Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Bone Joint J. 2021 Aug;103-B(8):1414-1420. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B8.BJJ-2020-2302.R1.
Orthopaedic and reconstructive surgeons are faced with large defects after the resection of malignant tumours of the sacrum. Spinopelvic reconstruction is advocated for resections above the level of the S1 neural foramina or involving the sacroiliac joint. Fixation may be augmented with either free vascularized fibular flaps (FVFs) or allograft fibular struts (AFSs) in a cathedral style. However, there are no studies comparing these reconstructive techniques.
We reviewed 44 patients (23 female, 21 male) with a mean age of 40 years (SD 17), who underwent en bloc sacrectomy for a malignant tumour of the sacrum with a reconstruction using a total (n = 20), subtotal (n = 2), or hemicathedral (n = 25) technique. The reconstructions were supplemented with a FVF in 25 patients (57%) and an AFS in 19 patients (43%). The mean length of the strut graft was 13 cm (SD 4). The mean follow-up was seven years (SD 5).
There was no difference in the mean age, sex, length of graft, size of the tumour, or the proportion of patients with a history of treatment with radiotherapy in the two groups. Reconstruction using an AFS was associated with nonunion (odds ratio 7.464 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77 to 31.36); p = 0.007) and a significantly longer mean time to union (12 months (SD 3) vs eight (SD 3); p = 0.001) compared with a reconstruction using a FVF. Revision for a pseudoarthrosis was more likely to occur in the AFS group compared with the FVF group (hazard ratio 3.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 19.80); p = 0.109); however, this was not significant. Following the procedure, 32 patients (78%) were mobile with a mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score 93 of 52% (SD 24%). There was a significantly higher mean score in patients reconstructed with a FVF compared with an AFS (62% vs 42%; p = 0.003).
Supplementation of spinopelvic reconstruction with a FVF was associated with a shorter time to union and a trend towards a reduced risk of hardware failure secondary to nonunion compared with reconstruction using an AFS. Spinopelvic fixation supplemented with a FVF is our preferred technique for reconstruction following resection of a sacral tumour. Cite this article: 2021;103-B(8):1414-1420.
骨科和重建外科医生在切除骶骨恶性肿瘤后会面临较大的缺损。对于 S1 神经孔以上的切除或涉及骶髂关节的切除,提倡进行脊柱骨盆重建。固定可以通过游离血管化腓骨瓣(FVF)或同种异体腓骨支柱(AFS)以哥特式风格进行增强。然而,目前尚无比较这些重建技术的研究。
我们回顾了 44 名平均年龄为 40 岁(标准差 17)的患者(23 名女性,21 名男性),这些患者因骶骨恶性肿瘤行整块切除术,采用全(n = 20)、次全(n = 2)或半哥特式(n = 25)技术进行重建。25 名患者(57%)的重建采用 FVF 补充,19 名患者(43%)采用 AFS。支柱移植物的平均长度为 13 厘米(标准差 4)。平均随访时间为 7 年(标准差 5)。
两组患者的平均年龄、性别、移植物长度、肿瘤大小以及放疗治疗史的比例均无差异。与使用 FVF 的重建相比,使用 AFS 的重建与非融合(优势比 7.464(95%置信区间(CI)1.77 至 31.36);p = 0.007)和愈合时间明显延长(12 个月(标准差 3)比 8 个月(标准差 3);p = 0.001)相关。与使用 FVF 的重建相比,使用 AFS 的重建发生假关节的可能性更大(风险比 3.84(95%CI 0.74 至 19.80);p = 0.109);然而,这并不显著。手术后,32 名患者(78%)活动自如,肌肉骨骼肿瘤学会评分平均为 52%(标准差 24%)的 93 分。与使用 AFS 的重建相比,使用 FVF 重建的患者平均评分明显更高(62%比 42%;p = 0.003)。
与使用 AFS 的重建相比,使用 FVF 补充脊柱骨盆重建与愈合时间缩短和因非融合导致硬件失败风险降低有关。使用 FVF 补充的脊柱骨盆固定是我们切除骶骨肿瘤后重建的首选技术。
2021;103-B(8):1414-1420。