Short-to-Mid-Term Outcomes of Ipsilateral Femoral Head Autograft Combined with Uncemented Total Hip Replacement for Partial Periacetabular Defects Following Tumor Resection

Abstract

Objective: Periacetabular tumors, especially in young to middle-aged patients with invasive benign tumors or low-grade malignant tumors involving type II or II + III, present significant challenges due to their rarity and the complexity of the anatomical and biomechanical structures involved. The primary difficulty lies in balancing the need to avoid unfavorable oncological outcomes while maintaining postoperative hip joint function during surgical resection. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and reliability of a surgical method involving partial weight-bearing acetabular preservation combined with the use of an uncontaminated femoral head autograft to reconstruct the segmental bone defect after intra-articular resection of the tumorous joint, providing a solution that ensures both oncological safety and functional preservation of the hip joint in these patients.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study with a follow-up period of at least 36 months. From January 2010 to October 2020, we reviewed 20 cases of patients under 60 year of age with periacetabular invasive benign tumors or primary low-grade malignant tumors. All patients underwent reconstruction of the tumorous joint using autologous femoral head grafts. Data collected included patient age, gender, tumor type, preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores, Harris Hip Scores (HHS), patient survival rates, postoperative tumor recurrence, and surgical complications. To analyze the data, we utilized various statistical methods, including descriptive statistics to summarize patient demographics and clinical characteristics, and paired sample t-tests to compare preoperative and postoperative scores.

Results: The study included 20 patients, and a total median follow-up was 83 months. Their pathologic diagnoses comprised 13 giant cell tumors (GCTs), 5 chondrosarcomas, one chondroblastoma, and 1 leiomyosarcoma. Postoperatively, the median differences in vertical and horizontal center of rotation (COR) were 3.8 and 4.0 mm. Median limb length discrepancy (LLD) postoperatively was 5.7 mm (range, 2.3–17.8 mm). Two patients (10%) experienced delayed wound healing, resolved with antibiotics and early surgical debridement. One patient experienced dislocation 3 months postoperatively, which was promptly addressed under general anesthesia without further dislocation.

Conclusion: Through multiplanar osteotomy with limited margins, femoral head autograft, and uncemented total hip replacement for pelvic segmental bone defects in selected patients in type II or II + III appears to be an encouraging limb-sparing surgery worthy of consideration for carefully selected patients.

Keywords

Acetabulum Reconstruction / Autologous Femoral Head / Periacetabular Tumors / Total Hip Arthroplasty

References

[1] Lam YL, Yau R, Ho KW, Mak KL, Fong ST, So TY. Is it possible and safe to perform acetabular-preserving resections for malignant neoplasms of the periacetabular region? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(3): 656–665.

[2] Kawaguchi N, Ahmed AR, Matsumoto S, Manabe J, Matsushita Y. The concept of curative margin in surgery for bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 419: 165–172.

[3] Sun W, Zan P, Ma X, Hua Y, Shen J, Cai Z. Surgical resection and reconstructive techniques using autologous femoral head bone-grafting in treating partial acetabular defects arising from primary pelvic malignant tumors. BMC Cancer. 2019; 19(1): 969.

[4] Streitbürger A, Hardes J, Nottrott M, Guder WK. Reconstruction survival of segmental megaendoprostheses: a retrospective analysis of 28 patients treated for intercalary bone defects after musculoskeletal tumor resections. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022; 142(1): 41–56.

[5] Jeon DG, Kim MS, Cho WH, Song WS, Lee SY. Pasteurized autograft for intercalary reconstruction: an alternative to allograft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 456: 203–210.

[6] Brown TS, Salib CG, Rose PS, Sim FH, Lewallen DG, Abdel MP. Reconstruction of the hip after resection of periacetabular oncological lesions: a systematic review. Bone Joint J. 2018; 100-b(1 Suppl): 22–30.

[7] Jansen JA, van de Sande MA, Dijkstra PD. Poor long-term clinical results of saddle prosthesis after resection of periacetabular tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(1): 324–331.

[8] Barrientos-Ruiz I, Ortiz-Cruz EJ, Peleteiro-Pensado M. Reconstruction after hemipelvectomy with the ice-cream cone prosthesis: what are the short-term clinical results? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(3): 735–741.

