Femur performed better than tibia in autologous transplantation during hemipelvis reconstruction

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

Zhi-Yuan Wang²  You-Shui Gao¹  Ming Ni³  Jiong Mei² 

[1] Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University, Shanghai, 200233, China;Department of Orthopedics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200065, China;Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Hospital, Shanghai, 201200, China

关键词: Reconstruction;    Pelvis;    Hemipelvectomy;    Finite-element analysis;    Biomechanics;   

Others  :  820661
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7819-12-1

 received in 2012-12-21, accepted in 2013-12-21,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Pelvic reconstruction after hemipelvectomy can greatly improve the weight-bearing stability of the supporting skeleton and improve patients’ quality of life. Although an autograft can be used to reconstruct pelvic defects, the most suitable choice of autograft, i.e., the use of either femur or tibia, has not been determined. We aimed to analyze the mechanical stresses of a pelvic ring reconstructed using femur or tibia after hemipelvectomy using finite element (FE) analysis.

Methods

FE models of normal and reconstructed pelvis were established based on computed tomography images, and the stress distributions were analyzed under physiological loading from 0 to 500 N in both intact and restored pelvic models using femur or tibia.

Results

The vertical displacement of the intact pelvis was less than that of reconstructed pelvis, but there was no significant difference between the two reconstructed models. In FE analysis, the stress distribution of the intact pelvic model was bilaterally symmetric and the maximum stresses were located at the sacroiliac joint, arcuate line, ischiatic ramus, and ischial tuberosity. The maximum stress in each part of the reconstructed pelvis greatly exceeded that of the intact model. The maximum von Mises stress of the femur was 13.9 MPa, and that of the tibia was 6.41 MPa. However, the stress distribution was different in the two types of reconstructed pelvises. The tibial reconstruction model induced concentrated stress on the tibia shaft making it more vulnerable to fracture. The maximum stress on the femur was concentrated on the connections between the femur and the screws.

