Complex spinal deformities can cause pain, neurological symptoms and imbalance (sagittal and/or coronal), severely impairing patients’ quality of life and causing disability. Their treatment has always represented a tough challenge: prior to the introduction of modern internal fixation systems, the only option was an arthrodesis to prevent worsening of the deformity. Then, the introduction of pedicle screws allowed the surgeons to perform powerful corrective manoeuvres, distributing forces over multiple levels, to which eventually associate osteotomies. In treating flexible coronal deformities, in-ternal fixation and corrective manoeuvres may be sufficient: the combination of high density pedicle screws and direct vertebral rotation revolutionized surgical treatment of scoliosis. However, spinal osteotomies are needed for correcting complex rigid deformities; the type of osteot-omy must be chosen according to the aetiology, type and apex of the deformity. When dealing with large radius deformities, spread over multiple levels and without fusion, multiple posterior column os-teotomies such as Smith-Petersen and Ponte (asymmetric, when treating scoliosis) can be performed, dissipating the correction over many levels. Conversely, the management of a sharp, angulated de-formity that involves a few vertebral levels and/or with bony fusion, requires more aggressive 3 col-umn osteotomies such as Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomies (PSO), Bone Disc Bone Osteotomies (BDBO) or Vertebral Column Resection (VCR). Sometimes the deformity is so severe that cannot be corrected with only one osteotomy: in this scenario, multilevel osteotomies can be performed

In case of spine tumors, when en bloc vertebral column resection (VCR) is indicated and feasible, the segmental defect should be reconstructed in order to obtain an immediate stability and stimulate a solid fusion. The aim of this study is to share our experience on patients who underwent spinal tumor en bloc VCR and reconstruction consecutively. En bloc VCR and reconstruction was performed in 138 patients. Oncological and surgical staging were performed for all patients using Enneking and Weinstein-Boriani-Biagini systems accordingly. Following en bloc VCR of one or more vertebral bodies, a 360° reconstruction was made by applying posterior instrumentation and anterior implant insertion. Modular carbon fiber implants were applied in 111 patients, titanium mesh cage implants in 21 patients and titanium expandable cages in 3 patients; very recently in 3 cases we started to use custom made titanium implants. The latter were prepared according to preoperative planning of en bloc VCR based on CT-scan of the patient, using three dimensional printer. The use of modular carbon fiber implant has not leaded to any mechanical complications in the short and long term follow-up. In addition, due to radiolucent nature of this implant and less artifact production on CT and MRI, tumor relapse may be diagnosed and addressed earlier in compare with other implants, which has a paramount importance in these group of patients. We did not observe any implant failure using titanium cages. However, tumor relapse identification may be delayed due to metal artifacts on imaging modalities. Custom- made implants are economically more affordable and may be a good alternative choice for modular carbon fiber implants. The biocompatibility of the titanium make it a good choice for reconstruction of the defect when combined with bone graft allograft or autograft. Custom made cages theoretically can reproduce patients own biomechanics but should be studied with longer follow-up