Objectives: Pelvic reconstruction with conventional 3D-printed prostheses faces a critical trade-off, where achieving sufficient porosity for optimal bone ingrowth often compromises essential mechanical stability. To address this challenge, this study evaluates the clinical outcomes of 3D-printed hemipelvic prostheses incorporating re-entrant chiral structure (RCS), a novel negative Poisson's ratio design, in patients undergoing pelvic reconstruction following tumor resection.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 15 patients (eight females and seven males; mean age: 39.3 ± 11.7 years) with pelvic malignancies who underwent reconstruction using 3D-printed hemipelvic prostheses incorporating RCS between March 2018 and June 2023. The diagnoses included osteosarcoma (n = 8), Ewing's sarcoma (n = 3), chondrosarcoma (n = 2), and high-grade soft tissue sarcoma (n = 2). All patients were staged as IIB according to the Enneking system, except for one case of Ewing's sarcoma (stage III). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (four cycles) was administered to six osteosarcoma patients, and one Ewing's sarcoma patient received six cycles, while other patients proceeded directly to surgery. Patient outcomes were systematically evaluated through oncological status, functional performance (MSTS-93 score), pain assessment (VAS score), surgical parameters, complications, and radiographic analysis using Tomosynthesis Shimadzu Metal Artifact Reduction Technology (T-SMART).
Results: At the latest follow-up (44.5 ± 9.4 months), 13 patients (86.7%) remained disease-free; one patient (6.7%) experienced local recurrence requiring revision surgery, and one patient (6.7%) died of metastatic complications at 32 months post-surgery. Functional outcomes showed significant improvement, with mean MSTS-93 scores increasing from 14.5 ± 1.1 preoperatively to 25.8 ± 1.3 at final follow-up (p < 0.001). Pain control was satisfactory, with VAS scores decreasing from 5.5 ± 0.6 to 1.5 ± 0.5 (p < 0.001). The mean surgical duration was 289.3 ± 30.4 min, with an average intraoperative blood loss of 3540 ± 621.5 mL. Early complications included delayed wound healing in three cases (20%), successfully managed with wound care protocols and VAC therapy. One patient (6.7%) developed deep prosthetic infection at 14 months post-surgery, necessitating a two-stage revision procedure. No mechanical failures, aseptic loosening, or prosthesis fractures were observed during the follow-up period. Radiographic analysis demonstrated progressive bone ingrowth into the RCS porous regions in all cases, with no signs of osteolysis or implant migration in the remaining prostheses.
Conclusion: D-printed custom hemipelvic prostheses with RCS offer an effective solution for pelvic reconstruction by achieving an optimal balance between mechanical stability and biological integration, leading to promising clinical outcomes.
| [1] |
A. Kawai, J. H. Healey, P. J. Boland, P. P. Lin, A. G. Huvos, and P. A. Meyers, “Prognostic Factors for Patients With Sarcomas of the Pelvic Bones,” Cancer 82, no. 5 (1998): 851–859.
|
| [2] |
M. Campanacci and R. Capanna, “Pelvic Resections: The Rizzoli Institute Experience,” Orthopedic Clinics of North America 22, no. 1 (1991): 65–86.
|
| [3] |
W. Enneking, “Resection and Reconstruction for Primary Neoplasms Involving the Innominate Bone,” Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 60 (1978): 731–746.
|
| [4] |
A. Puri, A. Gulia, N. A. Jambhekar, and S. Laskar, “Results of Surgical Resection in Pelvic Ewing's Sarcoma,” Journal of Surgical Oncology 106, no. 4 (2012): 417–422.
|
| [5] |
H. Xu, Y. Li, Q. Zhang, L. Hao, F. Yu, and X. Niu, “Does Adding Femoral Lengthening at the Time of Rotation Hip Transposition After Periacetabular Tumor Resection Allow for Restoration of Limb Length and Function? Interim Results of a Modified Hip Transposition Procedure,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 479, no. 7 (2021): 1521–1530.
