We report our experience of using a computer
navigation system to aid resection of malignant musculoskeletal tumours
of the pelvis and limbs and, where appropriate, their subsequent
reconstruction. We also highlight circumstances in which navigation
should be used with caution. We resected a musculoskeletal tumour from 18 patients (15 male,
three female, mean age of 30 years (13 to 75) using commercially
available computer navigation software (Orthomap 3D) and assessed
its impact on the accuracy of our surgery. Of nine pelvic tumours,
three had a biological reconstruction with extracorporeal irradiation,
four underwent endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) and two required
no bony reconstruction. There were eight tumours of the bones of
the limbs. Four diaphyseal tumours underwent biological reconstruction.
Two patients with a sarcoma of the proximal femur and two with a
sarcoma of the proximal humerus underwent extra-articular resection
and, where appropriate, EPR. One soft-tissue sarcoma of the adductor
compartment which involved the femur was resected and reconstructed
using an EPR. Computer navigation was used to aid reconstruction
in eight patients. Histological examination of the resected specimens revealed tumour-free
margins in all patients. Post-operative radiographs and CT showed
that the resection and reconstruction had been carried out as planned
in all patients where navigation was used. In two patients, computer
navigation had to be abandoned and the operation was completed under
CT and radiological control. The use of computer navigation in musculoskeletal oncology allows
accurate identification of the local anatomy and can define the
extent of the tumour and proposed resection margins. Furthermore,
it helps in reconstruction of limb length, rotation and overall
alignment after resection of an appendicular tumour. Cite this article:
The surgical management of musculoskeletal tumours is a challenging problem, particularly in pelvic and diaphyseal tumour resection where accurate determination of bony transection points is extremely important to optimise oncologic, functional and reconstructive options. The use of computer assisted navigation in these cases could improve surgical precision and achieve pre-planned oncological margins with improved accuracy. We resected musculoskeletal tumours in ten patients using commercially available computer navigation software (Orthomap 3D, Stryker UK Ltd). Of the five pelvic tumours, two underwent biological reconstruction with extra corporeal irradiation, two endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) and one did not require bony reconstruction. Three tibial diaphyseal tumours had biological reconstruction. One patient with proximal femoral sarcoma underwent extra-articular resection and EPR. One soft tissue sarcoma of the adductor compartment involving the femur was resected with EPR. Histological examination of the resected specimens revealed tumour free margins in all cases. Post-operative radiographs and CT show resection and reconstruction as planned in all cases. Several learning points were identified related to juvenile bony anatomy and intra-operative registration. The use of computer navigation in musculoskeletal oncology allows integration of local anatomy and tumour extent to identify resection margins accurately. Furthermore, it can aid in reconstruction following tumour resection. Our experience thus far has been encouraging. Further clinical trials are required to evaluate its long-term impact on functional & oncological outcomes.
The number of revision knee arthroplasties performed is projected to rise dramatically in the coming years. Primary knee arthroplasties are also being performed in younger patients increasing the likelihood of multiple revision procedures. Reconstruction can be challenging with bone stock deficiencies and ligament incompetence. The aim of this study was to present our results of revision total knee arthroplasty using metaphyseal sleeve components to aid reconstruction. Sixty seven patients underwent revision total knee arthroplasty between September 2005 and November 2010 using metaphyseal sleeves. There were thirty one male and thirty six female patients. The indication for revision was aseptic loosening in thirty nine, sepsis in fifteen, malalignment in eight and instability in five patients. Thirty four patients had tibial sleeves, thirty patients had both tibial and femoral sleeves and three patients had femoral sleeves during revision. The patients were followed up for a mean of 32 months (Range 12–60) with outcome data collected prospectively. The mean revised oxford knee scores for the patients improved from 15 (Range 2 to 29) preoperatively to 33 (Range 20 to 45) postoperatively. Mean arc of flexion following revision was 87 degrees (Range 55 to 120). Seventy six percent of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the result of the revision surgery. There have been no radiographic complications specific to the sleeves and no re-operations. There has been one recurrence of infection in a patient revised for sepsis. This has been managed with suppressive antibiotics due to patient co-morbidities. Metaphyseal sleeves are an effective adjunct in revision knee arthroplasty. We have had good results with their use. To our knowledge no larger series has been presented or published.
