BackgroundReconstruction of periacetabular defects after pelvic tumor resection ranks among the most challenging procedures in orthopaedic oncology, and reconstructive techniques are generally associated with dissatisfying mechanical and nonmechanical complication rates. In an attempt to reduce the risk of dislocation, aseptic loosening, and infection, we introduced the LUMiC® prosthesis (implantcast, Buxtehude, Germany) in 2008. The LUMiC® prosthesis is a modular device, built of a separate stem (hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented or cemented) and acetabular cup. The stem and cup are available in different sizes (the latter of which is also available with silver coating for infection prevention) and are equipped with sawteeth at the junction to allow for rotational adjustment of cup position after implantation of the stem. Whether this implant indeed is durable at short-term followup has not been evaluated.Questions/purposes(1) What proportion of patients experience mechanical complications and what are the associated risk factors of periacetabular reconstruction with the LUMiC® after pelvic tumor resection? (2) What proportion of patients experience nonmechanical complications and what are the associated risk factors of periacetabular reconstruction with the LUMiC® after pelvic tumor resection? (3) What is the cumulative incidence of implant failure at 2 and 5 years and what are the mechanisms of reconstruction failure? (4) What is the functional outcome as assessed by Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score at final followup?MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of every patient in whom a LUMiC® prosthesis was used to reconstruct a periacetabular defect after internal hemipelvectomy for a pelvic tumor from July 2008 to June 2014 in eight centers of orthopaedic oncology with a minimum followup of 24 months. Forty-seven patients (26 men [55%]) with a mean age of 50 years (range, 12–78 years) were included. At review, 32 patients (68%) were alive. The reverse Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median followup, which was equal to 3.9 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4–4.3). During the period under study, our general indications for using this implant were reconstruction of periacetabular defects after pelvic tumor resections in which the medial ilium adjacent to the sacroiliac joint was preserved; alternative treatments included hip transposition and saddle or custom-made prostheses in some of the contributing centers; these were generally used when the medial ilium was involved in the tumorous process or if the LUMiC® was not yet available in the specific country at that time. Conventional chondrosarcoma was the predominant diagnosis (n = 22 [47%]); five patients (11%) had osseous metastases of a distant carcinoma and three (6%) had multiple myeloma. Uncemented fixation (n = 43 [91%]) was preferred. Dual-mobility cups (n = 24 [51%]) were mainly used in case of a higher presumed risk of dislocation in the early period of our study; later, dual-mobility cups became the standard for the majo...

Background Three-dimensional (3D) printing is an emerging technology used in numerous medical fields. Reconstruction of large bone defects after tumor resections or complex revision surgeries is challenging especially in specific sites where modular prostheses are not available. The possibility to realize custom-made 3D-printed prostheses improves their application in surgical field despite the complication rate, gaining a lot of attention for potential benefits.Objectives We asked: (1) What are the emerging indications and designs of 3D-printed prostheses for complex bone reconstructions? (2) What complications occur with the use of custom implants considering site? Study design and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of every patient in whom a custom-made 3D-printed prosthesis was used to reconstruct a bone defect after resection for a bone tumour or challenging revision surgery from 2009 to 2018 in two referral centres. Forty-one patients (11 males [27%], 30 females [73%]) with a mean age of 41 years (range, 10-78 years) were included. Our general indications for using these implants were complex reconstructions of massive bone defects, in the absence of available modular prostheses. Seven were non-oncologic patients, whereas 24 patients were mainly treated for their malignant bone tumours. Custom-made 3D-printed prostheses were used in pelvis ( 29), forearm (6), scapula (2), distal tibia (2), calcaneus (1), and femoral diaphysis (1). The reconstruction included complete articular replacement in 24 cases (58%) whereas a combined spinopelvic implant has been used in two cases. Flaps were used in 25 cases (61%). Statistical analyses include Kaplan-Meier curves of survival. ResultsThe mean follow-up was 20 months. In the oncologic group, overall survival was 89% at five year follow-up and only three patients died of disease. Only one patient required implant removal due to deep infection. Overall major and minor complication rate was 22% (14 complications in 9/41 patients), mainly wound-related problems. One patient reported a periprosthetic fracture, one had hip dislocation, and four (12% [4/34 cases]) had local recurrence. Mean MSTS functional outcome score at follow-up was 73% (range, 23-100%), with a full weight bearing at an average time of 73 days from surgery of lower limbs. Conclusions Custom-made 3D-printed prostheses represent at today a promising reconstructive technique, maintaining however the correct indications for their use in musculoskeletal oncology and challenging revision surgery. Complication rate is acceptable, with infection and wound healing problems relatively common after complex pelvic reconstructions. We will continue to follow our patients over the longer term to ascertain the role of these implants; however, larger studies will need to confirm indications and control for prognostic factors.

No abstract