[9] Zan P, Ma X, Wang H, Cai Z, Shen J, Sun W. Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of tantalum components in the management of acetabular reconstruction following periacetabular oncologic resection in primary malignancies. Eur J Med Res. 2022; 27(1): 151.

[10] Hu X, Lu M, Zhang Y, Li Z, Wang J, Wang Y, et al. Pelvic-girdle reconstruction with three-dimensional-printed endoprostheses after limb-salvage surgery for pelvic sarcomas: current landscape. Br J Surg. 2023; 110(12): 1712–1722.

[11] Wang J, Min L, Lu M, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Luo Y, et al. What are the complications of three-dimensionally printed, custom-made, integrative Hemipelvic endoprostheses in patients with primary malignancies involving the acetabulum, and what is the function of these patients? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020; 478(11): 2487–2501.

[12] Liang H, Ji T, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Guo W. Reconstruction with 3D-printed pelvic endoprostheses after resection of a pelvic tumour. Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-b(2): 267–275.

[13] Jaiswal PK, Aston WJ, Grimer RJ, Abudu A, Carter S, Blunn G, et al. Peri-acetabular resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumours of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(9): 1222–1227.

[14] Ji T, Yang Y, Tang X, Liang H, Yan T, Yang R, et al. 3D-printed modular Hemipelvic Endoprosthetic reconstruction following periacetabular tumor resection: early results of 80 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020; 102(17): 1530–1541.

[15] Ogura K, Susa M, Morioka H, Matsumine A, Ishii T, Hamada K, et al. Reconstruction using a constrained-type hip tumor prosthesis after resection of malignant periacetabular tumors: a study by the Japanese musculoskeletal oncology group (JMOG). J Surg Oncol. 2018; 117(7): 1455–1463.

[16] Bus MP, Szafranski A, Sellevold S, Goryn T, Jutte PC, Bramer JA, et al. LUMiC(^®) Endoprosthetic reconstruction after periacetabular tumor resection: short-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(3): 686–695.

[17] Kekeç AF, Güngör B. Mid-term outcomes of hemipelvic allograft reconstruction after pelvic bone tumor resections. Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2022; 33(1): 117–131.

[18] Ippolito J, Thomson J, Beebe K, Patterson F, Benevenia J. Outcomes following periacetabular tumor resection: a 25-year institutional experience. J Surg Oncol. 2020; 122(5): 949–954.

[19] Ayvaz M, Bekmez S, Mermerkaya MU, Caglar O, Acaroglu E, Tokgozoglu AM. Long-term results of reconstruction with pelvic allografts after wide resection of pelvic sarcomas. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014; 2014: 605019.

[20] Fujiwara T, Ogura K, Christ A, Bartelstein M, Kenan S, Fabbri N, et al. Periacetabular reconstruction following limb-salvage surgery for pelvic sarcomas. J Bone Oncol. 2021; 31: 100396.

[21] Guo X, Li X, Liu T, Shuai C, Zhang Q. Pasteurized autograft reconstruction after resection of periacetabular malignant bone tumours. World J Surg Oncol. 2017; 15(1): 13.

[22] Gundavda MK, Bary A, Agarwal MG. Do irradiated osteo-articular recycled tumor autografts still hold promise for biological joint reconstruction? Our experience with acetabular and proximal ulna ECRT. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021; 16: 149–153.

[23] Enneking WF, Dunham WK. Resection and reconstruction for primary neoplasms involving the innominate bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978; 60(6): 731–746.

[24] Puget J, Utheza G. Reconstruction of the iliac bone using the homolateral femur after resection for pelvic tumor. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1986; 72(2): 151–155.

[25] Schmidt AH. Autologous bone graft: is it still the gold standard? Injury. 2021; 52(Suppl 2): S18–s22.

[26] Khan SN, Cammisa FP Jr, Sandhu HS, Diwan AD, Girardi FP, Lane JM. The biology of bone grafting. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005; 13(1): 77–86.

[27] Lin N, Li H, Li W, Huang X, Liu M, Yan X, et al. Upshifting the ipsilateral proximal femur may provide satisfactory reconstruction of periacetabular pelvic bone defects after tumor resection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018; 476(9): 1762–1770.

