Page 77 - Reconstructive Techniques in Musculoskeletal Tumor Surgery

Speci cally, we asked: (1) What proportion of patients experience mechanical complications and what are the associated risk factors of periacetabular reconstruction with the LUMiC after pelvic tumor resection? (2) What proportion of patients experience non-mechanical complications and what are the associated risk factors of periacetabular reconstruction with the LUMiC after pelvic tumor resection? (3) What is the cumulative incidence of implant failure at two and ve years and what are the mechanisms of reconstruction failure? (4) What is the functional outcome as assessed by Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score at nal follow-up?
Materials and Methods
Longitudinally maintained institutional registries were reviewed in eight centers of orthopaedic oncology to identify patients who underwent reconstruction with the LUMiC after periacetabular hemipelvectomy for a pelvic tumor. We reviewed every patient in whom this implant was used for this indication from July 2008 to June 2014 with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The LUMiC was the preferred technique for reconstruction of pelvic defects after en bloc resection of a periacetabular tumor in all centers during the period under study. Alternative treatments included hip transposition and saddle or custom-made prostheses in some centers; these were generally used when the medial ilium was involved in the tumorous process or if the LUMiC was not yet available in the speci c country at that time. Our general indications for using the LUMiC were reconstruction of periacetabular defects after pelvic tumor resections in which the medial ilium (adjacent to the sacroiliac joint, part 1A according to a modi ed version of Enneking’s classi cation9) was preserved, allowing the stem to be properly inserted (the conical stem is designed to seat between the anterior and posterior cortices of the medial part of the iliac wing, adjacent to the sacroiliac joint [ gure 2]).
4
LUMiC
75