| Literature DB >> 35924067 |
Mayara Branco E Silva1, Mayara Branco E Silva1, Samilly Conceição Maia Martins1, Karen Voltan Garofo1, Carlos Eduardo Hideo Hanasilo1, Mauricio Etchebehere1.
Abstract
Background: Sacrectomy is indicated for the resection of life-threatening tumors in the sacrum area. Several studies have been conducted to investigate important aspects of sacrectomy to help reduce the morbidity and mortality of patients who underwent the procedure. This aim of this systematic review was to highlight the prognoses of patients who underwent sacrectomy for the resection of primary bone tumors by analyzing information related to the intraoperative and perioperative periods of the procedure. Methodology: Several databases were searched for relevant articles using the keywords "sacrectomy" and "survival" associated with the Boolean operators "or" and "and" ([SACRECTOMY OR SACRECTOM*] AND SURVIVAL).Entities:
Keywords: Bone tumors; Chordoma; Morbidity; Mortality; Sacrectomy; Sacrum
Year: 2022 PMID: 35924067 PMCID: PMC9340526 DOI: 10.1016/j.jbo.2022.100445
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Bone Oncol ISSN: 2212-1366 Impact factor: 4.491
Fig. 1Flowchart of the different phases of the systematic review.
Included studies on morbidity and mortality of sacrectomy.
| Sources | Article Title | PUBLICATION YEAR |
|---|---|---|
| ASAVAMONGKOLKUL ET AL. | WIDE RESECTION OF SACRAL CHORDOMA VIA | 2012 |
| ARKADER ET AL. | HIGH LONG-TERM LOCAL CONTROL WITH SACRECTOMY FOR PRIMARY HIGH-GRADE BONE SARCOMA IN CHILDREN | 2012 |
| GARCIA ET AL. | 2018 | |
| DANG ET AL. | PROGNOSIS AND RISK FACTOR INFLUENCING RECURRENCE IN SURGERY - TREATED PATIENTS WITH PRIMARY SACRAL TUMORS | 2017 |
| DUBORY ET AL. | “EN BLOC” RESECTION OF SACRAL CHORDOMAS BY COMBINED ANTERIOR AND POSTERIOR SURGICAL APPROACH: A MONOCENTRIC RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW ABOUT 29 CASES | 2014 |
| HULEN ET AL. | ONCOLOGY AND FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME FOLLOWING SACRECTOMY FOR SACRAL CHORDOMA | 2006 |
| DUBORY ET AL. | INTEREST OF LAPAROSCOPY FOR EN BLOC “RESECTION OF PRIMARY MALIGNANTE SACRAL TUMORS BY COMBINED APPROACH: COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH OPEN MEDIAN LAPAROTOMY | 2015 |
| SOLINI ET AL. | EMISACRECTOMY, EXPERIENCE IN 11 CASES | 2009 |
| VERLAAN ET AL. | COMPLICATION, SECONDARY INTERVENTIONS AND LONG-TERM MORBIDITY AFTER EN BLOC SACRECTOMY | 2015 |
| ZANG ET AL. | IS TOTAL EN BLOC SACRECTOMY USING A POSTERIOR-ONLY APPROACH FEASIBLE AND SAFE FOR PATIENTS WITH MALIGNANT SACRAL TUMORS? | 2015 |
| ZHANG ET AL. | PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF BILATERAL INTERNAL ILIAC ARTERY LIGATION AND ANTERIOR TUMOR SEPARATION THROUGH LAPAROSCOPY BEFORE POSTERIOR RESECTION OF GIANT SACRAL TUMOR | 2020 |
| ZILELI ET AL. | SURGICAL TREATMENT OF PRIMARY SACRAL TUMORS: COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SACRETOMY | 2003 |
| LI ET AL. | SURGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF EN BLOC RESECTION FOR PRIMARY MALIGANT SACRAL TUMORS | 2011 |
Histopathological profile of primary bone tumors.
