| Literature DB >> 22527147 |
D Donati1, G D'Apote, M Boschi, L Cevolani, M G Benedetti.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The implantation of a saddle prosthesis after resection of a pelvic tumor has been proposed as a simple method of reconstruction that provides good stability and reduces the surgical time, thus limits the onset of intraoperative complications. There are no studies in the literature of patients evaluated using gait analysis after being implanted with a saddle prosthesis. The present study is a retrospective case review aimed at illustrating long-term clinical and functional findings in tumor patients reconstructed with a saddle prosthesis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22527147 PMCID: PMC3349025 DOI: 10.1007/s10195-012-0189-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Traumatol ISSN: 1590-9921
Summary of the major series present in the literature
| References | No. patients | Mean age (years) | Mean FU (months) | Major nononcological complications | Functional evaluation method | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| De Meulemeester et al. [ | Case report | 61 | 60 | None | Evaluation of pain and need for aids | The patient walked without pain and without the need for any support |
| Nieder et al. [ | 76 | 32–84 | 12–74 | 15 infections; 4 malpositions of the saddle; 4 dislocations; 2 fractures; 2 cases of femoral loosening | MSTS | The various parameters were reported separately and were not combined into a total score. The authors concluded that unsatisfactory results could be related to the rigid nature of the system, but that the saddle prosthesis can be used as a salvage procedure |
| Van der Lei et al. [ | 2 cases reported | Patient 1:68 Patient 2:43 | Patient 2: 30 months | None | Evaluation of pain and need for aids | Patient 1 died 9 months after surgery. Patient 2 walked without pain and without the need for any support |
| Aboulafia et. al. [ | 17 | 59 | 33 | 3 local wound complications; 2 prosthetic dissociations; 2 dislocations; 1 secondary fracture; 1 partial sciatic nerve laceration | MSTS | 9 patients were available for functional evaluation at follow-up: 7 patients showed excellent function (17–20 points in Enneking system of functional evaluation) 2 patients showed good function (14–15 points) |
| Windhager [ | 4 | 41 | 34 | 1 femoral palsy; 1 infection | MSTS | 1 patient: good 2 patients: fair 1 patient: poor The mean MSTS score was 12.2 out of 30 |
| Renard et al. [ | 15 | 48 | 36 | 4 deep infections; 3 fractures; 5 cases of heterotopic ossification | MSTS | Satisfactory short-term functional results. The mean MSTS score at 6 months was 50 % (no further detailed score figures are reported) |
| Cottias et al. [ | 17 | 44 | 42 | 3 infections; 2 mechanical failures; 2 sacroiliac subluxations; 4 migrations of the saddle; 3 dislocations; 3 cases of nerve damage | MSTS TESS | 9 patients were available for functional evaluation at follow-up: The mean MSTS score was 57 % The mean TESS score was 58 points (range: 39–95 points) |
| Natarajan et al. [ | 6 | 37 | 30 | 1 deep infection; 1 vascular thrombosis | MSTS | 3 patients: excellent 2 patients: good 1 patient: poor (No further detailed score figures are reported) |
| Benevenia et al. [ | 20 | 61 | 20 | 2 dislocations; 1 hematoma and wound necrosis | MSTS | The mean MSTS score was 55 % (No further detailed score figures are reported) |
| Aljassir et al. [ | 27 | 53 | 45 | 10 infections; 10 cases of heterotopic ossification; 6 dislocations; 6 fractures; 5 nerve palsies | MSTS TESS | 14 patients were available for functional evaluation at follow-up: The mean MSTS 93 score was 50.8 % The mean MSTS 87 score was 15.3 % The mean TESS score was 64.4 % |
Demographic data for the 15 patients included in the series
| Patient | Gender | Age | Implant | Side | Diagnosis | Local rec./mo | Patient follow-up (months) | Follow-up of the implant (months) | Status | Postoperative leg length discrepancy (cm) | Shortening at follow-up (cm) | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | m | 39 | Primary | R | Chs | Yes/24 | 62 | 28 | dec | +2 | Not evaluable | Hind quarter amputation after 28 months for local recurrence, flail hip |
| 2 | m | 57 | Primary | L | Os | No | 60 | 2 | ned | +2 | Not evaluable | Hind quarter amputation after 2 months for deep infection |
| 3 | m | 40 | Primary | L | Fs | No | 25 | 25 | dec | +1.5 | Not evaluable | Early death from disease progression |
| 4a | m | 47 | Primary | L | Chs | No | 167 | 167 | ned | +2 | −0.5 | Saddle was in site but dislocated after gait analysis was performed |
