Does adding sacroiliac (type IV) resection to periacetabular (type II) resection increase complications or provide worse clinical outcomes? An institutional experience and systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Internal hemipelvectomy is a limb sparing procedure most commonly indicated for malignant bone and soft tissue tumors of the pelvis. Partial resection and pelvic reconstruction may be challenging for orthopedic oncologists due to late presentation, high tumor burden, and complex anatomy. Specifically, wide resection of tumors involving the periacetabular and sacroiliac (SI) regions may compromise adjacent vital neurovascular structures, impair wound healing, or limit functional recovery. We aimed to present a series of patients treated at our institution who underwent periacetabular internal hemipelvectomy (Type II) with or without sacral extension (Type IV) in combination with a systematic review to investigate postoperative complications, functional outcomes, and implant and patient survival following pelvic tumor resection via Type II hemipelvectomy with or without Type IV resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A surgical registry of consecutive patients treated with internal hemipelvectomy for primary or secondary pelvic bone tumors at our institution since 1994 was retrospectively reviewed. All type II resection patients were stratified into two separate cohorts, based on whether or not periacetabular resection was extended beyond the SI joint to include the sacrum (Type IV), as per the Enneking and Dunham classification. Patient demographics, operative parameters, complications, and oncological outcomes were collected. Categorical and continuous variables were compared with Pearson's chi square or Fisher's exact test and the Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. Literature review according to PRISMA guidelines queried studies pertaining to patient outcomes following periacetabular internal hemipelvectomy. The search strategy included combinations of the key words "internal hemipelvectomy", "pelvic reconstruction", "pelvic tumor", and "limb salvage". Pooled data was compared using Pearson's chi square. Statistical significance was established as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients were treated at our institution with internal hemipelvectomy for pelvic tumor resection, of whom 21 had periacetabular resection. Fifteen patients underwent Type II resection without Type IV involvement, whereas six patients had combined Type II/IV resection. There were no significant differences between groups in operative time, blood loss, complications, local recurrence, postoperative metastasis, or disease mortality. Systematic review yielded 69 studies comprising 929 patients who underwent internal hemipelvectomy with acetabular resection. Of these, 906 (97.5 %) had only Type II resection while 23 (2.5 %) had concomitant Type II/IV resection. While overall complication rates were comparable, Type II resection alone produced significantly fewer neurological complications when compared to Type II resection with sacral extension (3.9 % vs. 17.4 %, p = 0.001). No significant differences were found between rates of wound complications, infections, or construct failures. Local recurrence, postoperative metastasis, and survival outcomes were similar. Type II internal hemipelvectomy without Type IV resection on average produced higher postoperative MSTS functional scores than with Type IV resection.

CONCLUSION

In our series, the two groups exhibited no differences. From the systematic review, operative parameters, local recurrence or systemic metastasis, implant survival, and disease mortality were comparable in patients undergoing Type II internal hemipelvectomy alone compared to patients undergoing some combination of Type II/IV resection. However, compound resections increased the risk of neurological complications and experienced poorer MSTS functional scores.