|
| [6] |
H. Wafa, R. J. Grimer, L. Jeys, A. T. Abudu, S. R. Carter, and R. M. Tillman, “The Use of Extracorporeally Irradiated Autografts in Pelvic Reconstruction Following Tumour Resection,” Bone & Joint Journal 96-b, no. 10 (2014): 1404–1410.
|
| [7] |
D. J. Biau, F. Thévenin, V. Dumaine, A. Babinet, B. Tomeno, and P. Anract, “Ipsilateral Femoral Autograft Reconstruction After Resection of a Pelvic Tumor,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 91, no. 1 (2009): 142–151.
|
| [8] |
M. Ayvaz, S. Bekmez, M. U. Mermerkaya, O. Caglar, E. Acaroglu, and A. M. Tokgozoglu, “Long-Term Results of Reconstruction With Pelvic Allografts After Wide Resection of Pelvic Sarcomas,” ScientificWorldJournal 2014 (2014): 605019.
|
| [9] |
T. Ozaki, C. Hoffmann, A. Hillmann, G. Gosheger, N. Lindner, and W. Winkelmann, “Implantation of Hemipelvic Prosthesis After Resection of Sarcoma,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 396 (2002): 197–205.
|
| [10] |
P. K. Jaiswal, W. J. Aston, R. J. Grimer, et al., “Peri-Acetabular Resection and Endoprosthetic Reconstruction for Tumours of the Acetabulum,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British Volume) 90, no. 9 (2008): 1222–1227.
|
| [11] |
K. Ogura, M. Susa, H. Morioka, 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),” Journal of Surgical Oncology 117, no. 7 (2018): 1455–1463.
|
| [12] |
W. Guo, D. Li, X. Tang, Y. Yang, and T. Ji, “Reconstruction With Modular Hemipelvic Prostheses for Periacetabular Tumor,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 461 (2007): 180–188.
|
| [13] |
M. P. Bus, A. Szafranski, S. Sellevold, et al., “LUMiC() Endoprosthetic Reconstruction After Periacetabular Tumor Resection: Short-Term Results,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 475, no. 3 (2017): 686–695.
|
| [14] |
J. A. Jansen, M. A. van de Sande, and P. D. Dijkstra, “Poor Long-Term Clinical Results of Saddle Prosthesis After Resection of Periacetabular Tumors,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 471, no. 1 (2013): 324–331.
|
| [15] |
A. Abudu, R. J. Grimer, S. R. Cannon, S. R. Carter, and R. S. Sneath, “Reconstruction of the Hemipelvis After the Excision of Malignant Tumours. Complications and Functional Outcome of Prostheses,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British Volume) 79, no. 5 (1997): 773–779.
|
| [16] |
H. Liang, T. Ji, Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, and W. Guo, “Reconstruction With 3D-Printed Pelvic Endoprostheses After Resection of a Pelvic Tumour,” Bone & Joint Journal 99-b, no. 2 (2017): 267–275.
|
| [17] |
X. Liu, Y. Liu, W. Lu, et al., “Combined Application of Modified Three-Dimensional Printed Anatomic Templates and Customized Cutting Blocks in Pelvic Reconstruction After Pelvic Tumor Resection,” Journal of Arthroplasty 34, no. 2 (2019): 338–345.
|
| [18] |
B. Wang, Y. Hao, F. Pu, W. Jiang, and Z. Shao, “Computer-Aided Designed, Three Dimensional-Printed Hemipelvic Prosthesis for Peri-Acetabular Malignant Bone Tumour,” International Orthopaedics 42, no. 3 (2018): 687–694.
|
| [19] |
R. Wang, S. Ni, L. Ma, and M. Li, “Porous Construction and Surface Modification of Titanium-Based Materials for Osteogenesis: A Review,” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 10 (2022): 973297.
|
| [20] |
Y. Zhang, N. Sun, M. Zhu, et al., “The Contribution of Pore Size and Porosity of 3D Printed Porous Titanium Scaffolds to Osteogenesis,” Biomaterials Advances 133 (2022): 112651.
|
| [21] |
W. M. Peng, Y. F. Liu, X. F. Jiang, et al., “Bionic Mechanical Design and 3D Printing of Novel Porous Ti6Al4V Implants for Biomedical Applications,” Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B 20, no. 8 (2019): 647–659.
