). Seven patients (15%) had a dislocation of the hip. Aseptic loosening was found in three patients (6%). Two (4%) underwent hindquarter amputation for non-oncological reasons. The risk of revision, with death being treated as a competing event, was 28% at one year, 39% at five years and 48% at ten years post-operatively. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Score at final follow-up was 71% (27% to 93%). Conclusion This type of reconstruction is a satisfactory option for the treatment of patients with a periacetabular tumour. There remains, however, a high rate of complication, which may be reduced by future modifications of the device such as silver coating and tripolar articulation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据