| SOURCES | TOTAL | CHORDOMA | GCT | CHONDROSARCOMA | EWING’S SARCOMA | OSTEOSARCOMA | OTHERS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASAVAMONGKOLKUL ET AL. | 21 | 21 | – | – | – | – | – |
| ARKADER ET AL. | 8 | – | – | – | 6 | 2 | – |
| GARCIA ET AL. | 22 | 13 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| DANG ET AL. | 56 | 37 | 13 | – | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| DUBORY ET AL. | 29 | 29 | – | – | – | – | – |
| HULEN ET AL. | 16 | 16 | – | – | – | – | – |
| DUBORY ET AL. | 33 | 31 | – | – | 1 | – | 1 |
| SOLINI ET AL. | 11 | 9 | – | – | – | – | 2 |
| VERLAAN ET AL. | 16 | 7 | – | 5 | – | – | 4 |
| ZANG ET AL. | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| ZHANG ET AL. | 34 | 18 | 7 | 1 | – | 1 | 7 |
| ZILELI ET AL. | 11 | 7 | – | 3 | – | 1 | – |
| LI ET AL. | 117 | 76 | 6 | 12 | 8 | 6 | 9 |
Main post-operative complications.
| SOURCES | WOUND INFECTION | WOUND DEHISCENCE | DEBRIDEMENT | URINARY DISORDER | FECAL INCONTINENCE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASAVAMONGKOLKUL ET AL. | 0 | 0 | 3* | 21 | 12 |
| ARKADER ET AL. | 4 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 8 |
| GARCIA ET AL. | 8 | 0 | 8 | 22 | 15 |
| DANG ET AL. | 2 | 9 | 5 | 23 | 23 |
| DUBORY ET AL. | 18 | 7 | 18 | 29 | 29 |
| HULEN ET AL. | 8 | 12 | 12 | 15 | 15 |
| DUBORY ET AL. | 19 | 8 | NI | 12 | 16 |
| SOLINI ET AL. | 1 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 11 |
| VERLAAN ET AL. | 12 | 10 | 13 | 14 | 11 |
| ZANG ET AL. | 3 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 10 |
| ZHANG ET AL. | 7 | 3 | 10 | 22 | 11 |
| ZILELI ET AL. | 5 | 0 | NI | 11 | 11 |
| LI ET AL. | 31 | 0 | 31 | 115 | 101 |
| TOTAL |
Bleeding volume evaluated according to the surgical approaches used (mL).
| SOURCES | ANTERIOR | POSTERIOR | ANTERIOR + POSTERIOR |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASAVAMONGKOLKUL ET AL. | 0 | 905,5 | 0 |
| ARKADER ET AL. | NI | NI | 7000 |
| GARCIA ET AL. | NI | NI | 2100 |
| DANG ET AL. | 1984,62 | 2162,50 | 2633,33 |
| DUBORY ET AL. | 894,6 | 3285 | 4196.7 |
| HULEN ET AL. | NI | NI | 5000 |
| DUBORY ET AL. | 2208,3 | NI | 5385,7 |
| SOLINI ET AL. | NI | NI | 1500 |
| VERLAAN ET AL. | NI | NI | 12,000 |
| ZANG ET AL. | NI | 2595 | 0 |
| ZHANG ET AL. | NI | NI | 175,64* |
| ZILELI ET AL. | NI | NI | 4518 |
| LI ET AL. | NI | 2300 | 4200 |
| 1551,45 | 1593,257 | 4571,943 |
*anterior approach by laparoscopy; NI(not informed).
Surgical time according to the surgical approach used (H).
| SOURCES | ANTERIOR | POSTERIOR | ANTERIOR + POSTERIOR |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASAVAMONGKOLKUL ET AL. | 0 | 7.25 | 0 |
| ARKADER ET AL. | NI | NI | 19 |
| GARCIA ET AL. | NI | NI | 3.81 |
| DANG ET AL. | 2.37 | 2.99 | 5.21 |
| DUBORY ET AL. | 3.71 | 3.75 | 7.5 |
| HULEN ET AL. | NI | NI | 16 |
| DUBORY ET AL. | NI | NI | 7.62 |
| SOLINI ET AL. | NI | NI | 9 |
| VERLAAN ET AL. | NI | NI | 12.7 |
| ZANG ET AL. | NI | 4.7 | 0 |
| ZHANG ET AL. | 1.27 | 3.33 | 4.6 |
| ZILELI ET AL. | NI | NI | 13.4 |
| LI ET AL. | NI | 3.1 | 9.8 |
NI:(not informed).