Temporary External External Fixation Can Stabilize Hip Transposition Arthroplasty After Resection of Malignant Periacetabular Bone Tumors

Background: The choice of reconstructive procedure to restore limb function is challenging after internal hemipelvectomy. Hip transposition arthroplasty, also known as resection arthroplasty, removes a malignant or aggressive tumor of the pelvis and acetabulum after which the remaining femoral head is moved proximally to the lateral surface side of the sacrum or the underside of the resected ilium after internal hemipelvectomy. It may provide reasonable functional results and have some advantages such as lowering the risk of an infected implant compared with other reconstructions because no foreign implants are used. Hip transposition is generally managed with prolonged bed rest or immobilization postoperatively to stabilize the soft tissue surrounding the remaining femur. Because enabling patients to be mobile while the soft tissues heal might be advantageous, we reviewed our experience with an external fixation for this procedure. Questions/purposes: (1) Does temporary external fixation facilitate postoperative physiotherapy in patients who undergo hip transposition arthroplasty? (2) What functional Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores were achieved at short term in a small series of patients treated with hip transposition and temporary external fixation? (3) What were the complications of using external fixation in a small series of patients who received it for malignant tumors? Methods: Between 2008 and 2012, we treated seven patients (three men and four women; median age, 37 years; age range, 18-53 years) with acetabular resection for malignant bone tumors; all were managed with a hip transposition, initially stabilized using external fixation. No other types of procedures were used for this indication in this period. Minimum followup in this retrospective study was 45 months, except for one patient who died at 18 months (range of followup duration, 18-90 months; median followup, 57 months), and no patients were lost to followup. The pins for external fixation were inserted into the affected side of the femur and the healthy contralateral ilium. External fixation was removed 6 weeks postoperatively and weightbearing was started at that time. Preoperative chemotherapy was administrated in four patients, but postoperative chemotherapy was delayed since it was given after external fixation removal in three patients. The postoperative rehabilitation course and functional results were assessed by chart review, functional results were determined using MSTS scores, tallied by physiotherapists who were not part of the surgical team, and complications were ascertained through chart review. Major complications were defined as complications that were treated with additional operations, such as deep infection, or ones that could cause severe postoperative dysfunction, such as nerve injury. Results: With temporary external fixation, standing next to a bed was achieved in median 7 days (range, 6-9 days) postoperatively, transferring to a wheel chair in median 8 days (range, 6-28 days), and gait training using parallel bars in median 15 days (range, 7-48 days). At most recent followup, three patients could walk without a crutch or cane, three could walk with a cane, and one could walk with a crutch. The median MSTS score at most recent followup (median, 57 months) was 63%. Two patients had complications that resulted in reoperations; one had a wound dehiscence, and one had an abdominal herniation that gradually developed, and which was reconstructed using polypropylene mesh 2 years after pelvic resection. Two patients had nerve palsies that recovered by the end of the first year. All patients had pin tract infections that resolved with nonsurgical approaches. Conclusions: Hip transposition with temporary external fixation can stabilize the bone soft tissue after pelvic resection. Although we did not have a comparison group of patients, we believe that external fixation facilitates early postoperative physiotherapy and rehabilitation and provides good functional results without major surgical complications. Because it delays the resumption of chemotherapy, more patients with longer followup are needed to determine whether this will be associated with poorer oncologic results

Adjuvant therapy sparing in rectal cancer achieving complete response after chemoradiation

AIM: To evaluate the long-term results of conventional chemoradiotherapy and laparoscopic mesorectal excision in rectal adenocarcinoma patients without adjuvant therapy. METHODS: Patients with biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma of the rectum staged cT3-T4 by endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging received neoadjuvant continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil for five weeks and concomitant radiotherapy. Laparoscopic surgery was planned after 5-8 wk. Patients diagnosed with ypT0N0 stage cancer were not treated with adjuvant therapy according to the protocol. Patients with ypT1-2N0 or ypT3-4 or N+ were offered 5-fluorouracil-based adjuvant treatment on an individual basis. An external cohort was used as a reference for the findings. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy six patients were treated with induction chemoradiotherapy and 170 underwent total mesorectal excision. Cancer staging of ypT0N0 was achieved in 26/170 (15.3%) patients. After a median follow-up of 58.3 mo, patients with ypT0N0 had five-year disease-free and overall survival rates of 96% (95%CI: 77-99) and 100%, respectively. We provide evidence about the natural history of patients with localized rectal cancer achieving a complete response after preoperative chemoradiation. The inherent good prognosis of these patients will have implications for clinical trial design and care of patients. CONCLUSION: Withholding adjuvant chemotherapy after complete response following standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and laparoscopic mesorectal excision might be safe within an experienced multidisciplinary team

