Publication:
Reconstruction after periacetabular tumor resection with Lumic (R) endoprosthesis: What are the midterm results?

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorEROL, BÜLENT
dc.contributor.authorsErol, Bulent; Sofulu, Omer; Sirin, Evrim; Saglam, Fevzi; Buyuktopcu, Omer
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-12T22:40:22Z
dc.date.available2022-03-12T22:40:22Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstractIntroduction This study aimed to analyze the midterm outcomes of LUMiC (R) endoprosthetic reconstruction following periacetabular resection of primary bone sarcomas and carcinoma metastases. Patients and Methods We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 21 patients (11 male [52.3%], 10 female [47.6%]; mean age 47 +/- 16 years) for whom a LUMiC (R) endoprosthesis (Implantcast) was used to reconstruct a periacetabular defect after internal hemipelvectomy. The tumor was pathologically diagnosed as Ewing's sarcoma in six (28.5%), chondrosarcoma in 10 (47.6%), and bone metastasis from carcinoma in five (23.8%) patients. Results The median follow-up of patients was 57.8 months (95% confidence interval: 51.9-63.7). The implant survival rate at 1, 2, and 5 years were 95.2%, 85.7%, and 80.9%, respectively. The overall complication rate was 33.3% (n = 7). Four (19%) complications resulted in reconstruction failure. Total reoperation rate was 28.5% (n = 6). The causes of failure were soft tissue failure/dislocation in two patients, aseptic loosening in one, infection in two, and local recurrence in two. At the time of study, seven patients were alive with no evidence of disease, seven were alive with disease, and seven died of disease. The 5-year overall survival rate and local recurrence-free survival rates were 67% and 76%, respectively. The median Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score at final follow-up was 70% (range: 50%-86.6%). Conclusion We conclude that LUMiC (R) endoprosthesis provides good functional outcomes and a durable reconstruct. Even though this reconstruction method presents some complications, it provides a stable pelvis in the management of periacetabular malignant tumors.
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/jso.26318
dc.identifier.eissn1096-9098
dc.identifier.issn0022-4790
dc.identifier.pubmed33238055
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11424/235947
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000592061500001
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherWILEY
dc.relation.ispartofJOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectendoprosthetic reconstruction
dc.subjectLUMiC&#174
dc.subjectendoprosthesis
dc.subjectmetastasis
dc.subjectperiacetabular tumor
dc.subjectsarcoma
dc.subjectHEMIPELVIC PROSTHESIS
dc.subjectPELVIC RECONSTRUCTION
dc.subjectSADDLE PROSTHESIS
dc.subjectCLASSIFICATION
dc.subjectSARCOMA
dc.titleReconstruction after periacetabular tumor resection with Lumic (R) endoprosthesis: What are the midterm results?
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.avesis.id85dc2b13-c27d-4dc7-a42c-87591e3eab87
local.import.packageSS17
local.indexed.atWOS
local.indexed.atSCOPUS
local.indexed.atPUBMED
local.journal.numberofpages12
local.journal.quartileQ2
oaire.citation.endPage543
oaire.citation.issue2
oaire.citation.startPage532
oaire.citation.titleJOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
oaire.citation.volume123
relation.isAuthorOfPublicatione87cb1cd-69ae-4a92-893b-901e999c9240
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoverye87cb1cd-69ae-4a92-893b-901e999c9240

Files

Collections

Research Outputs