| 5 | f | 56 | Primary | L | Chs | No | 75 | 75 | ned | +4 | Not evaluable | Deep infection occurred after 36 months; the patient refused further surgery and was treated with chronic antibiotic suppression |
| 6 | m | 61 | Secondary | R | Chs dediff | No | 124 | 108 | ned | 0 | −5 | Saddle removed after 108 months for chronic pain, flail hip |
| 7a | m | 59 | Primary | L | Chs | No | 136 | 136 | ned | 0 | −2.5 | Saddle in site |
| 8 | m | 23 | Secondary | L | Os | No | 126 | 126 | ned | +1 | −2.5 | Saddle in site |
| 9 | m | 47 | Primary | R | Chs dediff | Yes/6 | 24 | 8 | dec | +3 | Not evaluable | Hind quarter amputation after 8 months for local recurrence |
| 10 | m | 58 | Primary | L | Chs | No | 120 | 120 | ned | +1.5 | −3 | Saddle in site |
| 11 | m | 40 | Secondary | R | Gct | No | 101 | 101 | ned | 0 | −1.5 | Saddle in site |
| 12 | m | 51 | Primary | R | Os | No | 97 | 97 | ned | +1 | −3.5 | Saddle in site |
| 13 | f | 25 | Secondary | L | Os | No | 6 | 6 | dec | +1 | Not evaluable | Early death from disease progression |
| 14 | m | 79 | Primary | L | Chs | No | 9 | 3 | dec | +2 | Not evaluable | Hind quarter amputation after 3 months due to deep infection |
| 15 | f | 68 | Secondary | R | Chs | No | 78 | 38 | ned | +1.5 | −2.5 | Saddle removed after 38 months for chronic pain, flail hip |
| Range | 23–79 | 6–167 | 2–167 | 0–4 | −0.5 to −5 | |||||||
| Mean | 50 | 81 | 69 | +1.5 | −2.6 | |||||||
| SD | 15 | 50 | 56 | 1.1 | 1.3 | |||||||
Os osteosarcoma, Gct giant cell tumor, Chs chondrosarcoma, Chs dediff chondrosarcoma dedifferentiated, Fs fibrosarcoma, dec dead, ned still alive
aPatients 7 and 4 were evaluated using gait analysis 75 and 60 months after the index operation
Fig. 1a–bX-ray films of patient P.L., 68 y.o. at the time of operation.a Postoperative AP view of the pelvis; the saddle is seated through a notch in the iliac wing.b Same view 38 months afterwards. The patient reported suffering from pain during weight bearing for the previous 2 years. Note the proximal migration of the saddle in relation to the wearing of the iliac wing
Functional evaluation according to the MSTS system of the 6 patients who achieved long-term follow-up (range: 97–67; mean: 124 months)
| Patient | Age at diagnosis | Follow-up (months) | Pain | Function | Emotional acceptance | Support | Gait | Walking ability | Total score | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 47 | 167 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 17 | 56.6 |
| 7 | 59 | 136 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 56.6 |
| 8 | 23 | 126 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 56.6 |
| 10 | 58 | 120 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 18 | 60 |
| 11 | 40 | 101 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 20 | 66.6 |
| 12 | 51 | 97 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 14 | 46.6 |
| Range | 23–59 | 97–167 | 3–5 | 2–3 | 2–3 | 2–3 | – | 3–4 | 14–20 | 46.6–66.6 |
| Mean | 46.3 | 125 | 4.2 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 2 | 3.5 | 17.2 | 57.2 |
| SD | 13.4 | 25.6 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0 | 0.5 | 1.9 | 6.5 |
Patients 4 and 7 were evaluated using gait analysis
Time and distance parameters in the two patients evaluated using gait analysis
| Patient A | Patient B | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operated side | Healthy side | Operated side | Healthy side | |
| Stance (%) | 59.06 ± 5.29 | 73.7 ± 0.2 | 52.94 ± 1.39 | 71.52 ± 1.77 |
| Stride length (m) | 0.85 ± 0.09 | 0.82 ± 0.1 | 1.05 ± 0.04 | 1 ± 0.01 |
| Stride time (s) | 1.14 ± 0.03 | 1.16 ± 0.02 | 1.37 ± 0.06 | 1.35 ± 0.1 |
| Double support (s) | 33.9 ± 5.48 | 25.25 ± 1.41 | ||
| Cadence (stride/min) | 52.08 ± 1.35 | 44.18 ± 2.46 | ||
| Walking speed (cm/s) | 72.72 ± 7.11 | 75.93 ± 5.95 | ||
Fig. 2Data of patient 7 are reported (a–b), respectively hip flexion/extension (c), pelvic tilt (d), pelvic obliquity (e), hip adduction/abduction external moment (f), and pelvic rotation (g). The grey band represent the control data (mean ± 1SD, IOR Laboratory data), the black lines are relative to three gait trials of the left operated side
Fig. 3Data of patient 4 are reported (a–b), respectively hip flexion/extension (c), pelvic tilt (d), pelvic obliquity (e), hip adduction/abduction external moment (f), and pelvic rotation (g). The grey band represent the control data (mean ± 1SD, IOR Laboratory data), the black lines are relative to three gait trials of the left operated side