Aims

Ilium is the most common site of pelvic Ewing’s sarcoma (ES). Resection of the ilium and iliosacral joint causes pelvic disruption. However, the outcomes of resection and reconstruction are not well described. In this study, we report patients’ outcomes after resection of the ilium and iliosacral ES and reconstruction with a tibial strut allograft.

Aims. Custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) play an important role in reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and pelvic tumour resection procedures. Accurate CTAC positioning is essential to successful surgical outcomes. While prior studies have explored CTAC positioning in rTHA, research focusing on tumour cases and implant flange positioning precision remains limited. Additionally, the impact of intraoperative navigation on positioning accuracy warrants further investigation. This study assesses CTAC positioning accuracy in tumour resection and rTHA cases, focusing on the differences between preoperative planning and postoperative implant positions. Methods. A multicentre observational cohort study in Australia between February 2017 and March 2021 included consecutive patients undergoing acetabular reconstruction with CTACs in rTHA (Paprosky 3A/3B defects) or tumour resection (including Enneking P2 peri-acetabular area). Of 103 eligible patients (104 hips), 34 patients (35 hips) were analyzed. Results. CTAC positioning was generally accurate, with minor deviations in cup inclination (mean 2.7°; SD 2.84°), anteversion (mean 3.6°; SD 5.04°), and rotation (mean 2.1°; SD 2.47°). Deviation of the hip centre of rotation (COR) showed a mean vector length of 5.9 mm (SD 7.24). Flange positions showed small deviations, with the ischial flange exhibiting the largest deviation (mean vector length of 7.0 mm; SD 8.65). Overall, 83% of the implants were accurately positioned, with 17% exceeding malpositioning thresholds. CTACs used in tumour resections exhibited higher positioning accuracy than rTHA cases, with significant differences in inclination (1.5° for tumour vs 3.4° for rTHA) and rotation (1.3° for tumour vs 2.4° for rTHA). The use of intraoperative navigation appeared to enhance positioning accuracy, but this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion. This study demonstrates favourable CTAC positioning accuracy, with potential for improved accuracy through intraoperative navigation. Further research is needed to understand the implications of positioning accuracy on implant performance and long-term survival. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):260–268

Objectives. To assess the accuracy of patient-specific instruments (PSIs) versus standard manual technique and the precision of computer-assisted planning and PSI-guided osteotomies in pelvic tumour resection. Methods. CT scans were obtained from five female cadaveric pelvises. Five osteotomies were designed using Mimics software: sacroiliac, biplanar supra-acetabular, two parallel iliopubic and ischial. For cases of the left hemipelvis, PSIs were designed to guide standard oscillating saw osteotomies and later manufactured using 3D printing. Osteotomies were performed using the standard manual technique in cases of the right hemipelvis. Post-resection CT scans were quantitatively analysed. Student’s t-test and Mann–Whitney U test were used. Results. Compared with the manual technique, PSI-guided osteotomies improved accuracy by a mean 9.6 mm (p < 0.008) in the sacroiliac osteotomies, 6.2 mm (p < 0.008) and 5.8 mm (p < 0.032) in the biplanar supra-acetabular, 3 mm (p < 0.016) in the ischial and 2.2 mm (p < 0.032) and 2.6 mm (p < 0.008) in the parallel iliopubic osteotomies, with a mean linear deviation of 4.9 mm (p < 0.001) for all osteotomies. Of the manual osteotomies, 53% (n = 16) had a linear deviation > 5 mm and 27% (n = 8) were > 10 mm. In the PSI cases, deviations were 10% (n = 3) and 0 % (n = 0), respectively. For angular deviation from pre-operative plans, we observed a mean improvement of 7.06° (p < 0.001) in pitch and 2.94° (p < 0.001) in roll, comparing PSI and the standard manual technique. Conclusion. In an experimental study, computer-assisted planning and PSIs improved accuracy in pelvic tumour resections, bringing osteotomy results closer to the parameters set in pre-operative planning, as compared with standard manual techniques. Cite this article: A. Sallent, M. Vicente, M. M. Reverté, A. Lopez, A. Rodríguez-Baeza, M. Pérez-Domínguez, R. Velez. How 3D patient-specific instruments improve accuracy of pelvic bone tumour resection in a cadaveric study. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:577–583. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.610.BJR-2017-0094.R1

The February 2013 Oncology Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: proximal fibular tumours; radiotherapy-induced chondrosarcoma; mega-prosthesis; CRP predictions of sarcoma survival; predicting survival in metastatic disease; MRI for recurrence in osteoid osteoma; and a sarcoma refresher