|
| [22] |
C. Zhang, L. Zhang, L. Liu, et al., “Mechanical Behavior of a Titanium Alloy Scaffold Mimicking Trabecular Structure,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 15, no. 1 (2020): 40.
|
| [23] |
M. Kapnisi, C. Mansfield, C. Marijon, et al., “Auxetic Cardiac Patches With Tunable Mechanical and Conductive Properties Toward Treating Myocardial Infarction,” Advanced Functional Materials 28, no. 21 (2018): 1800618.
|
| [24] |
Y. Xu, W. Shi, and M. Liu, “Dual-Gradient Structure of Natural Cellular Materials for the Design of Auxetic Metamaterials,” Science China Materials 66, no. 8 (2023): 3022–3025.
|
| [25] |
H. M. Kolken, S. Janbaz, S. M. Leeflang, K. Lietaert, H. H. Weinans, and A. A. Zadpoor, “Rationally Designed Meta-Implants: A Combination of Auxetic and Conventional Meta-Biomaterials,” Materials Horizons 5, no. 1 (2018): 28–35.
|
| [26] |
L. Wang, H. Huang, H. Yuan, et al., “In Vitro Fatigue Behavior and in Vivo Osseointegration of the Auxetic Porous Bone Screw,” Acta Biomaterialia 170 (2023): 185–201.
|
| [27] |
Y. Y. Kim, W. S. Choi, and K. W. Rhyu, “Assessment of Pedicle Screw Pullout Strength Based on Various Screw Designs and Bone Densities-An Ex Vivo Biomechanical Study,” Spine Journal 12, no. 2 (2012): 164–168.
|
| [28] |
J. H. Seo, C. I. Ju, S. W. Kim, J. K. Kim, and H. Shin, “Clinical Efficacy of Bone Cement Augmented Screw Fixation for the Severe Osteoporotic Spine,” Korean Journal of Spine 9, no. 2 (2012): 79–84.
|
| [29] |
S. Inceoglu, L. Ferrara, and R. F. McLain, “Pedicle Screw Fixation Strength: Pullout Versus Insertional Torque,” Spine Journal 4, no. 5 (2004): 513–518.
|
| [30] |
X. Li, Z. Lu, Z. Yang, and C. Yang, “Directions Dependence of the Elastic Properties of a 3D Augmented Re-Entrant Cellular Structure,” Materials and Design 134 (2017): 151–162.
|
| [31] |
R. Lakes, “Foam Structures With a Negative Poisson's Ratio,” Science (New York, N.Y.) 235, no. 4792 (1987): 1038–1040.
|
| [32] |
Y. Prawoto, “Seeing Auxetic Materials From the Mechanics Point of View: A Structural Review on the Negative Poisson's Ratio,” Computational Materials Science 58 (2012): 140–153.
|
| [33] |
X. Hu, Y. Wang, J. Li, et al., “Three-Dimensional Multimodality Image Reconstruction as Teaching Tool for Case-Based Learning Among Medical Postgraduates: A Focus on Primary Pelvic Bone Tumour Education,” BMC Medical Education 23, no. 1 (2023): 944.
|
| [34] |
Y. Yuan, C. Liu, J. Qian, J. Wang, and Y. Zhang, “Size-Mediated Cytotoxicity and Apoptosis of Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles in Human Hepatoma HepG2 Cells,” Biomaterials 31, no. 4 (2010): 730–740.
|
| [35] |
I. W. Bauer, S. P. Li, Y. C. Han, L. Yuan, and M. Z. Yin, “Internalization of Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles in Liver Cancer Cells,” Journal of Materials Science. Materials in Medicine 19, no. 3 (2008): 1091–1095.
|
| [36] |
S. Li, S. Hu, Y. Yan, and Y. Wang, “Investigation of HAP Nanoparticles Absorbed by Hepatoma Cells in Vitro,” Journal of Wuhan University of Technology-Mater Science Edition 22, no. 2 (2007): 288–290.
