Primary tumor of the periacetabular region: resection and reconstruction using a segmental ipsilateral femur autograft.

INTRODUCTION

Bone reconstruction, after periacetabular tumour removal, is a complex procedure that carries a high morbidity rate and can result in poor clinical outcomes. Among the available options, the Puget pelvic resection-reconstruction procedure uses an autograft from the ipsilateral proximal femur to restore the anatomical and mechanical continuity of the pelvic ring before inserting an acetabular implant. HYPOTHESIS AND GOALS: This reconstruction technique satisfactorily restores the pelvic anatomy such that functional results and morbidity are comparable to alternative reconstruction techniques.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 10 patients with an average age of 38.2 years (range 19 to 75) at the surgical procedure (performed between 1986 and 2007). There were five chondrosarcomas, three Ewing tumours, one plasmacytoma and one giant cell tumour. The position of the hip centre of rotation after reconstruction and autograft integration were evaluated on radiographs. Functional results were evaluated through the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score and the Postel and Merle d'Aubigné (PMA) score.

RESULTS

At the time of review, one patient was lost to follow-up and four had died. On radiographs, the hip centre of rotation after reconstruction was higher by a median value of 15 mm (range 5 to 35) and more lateral by a median value of 6mm (range -5 to 15). Upon evaluation of radiographs at a median time of 40 months (range 6 to 252 months), the autograft was completely integrated in five patients and partially integrated in three patients (two patients had a local recurrence). There were no cases of autograft fracture or non-union at the junctions of the graft. The median MSTS score was 25 out of 30 (range 20 to 29), or 83% (range 67 to 97%) at the median clinical follow-up of 82 months (range 49 to 264). The median PMA score was 13 out of 18 (range 12 to 18). All living patients were walking without assistance. Five patients required nine surgical revisions. Seven were attributed directly or indirectly to local recurrence; one revision was performed because of instability and one because of early acetabular loosening at 9 months.

CONCLUSION

This challenging procedure provides satisfactory mechanical and anatomical results, while restoring hip anatomy and function. The primary cause of failure in this series was local recurrence of the tumour, which highlights the need to carefully select the indications and optimize the surgical tumour resection.