Conclusions

From a biomechanical point of view, the reconstruction of hemipelvic defects with femur is a better choice.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Mei et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Guo Z, Li J, Pei GX, Li XD: Pelvic reconstruction with a combined hemipelvic prostheses after resection of primary malignant tumor. Surg Oncol 2010, 19:95-105.
• [2]Hillmann A, Hoffmann C, Gosheger G, Rödl R, Winkelmann W, Ozaki T: Tumors of the pelvis: complications after reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003, 123:340-344.
• [3]Mavrogenis AF, Soultanis K, Patapis P, Guerra G, Fabbri N, Ruggieri P, Papagelopoulos PJ: Pelvic resections. Orthopedics 2012, 35(2):e232-e243.
• [4]Falkinstein Y, Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR: Reconstruction of type II pelvic resection with a new peri-acetabular reconstruction endoprosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008, 90:371-376.
• [5]Donati D, Wafa H, Bella CD, Colangeli M, Colangeli S, Bertoni F: Management of pelvic giant cell tumours involving the acetabular bone. Acta Orthop Belg 2008, 74:773-778.
• [6]Jeys LM, Kulkarni A, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Abudu A: Endoprosthetic reconstruction for the treatment of musculoskeletal tumors of the appendicular skeleton and pelvis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008, 90:1265-1271.
• [7]Guo W, Li D, Tang X, Ji T: Surgical treatment of pelvic chondrosarcoma involving periacetabulum. J Surg Oncol 2010, 101:160-165.
• [8]Wedemeyer C, Kauther MD: Hemipelvectomy-only a salvage therapy? Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2011, 3(1):e4.
• [9]Böhm P: Hemipelvectomy: report of 12 cases, review of the literature, and therapeutic implications. J Orthop Sci 1997, 2:414-423.
• [10]Masterson EL, Davis AM, Wunder JS, Bell RS: Hindquarter amputation for pelvic tumors. The importance of patient selection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998, 350:187-194.
• [11]Echenique-Elizondo M, Corcuera J, Zarranz JU: Extended hemipelvectomy–quality of life 20 years later. Lancet Oncol 2003, 4:186-187.
• [12]Ziran BH, Smith WR, Rao N: Hemipelvic amputations for recalcitrant pelvic osteomyelitis. Injury 2008, 39:411-418.
• [13]Nielsen MB, Rasmussen P, Keller J, Laurberg S: Preliminary experience with external hemipelvectomy for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic carcinoma. Colorectal Dis 2012, 14:152-156.
• [14]Hoffmann C, Gosheger G, Gebert C, Jürgens H, Winkelmann W: Functional results and quality of life after treatment of pelvic sarcomas involving the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006, 88:575-582.
• [15]Apffelstaedt JP, Driscoll DL, Spellman JE, Velez AF, Gibbs JF, Karakousis CP: Complications and outcome of external hemipelvectomy in the management of pelvic tumors. Ann Surg Oncol 1996, 3:304-309.
• [16]Carmody Soni EE, Miller BJ, Scarborough MT, Parker Gibbs C: Functional outcomes and gait analysis of patients after periacetabular sarcoma resection with and without ischiofemoral arthrodesis. J Surg Oncol 2012, 106(7):844-849.
• [17]Bramer JA, Taminiau AH: Reconstruction of the pelvic ring with an autograft after hindquarter amputation: improvement of sitting stability and prosthesis support. Acta Orthop 2005, 76:453-454.
• [18]Campbell CA, Chang DW: Vascularized femur flap for stabilization after combined total sacrectomy and external hemipelvectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012, 129:888e-889e.
• [19]Yamamoto Y, Takeda N, Sugihara T: Pelvic ring reconstruction with a vascularized bone flap of femur. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997, 100:415-417.
• [20]Enneking WF, Dunham WK: Resection and reconstruction for primary neoplasms involving the innominate bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978, 60(6):731-746.
• [21]Murakami H, Kawahara N, Tomita K, Sakamoto J, Oda J: Biomechanical evaluation of reconstructed lumbosacral spine after total sacrectomy. J Orthop Sci 2002, 7:658-664.
• [22]Kawahara N, Murakami H, Yoshida A, Sakamoto J, Oda J, Tomita K: Reconstruction after total sacrectomy using a new instrumentation technique: a biomechanical comparison. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003, 28(14):1567-1572.
• [23]Sakuraba M, Kimata Y, Iida H, Beppu Y, Chuman H, Kawai A: Pelvic ring reconstruction with the double-barreled vascularized fibular free flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005, 116:1340-1345.
• [24]Chang DW, Fortin AJ, Oates SD, Lewis VO: Reconstruction of the pelvic ring with vascularized double-strut fibular flap following internal hemipelvectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008, 121:1993-2000.
• [25]Abudu A, Grimer RJ, Cannon SR, Carter SR, Sneath RS: Reconstruction of the hemipelvis after the excision of malignant tumours. Complications and functional outcome of prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997, 79:773-779.
• [26]Bell RS, Davis AM, Wunder JS, Buconjic T, McGoveran B, Gross AE: Allograft reconstruction of the acetabulum after resection of stage-IIB sarcoma. Intermediate-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997, 79:1663-1674.
• [27]Aljassir F, Beadel GP, Turcotte RE, Griffin AM, Bell RS, Wunder JS, Isler MH: Outcome after pelvic sarcoma resection reconstructed with saddle prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005, 438:36-41.
• [28]Delloye C, Banse X, Brichard B, Docquier PL, Cornu O: Pelvic reconstruction with a structural pelvic allograft after resection of a malignant bone tumor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89:579-587.
• [29]Ji T, Guo W, Tang XD, Yang Y: Reconstruction of type II + III pelvic resection with a modular hemipelvic endoprosthesis: a finite element analysis study. Orthop Surg 2010, 2:272-277.
• [30]Lasurt S, Combalia-Aleu A: Complete traumatic hemipelvectomy: report of a case after 19 years of follow-up. Injury 2010, 41:874-882.