|
| [37] |
F. Qing, Z. Wang, Y. Hong, et al., “Selective Effects of Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles on Osteosarcoma Cells and Osteoblasts,” Journal of Materials Science. Materials in Medicine 23, no. 9 (2012): 2245–2251.
|
| [38] |
M. H. Chen, N. Hanagata, T. Ikoma, et al., “Hafnium-Doped Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles With Ionizing Radiation for Lung Cancer Treatment,” Acta Biomaterialia 37 (2016): 165–173.
|
| [39] |
Y. Li, W. Zhang, J. Niu, and Y. Chen, “Mechanism of Photogenerated Reactive Oxygen Species and Correlation With the Antibacterial Properties of Engineered Metal-Oxide Nanoparticles,” ACS Nano 6, no. 6 (2012): 5164–5173.
|
| [40] |
W. F. Enneking, W. Dunham, M. C. Gebhardt, M. Malawar, and D. J. Pritchard, “A System for the Functional Evaluation of Reconstructive Procedures After Surgical Treatment of Tumors of the Musculoskeletal System,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 286 (1993): 241–246.
|
| [41] |
X. Hu, M. Lu, Y. Wang, et al., “Advanced Pelvic Girdle Reconstruction With Three Dimensional-Printed Custom Hemipelvic Endoprostheses Following Pelvic Tumour Resection,” International Orthopaedics 48, no. 8 (2024): 2217–2231.
|
| [42] |
X. Hu, M. Lu, Y. Zhang, et al., “Pelvic-Girdle Reconstruction With Three-Dimensional-Printed Endoprostheses After Limb-Salvage Surgery for Pelvic Sarcomas: Current Landscape,” British Journal of Surgery 110, no. 12 (2023): 1712–1722.
|
| [43] |
B. Ashfaq, G. Hussain, M. B. Khan, and M. Ilyas, “Mechanical Characterization of Innovative 3D-Printed Auxetic (NPR) Structures: Role of Considering Anisotropy on Accuracy of Numerical Modeling,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 130, no. 9 (2024): 4845–4859.
|
| [44] |
R. Valle, G. Pincheira, V. Tuninetti, C. Garrido, C. Treviño, and J. Morales, “Evaluation of the Orthotropic Behavior in an Auxetic Structure Based on a Novel Design Parameter of a Square Cell With re-Entrant Struts,” Polymers 14, no. 20 (2022): 4325.
|
| [45] |
M. R. Dias, J. M. Guedes, C. L. Flanagan, S. J. Hollister, and P. R. Fernandes, “Optimization of Scaffold Design for Bone Tissue Engineering: A Computational and Experimental Study,” Medical Engineering & Physics 36, no. 4 (2014): 448–457.
|
| [46] |
A. A. Zadpoor, “Mechanics of Biological Tissues and Biomaterials: Current Trends,” Materials 8, no. 7 (2015): 4505–4511.
|
| [47] |
R. K. Fuchs, S. J. Warden, and C. H. Turner, “2—Bone Anatomy, Physiology and Adaptation to Mechanical Loading,” in Bone Repair Biomaterials, ed. J. A. Planell, S. M. Best, D. Lacroix, and A. Merolli (Woodhead Publishing, 2009), 25–68.
|
| [48] |
G. Rovere, A. Perna, L. Meccariello, et al., “Epidemiology and Aetiology of Male and Female Sexual Dysfunctions Related to Pelvic Ring Injuries: A Systematic Review,” International Orthopaedics 45, no. 10 (2021): 2687–2697.
|
| [49] |
V. F. Muzii, G. Rollo, G. Rocca, et al., “Radiographic and Functional Outcome of Complex Acetabular Fractures: Implications of Open Reduction in Spinopelvic Balance, Gait and Quality of Life,” Medicinski Glasnik: Official Publication of the Medical Association of Zenica-Doboj Canton, Bosnia and Herzegovina 18, no. 1 (2021): 273–279.
|
| [50] |
T. Ji, Y. Yang, X. Tang, et al., “3D-Printed Modular Hemipelvic Endoprosthetic Reconstruction Following Periacetabular Tumor Resection: Early Results of 80 Consecutive Cases,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume 102, no. 17 (2020): 1530–1541.
|
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PDF
