63
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    8
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Computer-Assisted Planning and Patient-Specific Instruments for Bone Tumor Resection within the Pelvis: A Series of 11 Patients

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Pelvic bone tumor resection is challenging due to complex geometry, limited visibility, and restricted workspace. Accurate resection including a safe margin is required to decrease the risk of local recurrence. This clinical study reports 11 cases of pelvic bone tumor resected by using patient-specific instruments. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to delineate the tumor and computerized tomography to localize it in 3D. Resection planning consisted in desired cutting planes around the tumor including a safe margin. The instruments were designed to fit into unique position on the bony structure and to indicate the desired resection planes. Intraoperatively, instruments were positioned freehand by the surgeon and bone cutting was performed with an oscillating saw. Histopathological analysis of resected specimens showed tumor-free bone resection margins for all cases. Available postoperative computed tomography was registered to preoperative computed tomography to measure location accuracy (minimal distance between an achieved and desired cut planes) and errors on safe margin (minimal distance between the achieved cut planes and the tumor boundary). The location accuracy averaged 2.5 mm. Errors in safe margin averaged −0.8 mm. Instruments described in this study may improve bone tumor surgery within the pelvis by providing good cutting accuracy and clinically acceptable margins.

          Related collections

          Most cited references66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          TNM residual tumor classification revisited.

          For cancer patients, prognosis is strongly influenced by the completeness of tumor removal at the time of cancer-directed surgery or disease remission after nonsurgical treatment with curative intent. These parameters define the relative success of definitive treatment and can be codified by an additional subclassification within the TNM system, the residual tumor (R) classification. Despite the importance of residual tumor status in designing clinical management after treatment, misinterpretation and inconsistent application of the R classification frequently occur that diminish or abrogate its clinical utility. An analysis of the relevant literature regarding the use and prognostic importance of the R classification was undertaken. In the current study, the prognostic importance of the R classification for different kinds of tumors is discussed. Problems that arise in using the R classification are described. Special issues regarding the use of the R classification are addressed. The R classification is a strong indicator of prognosis and facilitates the comparison of treatment results if applied in a consistent manner. Uniform use and interpretation of this classification is essential for the standardization of posttreatment data collection. Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.10492
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Osteosarcoma of the pelvis: experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group.

            To define patients and tumor characteristics as well as therapy results, patients with pelvic osteosarcoma who were registered in the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS) were analyzed. Sixty-seven patients with a high-grade pelvic osteosarcoma were eligible for this analysis. Fifteen patients had primary metastases. All patients received chemotherapy according to COSS protocols. Thirty-eight patients underwent limb-sparing surgery, 12 patients underwent hemipelvectomy, and 17 patients did not undergo definitive surgery. Eleven patients received irradiation to the primary tumor site: four postoperatively and seven as the only form of local therapy. Local failure occurred in 47 of all 67 patients (70%) and in 31 of 50 patients (62%) who underwent definitive surgery. Five-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival rates were 27% and 19%, respectively. Large tumor size (P =.0137), primary metastases (P =.0001), and no or intralesional surgery (P <.0001) were poor prognostic factors. In 30 patients with no or intralesional surgery, 11 patients with radiotherapy had better OS than 19 patients without radiotherapy (P =.0033). Among the variables, primary metastasis, large tumor, no or intralesional surgery, no radiotherapy, existence of primary metastasis (relative risk [RR] = 3.456; P =.0009), surgical margin (intralesional or no surgical excision; RR = 5.619; P <.0001), and no radiotherapy (RR = 4.196; P =.0059) were independent poor prognostic factors. An operative approach with wide or marginal margins improves local control and OS. If the surgical margin is intralesional or excision is impossible, additional radiotherapy has a positive influence on prognosis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improved accuracy of alignment with patient-specific positioning guides compared with manual instrumentation in TKA.

              Coronal malalignment occurs frequently in TKA and may affect implant durability and knee function. Designed to improve alignment accuracy and precision, the patient-specific positioning guide is predicated on restoration of the overall mechanical axis and is a multifaceted new tool in achieving traditional goals of TKA. We compared the effectiveness of patient-specific positioning guides to manual instrumentation with intramedullary femoral and extramedullary tibial guides in restoring the mechanical axis of the extremity and achieving neutral coronal alignment of the femoral and tibial components. We retrospectively reviewed 569 TKAs performed with patient-specific positioning guides and 155 with manual instrumentation by two surgeons using postoperative long-leg radiographs. For all patients, we assessed the zone in which the overall mechanical axis passed through the knee, and for one surgeon's cases (105 patient-specific positioning guide, 55 manual instrumentation), we also measured the hip-knee-ankle angle and the individual component angles with respect to their mechanical axes. The overall mechanical axis passed through the central third of the knee more often with patient-specific positioning guides (88%) than with manual instrumentation (78%). The overall mean hip-knee-ankle angle for patient-specific positioning guides (180.6°) was similar to manual instrumentation (181.1°), but there were fewer ± 3° hip-knee-ankle angle outliers with patient-specific positioning guides (9%) than with manual instrumentation (22%). The overall mean tibial (89.9° versus 90.4°) and femoral (90.7° versus 91.3°) component angles were closer to neutral with patient-specific positioning guides than with manual instrumentation, but the rate of ± 2° outliers was similar for both the tibia (10% versus 7%) and femur (22% versus 18%). Patient-specific positioning guides can assist in achieving a neutral mechanical axis with reduction in outliers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sarcoma
                Sarcoma
                SARCOMA
                Sarcoma
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                1357-714X
                1369-1643
                2014
                2 July 2014
                : 2014
                : 842709
                Affiliations
                1Clinique Chirurgicale Orthopédique et Traumatologique, CHU Hôtel-Dieu, Place Alexis-Ricordeau 1, 44093 Nantes Cedex 1, France
                2Laboratoire Physiopathologie de la Résorption Osseuse, Inserm UI957, Faculté de Medecine, Université de Nantes, rue Gaston Veil, 44000 Nantes, France
                3Computer Assisted and Robotic Surgery (CARS), Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Avenue Mounier 53, 1200 Brussels, Belgium
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Charles Catton

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1299-2495
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6440-2311
                Article
                10.1155/2014/842709
                4101950
                25100921
                87ab2959-9b92-4fdf-9e11-ef651ce821fb
                Copyright © 2014 François Gouin et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 31 January 2014
                : 9 June 2014
                : 9 June 2014
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article