Aims

For rare cases when a tumour infiltrates into the hip joint, extra-articular resection is required to obtain a safe margin. Endoprosthetic reconstruction following tumour resection can effectively ensure local control and improve postoperative function. However, maximizing bone preservation without compromising surgical margin remains a challenge for surgeons due to the complexity of the procedure. The purpose of the current study was to report clinical outcomes of patients who underwent extra-articular resection of the hip joint using a custom-made osteotomy guide and 3D-printed endoprosthesis.

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):425–429.

Aims. Custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) play an important role in reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and pelvic tumour resection procedures. Accurate CTAC positioning is essential to successful surgical outcomes. While prior studies have explored CTAC positioning in rTHA, research focusing on tumour cases and implant flange positioning precision remains limited. Additionally, the impact of intraoperative navigation on positioning accuracy warrants further investigation. This study assesses CTAC positioning accuracy in tumour resection and rTHA cases, focusing on the differences between preoperative planning and postoperative implant positions. Methods. A multicentre observational cohort study in Australia between February 2017 and March 2021 included consecutive patients undergoing acetabular reconstruction with CTACs in rTHA (Paprosky 3A/3B defects) or tumour resection (including Enneking P2 peri-acetabular area). Of 103 eligible patients (104 hips), 34 patients (35 hips) were analyzed. Results. CTAC positioning was generally accurate, with minor deviations in cup inclination (mean 2.7°; SD 2.84°), anteversion (mean 3.6°; SD 5.04°), and rotation (mean 2.1°; SD 2.47°). Deviation of the hip centre of rotation (COR) showed a mean vector length of 5.9 mm (SD 7.24). Flange positions showed small deviations, with the ischial flange exhibiting the largest deviation (mean vector length of 7.0 mm; SD 8.65). Overall, 83% of the implants were accurately positioned, with 17% exceeding malpositioning thresholds. CTACs used in tumour resections exhibited higher positioning accuracy than rTHA cases, with significant differences in inclination (1.5° for tumour vs 3.4° for rTHA) and rotation (1.3° for tumour vs 2.4° for rTHA). The use of intraoperative navigation appeared to enhance positioning accuracy, but this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion. This study demonstrates favourable CTAC positioning accuracy, with potential for improved accuracy through intraoperative navigation. Further research is needed to understand the implications of positioning accuracy on implant performance and long-term survival. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):260–268

Objectives. To assess the accuracy of patient-specific instruments (PSIs) versus standard manual technique and the precision of computer-assisted planning and PSI-guided osteotomies in pelvic tumour resection. Methods. CT scans were obtained from five female cadaveric pelvises. Five osteotomies were designed using Mimics software: sacroiliac, biplanar supra-acetabular, two parallel iliopubic and ischial. For cases of the left hemipelvis, PSIs were designed to guide standard oscillating saw osteotomies and later manufactured using 3D printing. Osteotomies were performed using the standard manual technique in cases of the right hemipelvis. Post-resection CT scans were quantitatively analysed. Student’s t-test and Mann–Whitney U test were used. Results. Compared with the manual technique, PSI-guided osteotomies improved accuracy by a mean 9.6 mm (p < 0.008) in the sacroiliac osteotomies, 6.2 mm (p < 0.008) and 5.8 mm (p < 0.032) in the biplanar supra-acetabular, 3 mm (p < 0.016) in the ischial and 2.2 mm (p < 0.032) and 2.6 mm (p < 0.008) in the parallel iliopubic osteotomies, with a mean linear deviation of 4.9 mm (p < 0.001) for all osteotomies. Of the manual osteotomies, 53% (n = 16) had a linear deviation > 5 mm and 27% (n = 8) were > 10 mm. In the PSI cases, deviations were 10% (n = 3) and 0 % (n = 0), respectively. For angular deviation from pre-operative plans, we observed a mean improvement of 7.06° (p < 0.001) in pitch and 2.94° (p < 0.001) in roll, comparing PSI and the standard manual technique. Conclusion. In an experimental study, computer-assisted planning and PSIs improved accuracy in pelvic tumour resections, bringing osteotomy results closer to the parameters set in pre-operative planning, as compared with standard manual techniques. Cite this article: A. Sallent, M. Vicente, M. M. Reverté, A. Lopez, A. Rodríguez-Baeza, M. Pérez-Domínguez, R. Velez. How 3D patient-specific instruments improve accuracy of pelvic bone tumour resection in a cadaveric study. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:577–583. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.610.BJR-2017-0094.R1

Objectives

We evaluated the accuracy of augmented reality (AR)-based navigation assistance through simulation of bone tumours in a pig femur model.

The December 2013 Oncology Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Peri-articular resection fraught with complications; Navigated margins; Skeletal tumours and thromboembolism; Conditional survival in Ewing’s sarcoma; Reverse shoulders and tumour; For how long should we follow up sarcoma patients?; and already metastasised?

The June 2012 Oncology Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: avoiding pelvic hemipelvectomy; proximal femoral metastasis; extendible prostheses; rotationplasty; soft-tissue sarcomas; osteosarcoma of the pelvis; recurrent chondrosarcoma ; MRI and the differentiation between benign and malignant lesions; and malignant fibrous histiocytoma.