Literature DB >> 12838435

Tumors of the pelvis: complications after reconstruction.

A Hillmann1, C Hoffmann, G Gosheger, R Rödl, W Winkelmann, T Ozaki.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Complications after pelvic sarcoma surgery are frequent; however, the reports on complications are limited. Results of the authors' experience with 110 primary pelvic tumor resections and methods to achieve low complication rates for pelvic reconstruction are reported.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1982 to 1996, 110 patients with pelvic sarcoma (42 Ewing sarcomas, 40 chondrosarcomas, 21 osteosarcomas, and 7 other malignant tumors) underwent surgery. Sixteen patients underwent implantation of a hemipelvic megaprosthesis, 13 patients had implantation of an allograft for sacroiliac arthrodesis, 12 patients had implantation of an autograft for sacroiliac arthrodesis, and 17 patients underwent hip transposition. There were 9 hindquarter amputations, 6 implantations of allograft and total hip endoprosthesis, 1 implantation of prosthesis with autograft, and 1 implantation of allograft and autograft. No skeletal reconstruction was done in 35 patients.
RESULTS: Postoperative function was as follows: 37% in patients with prosthesis, 60% in allograft, 66% in autograft, 66% in hip transposition, 37% in amputation, and 79% without reconstruction. In total, 10/16 patients with prosthetic replacement, 9/13 with allograft implantation, 4/12 with autograft implantation, 7/17 with hip transposition, 5/9 with amputation, 6/6 with prosthesis and allograft, and 12/35 without skeletal reconstruction had complications. Frequent complications depending on the reconstruction were infection in 6/10 prostheses and in 5/13 allografts, leg length discrepancy in 2/12 autografts and 4/17 hip transpositions, hematoma in 3/9 amputations, and infection (6) and skin problems (5) in 6 prostheses with allograft.
CONCLUSION: Because of the small number of complications and good function, autograft implantation after iliac resection and hip transposition after acetabular resection are advisable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12838435     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-003-0543-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  41 in total

1.  Flail hip joint following periacetabular tumor resection of the pelvis using upper surface of the femoral neck as a saddle: A case report.

Authors:  Masatsugu Takami; Makoto Ieguchi; Masanari Aono; Manabu Hoshi; Jun Takada; Naoto Oebisu; Tadashi Iwai
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 2.967

2.  Periacetabular reconstruction with a new endoprosthesis.

Authors:  Lawrence R Menendez; Elke R Ahlmann; Yuri Falkinstein; Daniel C Allison
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  [Partial pelvic resection (internal hemipelvectomy) and endoprosthetic replacement in periacetabular tumors].

Authors:  M Rudert; B M Holzapfel; H Pilge; H Rechl; R Gradinger
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.154

4.  Surgical management of pelvic bone sarcoma with internal hemipelvectomy: Oncologic and Functional outcomes.

Authors:  Abhijeet Ashok Salunke; Jaymin Shah; Vikas Warikoo; Amit Chakraborty; Harshwardhan Sahijwani; Mohit Sharma; Rohit Jha; Avdhoot Dhange; Subodh Pathak; Jyotindra Pandit; Manish Pruthi; Shashank Pandya; Abhishek Jain
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-05-06

5.  Acetabular Reconstruction With Femoral Head Autograft After Intraarticular Resection of Periacetabular Tumors is Durable at Short-term Followup.

Authors:  Xiaodong Tang; Wei Guo; Rongli Yang; Taiqiang Yan; Shun Tang; Dasen Li
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Constrained total hip megaprosthesis for primary periacetabular tumors.

Authors:  Takafumi Ueda; Shigeki Kakunaga; Satoshi Takenaka; Nobuhito Araki; Hideki Yoshikawa
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  What are the functional results and complications from allograft reconstruction after partial hemipelvectomy of the pubis?

Authors:  S Mohammed Karim; Matthew W Colman; Santiago A Lozano-Calderón; Kevin A Raskin; Joseph H Schwab; Francis J Hornicek
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Intralesional excision versus wide resection for giant cell tumor involving the acetabulum: which is better?

Authors:  Wei Guo; Xin Sun; Jie Zang; Huayi Qu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  [Bone defect reconstruction in bone sarcoma surgery: tumour endoprosthesis versus biological reconstruction].

Authors:  A Streitbürger; G Gosheger; R Dieckmann; M Nottrott; H Ahrens; J Hardes
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.000

10.  Is It Possible and Safe to Perform Acetabular-preserving Resections for Malignant Neoplasms of the Periacetabular Region?

Authors:  Ying-Lee Lam; Raymond Yau; Kenneth W Y Ho; Ka-Lok Mak; Sin-Tak Fong; Timothy Y C So
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.