Irregular osteotomy in limb salvage for juxta‐articular osteosarcoma under computer‐assisted navigation

Li, Jing; Wang, Zhen; Guo, Zheng; Chen, Guojing; Yang, Ming; Pei, Guoxian

doi:10.1002/jso.23105

Cited by 30 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although histological examinations of all specimens showed a clear tumor margin in all patients like in previous reports [8,10,14,17,20,21] with this technique, it is important to note that the navigation assistance only reproduces accurately the preoperative plan performed by the surgeon based on fusion images (CT and MRI). However, the surgeon could misinterpret those preoperative images and plan inadequate cuts that could lead to inadequate margins.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 51%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does Intraoperative Navigation Assistance Improve Bone Tumor Resection and Allograft Reconstruction Results?

Aponte-Tinao

Ritacco

Ayerza

et al. 2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Bone tumor resections for limb salvage have become standard treatment. Recently, computer-assisted navigation has been introduced to improve the accuracy of joint arthroplasty and possible tumor resection surgery; however, like with any new technology, its benefits and limitations need to be characterized for surgeons to make informed decisions about whether to use it. Questions/purposes We wanted to (1) assess the technical problems associated with computer-assisted navigation; (2) assess the accuracy of the registration technique; (3) define the time required to perform a navigated resection in orthopedic oncology; and (4) the frequency of complications such as local recurrence, infection, nonunion, fracture, and articular collapse after tumor resection and bone reconstruction with allografts using intraoperative navigation assistance. Methods We analyzed 69 consecutive patients with bone tumors of the extremities that were reconstructed with massive bone allografts using intraoperative navigation assistance with a minimum followup of 12 months (mean, 29 months; range, 12-43 months). All patients had their tumors reconstructed in three-dimensional format in a virtual platform and planning was performed to determine the osteotomy position according to oncology margins in a CT-MRI image fusion. Tumor resections and allograft reconstructions were performed using a computer navigation system according to the previously planned cuts. We analyzed intraoperative data such as technical problems related to the navigation procedure, registration technique error, length of time for the navigation procedure, and postoperative complications such as local recurrence, infection, nonunion, fracture, and articular collapse. Results In three patients (4%), the navigation was not carried out as a result of technical problems. Of the 66 cases in which navigation was performed, the mean registration error was 0.65 mm (range, 0.3-1.2 mm). The mean required time for navigation procedures, including bone resection and allograft reconstruction during surgery, was 35 minutes (range, 18-65 minutes). Complications that required a second surgical procedure were recorded for nine patients including one local recurrence, one infection, two fractures, one articular collapse, and four nonunions. In two of these nine patients, the allograft needed to be removed. At latest followup, three patients died of their original disease. Conclusions The navigation procedure could not be performed for technical reasons in 4% of the series. The mean registration error was 0.65 mm in this series and the navigation procedure itself adds a mean of 35 minutes during

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 51%

“…In orthopaedic oncology, this technology is reported to aid in achieving adequate margins [8,20] and improve the accuracy of bone cuts [10,14,21]. However, it will likely become more extensively used if it decreases the time of the procedures and shows that clinical outcomes are improved [4,16]; to date, these remain open questions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Intraoperative Navigation Assistance Improve Bone Tumor Resection and Allograft Reconstruction Results?

Aponte-Tinao

Ritacco

Ayerza

et al. 2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of computer-assisted navigation technologies might help surgeons perform more accurate resections [2,11,15]. However, some papers have reported problems related to the use of navigation, including increased operative time as a result of the additional technological complexity; in addition, there is no evidence of which we are aware suggesting that navigation decreases the risk of local recurrence [7,16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This surgical assistance is becoming more frequently used in limb salvage surgery to preserve as much host tissue as possible without compromising tumor margins and may help surgeons perform more accurate resections [11,15,16,18]. However, previous reports about navigation in trauma and arthroplasty have suggested that computer assistance techniques do not improve patient-reported outcomes and that these techniques add surgical time [6,8,13,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is the Expected Learning Curve in Computer-assisted Navigation for Bone Tumor Resection?

Farfalli

Albergo

Ritacco

et al. 2017

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Computer navigation during surgery can help oncologic surgeons perform more accurate resections. However, some navigation studies suggest that this tool may result in unique intraoperative problems and increased surgical time. The degree to which these problems might diminish with experience-the learning curve-has not, to our knowledge, been evaluated for navigation-assisted tumor resections. Questions/purposes (1) What intraoperative technical problems were observed during the first 2 years using navigation? (2) What was the mean time for navigation procedures and the time improvement during the learning curve? (3) Have there been any differences in the accuracy of the registration technique that occurred over time? (4) Did navigation achieve the goal of achieving a wide bone margin? Methods All patients who underwent preoperative virtual planning for tumor bone resections and operated on with navigation assistance from 2010 to 2012 were prospectively collected. Two surgeons (GLF, LAA-T) performed the intraoperative navigation assistance. Both surgeons had more than 5 years of experience in orthopaedic oncology with more than 60 oncology cases per year per surgeon. This study includes from the very first patients performed with navigation. Although they did not take any formal training in orthopaedic oncology navigation, both surgeons were trained in navigation for knee prostheses. Between 2010 and 2012, we performed 124 bone tumor resections; of these, 78 (63%) cases were resected using intraoperative navigation assistance. During this period, our general indications for use of navigation included pelvic and sacral tumors and those tumors that were reconstructed with massive bone allografts to obtain precise matching of the host and allograft osteotomies. Seventy-eight patients treated with this technology were included in the study. Technical problems (crashes) and time for the navigation procedure were reported after surgery. Accuracy of the registration technique was defined and the surgical margins of the removed specimen were determined by an experienced bone pathologist after the surgical procedure as intralesional, marginal, or wide margins. To obtain these One of the authors certifies that he (LAA-T) or a member of his immediate family, has or may receive payments or benefits, during the study period, an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from Stryker Americas (Miramar, FL, USA 123 Clin Orthop Relat Res (2017) 475:668-675 DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4761-z Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® A Publication of The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® data, we performed a chart review and review of operative notes.Results In four patients (of 78 [5%]), the navigation was not completed as a result of technical problems; all occurred during the first 20 cases of the utilization of this technology. The mean time for navigation procedures during the operation was 31 minutes (range, 11-61 minutes), and the early navigations took more time (the regression analysis shielded R 2 = 0.35 ...

show abstract

“…We used the navigation method described by Li et al [19]. CT images of the lesion with slices of 0.625 mm and MR images with slices of 2 mm were obtained.…”

Section: Surgical Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Microwave Ablation of the Tumor Edge Allow for Joint-sparing Surgery in Patients With Osteosarcoma of the Proximal Tibia?

Guo

Wang

et al. 2015

Clin Orthop Relat Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Irregular osteotomy in limb salvage for juxta‐articular osteosarcoma under computer‐assisted navigation

Abstract: With careful patient selection, the irregular osteotomy under navigation guidance was proved to be an effective and safe technique for precise tumor resection in joint preserving limb salvage procedures for treating patients with juxta-articular osteosarcomas.

Cited by 30 publications

References 44 publications

Does Intraoperative Navigation Assistance Improve Bone Tumor Resection and Allograft Reconstruction Results?

Does Intraoperative Navigation Assistance Improve Bone Tumor Resection and Allograft Reconstruction Results?

What Is the Expected Learning Curve in Computer-assisted Navigation for Bone Tumor Resection?

Does Microwave Ablation of the Tumor Edge Allow for Joint-sparing Surgery in Patients With Osteosarcoma of the Proximal Tibia?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About