[28] Hu X, Lu M, Wang J, Li L, Min L, Tu C. Combined and modified Gibson and ilioinguinal approaches in type II + III internal hemipelvectomy for periacetabular tumors. Front Oncol. 2022; 12: 934812.

[29] Senchenkov A, Moran SL, Petty PM, Knoetgen J 3rd, Clay RP, Bite U, et al. Predictors of complications and outcomes of external hemipelvectomy wounds: account of 160 consecutive cases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15(1): 355–363.

[30] Gebert C, Wessling M, Hoffmann C, Roedl R, Winkelmann W, Gosheger G, et al. Hip transposition as a limb salvage procedure following the resection of periacetabular tumors. J Surg Oncol. 2011; 103(3): 269–275.

[31] Zhang L, Iwata S, Saito M, Nakagawa M, Tsukushi S, Yoshida S, et al. Hip transposition can provide early walking function after periacetabular tumor resection: a multicenter study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023; 481(12): 2406–2416.

[32] Hu YC, Huang HC, Lun DX, Wang H. Resection hip arthroplasty as a feasible surgical procedure for periacetabular tumors of the pelvis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012; 38(8): 692–699.

[33] Kaiser D, Ried E, Zingg PO, Rahm S. Acetabular reconstruction with femoral head autograft in primary total hip arthroplasty through a direct anterior approach is a reliable option for patients with secondary osteoarthritis due to developmental dysplasia of the hip. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022; 142(10): 2957–2964.

[34] Hamrayev AJ, Buyukkuscu MO, Misir A, Gursu SS. The fate of femoral head autograft in acetabular reconstruction in dysplastic hips at midterm. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2020; 28(3): 2309499020957109.

[35] Shinar AA, Harris WH. Bulk structural autogenous grafts and allografts for reconstruction of the acetabulum in total hip arthroplasty. Sixteen-year-average follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997; 79(2): 159–168.

[36] Zheng K, Wang Z, Wu SJ, Ye ZM, Xu SF, Xu M, et al. Giant cell tumor of the pelvis: a systematic review. Orthop Surg. 2015; 7(2): 102–107.

[37] Guo W, Sun X, Zang J, Qu H. Intralesional excision versus wide resection for giant cell tumor involving the acetabulum: which is better? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470(4): 1213–1220.

[38] Stevenson JD, Laitinen MK, Parry MC, Sumathi V, Grimer RJ, Jeys LM. The role of surgical margins in chondrosarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018; 44(9): 1412–1418.

[39] Bindiganavile S, Han I, Yun JY, Kim HS. Long-term outcome of chondrosarcoma: a single institutional experience. Cancer Res Treat. 2015; 47(4): 897–903.

[40] Chen W, DiFrancesco LM. Chondroblastoma: an update. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017; 141(6): 867–871.

[41] Gerbers JG, Jutte PC. Hip-sparing approach using computer navigation in periacetabular chondrosarcoma. Comput Aided Surg. 2013; 18(1–2): 27–32.

[42] Li Z, Lu M, Min L, Luo Y, Tu C. Treatment of pelvic giant cell tumor by wide resection with patient-specific bone-cutting guide and reconstruction with 3D-printed personalized implant. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023; 18(1): 648.

[43] Fang X, Yu Z, Xiong Y, Yuan F, Liu H, Wu F, et al. Improved virtual surgical planning with 3D-multimodality image for malignant giant pelvic tumors. Cancer Manag Res. 2018; 10: 6769–6777.

[44] Abdel MP, von Roth P, Perry KI, Rose PS, Lewallen DG, Sim FH. Early results of acetabular reconstruction after wide periacetabular oncologic resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99(3): e9.

[45] Luo Y, Duan H, Liu W, Min L, Shi R, Zhang W, et al. Clinical evaluation for lower abdominal aorta balloon occluding in the pelvic and sacral tumor resection. J Surg Oncol. 2013; 108(3): 148–151.

[46] Campanacci D, Chacon S, Mondanelli N, Beltrami G, Scoccianti G, Caff G, et al. Pelvic massive allograft reconstruction after bone tumour resection. Int Orthop. 2012; 36(12): 2529–2536.

[47] Hillmann A, Hoffmann C, Gosheger G, Rödl R, Winkelmann W, Ozaki T. Tumors of the pelvis: complications after reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003; 123(7): 340–344.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.