Research: Is resection of tumours involving the pelvic ring justified? : A review of 49 consecutive cases

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic surgery is challenging and impacts significantly on limb and visceral function, thus, raising the question "is heroic surgery justifiable". This study assessed the functional, oncologic and surgical outcomes following pelvis tumour resections. METHODS: Between 1996–2003, 49 patients (mean age 43 years) underwent pelvic tumour resections- 38 primary malignant tumours, 5 secondary tumours and 6 benign tumours. Bone tumours comprised 5 osteosarcomas, 5 Ewings sarcomas, and 12 chondrosarcomas. Of the soft tumours, 9 were of neural origin. Tumours involved the ilium, acetabulum, pubic bones, sacrum or a combination of these. Functional assessment was performed and no patient had metastases at presentation. RESULTS: There were 41 limb sparing resections and 8 hindquarter amputations. Surgical margins were intralesional (1), marginal (13), wide (26), and radical (3). Of limb sparing surgery, prosthetic reconstructions were performed in 10 patients, biologic reconstructions in 6, a combination of these in 3 and no reconstruction in others. There was 1 intraoperative death, 7 local recurrences and 19 metastases. Death from disease occurred at a mean of 14.2 months with a mean followup of 27 (1–96) months. Amputation and periacetabular resections had worse functional outcomes. Emotional acceptance was surprisingly high. CONCLUSION: Pelvic resections are complex. Functional outcome is significantly affected by surgery. Disease control is similar to limb tumours. Emotional acceptance of surgery in survivors was surprisingly high. Major pelvic resection for malignancy appears justified

Multimodal Treatment of Bone Metastasis—A Surgical Perspective

Over the past decades there has been an increase in the incidence of cancer worldwide. With the advancement in treatment, patient survival has improved in tandem with the increasing incidence. This, together with the availability of advanced modern diagnostic modalities, has resulted in more cases of metastatic bone disease being identified. Bone metastasis is an ongoing problem and has significant morbidity implications for patients affected. Multimodal treatment strategies are required in dealing with metastatic bone disease, which include both surgical and non-surgical treatment options. In the multidisciplinary team, orthopedic surgeons play an important role in improving the quality of life of cancer patients. Surgical intervention in this setting is aimed at pain relief, restoration of function and improvement in functional independence. In selected cases with resectable solitary metastasis, surgical treatment may be curative. With the advancement of surgical technique and improvement in implant design and manufacture, a vast array of surgical options are available in the modern orthopedic arena. In the majority of cases, limb salvage procedures have become the standard of care in the treatment of metastatic bone disease. Non-surgical adjuvant treatment also contributes significantly to the improvement of cancer patient care. A multidisciplinary approach in this setting is of paramount importance

Hemipelvectomy- only a salvage therapy?

After the first hemipelvectomy in 1891 significant advances have been made in the fields of preoperative diagnosis, surgical technique and adjuvant treatment in patients with pelvic tumors. The challenging surgical removal of these rare malignant bone or soft tissue tumors accompanied by interdisciplinary therapy is mostly the only chance of cure, but bares the risk of intensive bleeding and infection. The reconstruction after hemipelvectomy is of importance for the later outcome and quality of life for the patient. Here, plastic surgery with microvascular free flaps or local rotational flaps improved the reconstruction and reduced infection rates. Average local recurrence rates of 14% demonstrate good surgical results, but 5 year survival rates of only 50% are described for some tumor entities, showing the importance of a multimodal collaboration. On a basis of a selective literature review the history, indications, treatment options and outcome of hemipelvectomies are presented

AMOR Volume 2, Issue 1: Full Issue

&lt;span&gt;View the full issue here.&lt;/span&gt;</jats:p

Postradiation sarcomas

This report from Groote Schuur therefore sets out to review cases of postradiation sarcomas, including malignant mixed mullerian tumors (MMMT), presenting to the Radiation Oncology Departments of Groote Schuur Hospital and the affiliated hospitals (Frere Hospital, East London and Provincial Hospital, Port Elizabeth) or known to have occurred in patients initially treated in these hospitals. It aims [1] to establish the features of the initial malignancy as well as the latent period for the development of postradiation sarcoma, the type of postradiation tumor and the outcome of the disease; [2] to establish as accurately as possible dose levels at which the postradiation tumors have developed; and [3] to briefly describe possible risk factors such as a genetic predisposition to the development of malignancy, repeated courses of radiotherapy, surgery as part of the treatment of the initial tumor, and chemotherapy. Questions regarding the genesis of postradiation sarcomas cannot be answered by a review of 20 cases, even when combined with an analysis of literature. This review aims to add relevant information to the body of data from which the final answers may come. In view of the late diagnosis often made in cases of postradiation sarcoma (25, 94) the review also aims to heighten awareness of the condition so that it may be more often reported at a curable stage