Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) ›› 2018, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (6): 1049-1052. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2018.06.019

• Article • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Application of artificial ligament in treatment of lower abdominal wall reconstruction after pubic tumor resection

Jie ZANG,Wei GUO(),Xiao-dong TANG,Hua-yi QU,Da-sen LI   

  1. Musculoskeletal Tumor Center, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing 100044, China
  • Received:2018-08-19 Online:2018-12-18 Published:2018-12-18
  • Contact: Wei GUO E-mail:bonetumor@163.com

RICH HTML

  

Abstract:

Objective: For patients who had hemipelvectomies involving the resection of a portion or the whole of the pubis, bony reconstruction was not recommended commonly. However, the soft tissue reconstruction of the lower abdominal wall may benefit these patients. The object of the study was to determine the clinical effect of lower abdominal wall reconstruction with LARS ligament after pubic tumor resection interms of patient-reported and objective outcome.Methods:In this series, we reviewed twenty-five patients who underwent pubic tumor resection followed by reconstruction with LARS ligament between February 2012 and February 2018 retrospectively. We evaluated the clinical outcome and complication of this surgical treatment. The function outcome was evaluated according the musculoskeletal tumor society scores (MSTS) for all the patients at the end of the last follow-up.Results:All the patients were stable during the surgery. There were eight patients who underwent resection of superior ramus of pubis, five patients who had resection of inferior ramus of pubis, and twelve patients who received both superior and inferior ramus of pubis. For all the patients, the mean blood loss was (774±580) mL. The mean operation time was (138±25) min. The mean hospital stay was (19±6) d. For the patients who had resection of superior ramus, inferior ramus, as well as both superior and inferior ramus, the mean blood loss were (763±802) mL, (730±315) mL and (808±485) mL, respectively. The mean operation time were (133±27) min, (135±35) min and (143±20) min, respectively. The mean hospital stay were (18±5) d, (22±9) d and (19±6) d, respectively. The mean follow-up time was (37±21) months. Local recurrence was observed in one patient with chondrosarcoma. One patient with renal cancer metastasis died of the disease. No ligament infection, ligament related complication and incisional hernias were observed. Twenty-three patients could ambulate without assistive devices, and the remaining two could walk by crutches. Postoperative pain was reported as none in nineteen patients, mild in three, and mod-erate in three. From a functional point, the mean MSTS score was 87±4.Conclusion:Lower abdominal wall reconstruction with LARS ligament after pubic tumor resection could have satisfactory clinical outcome. It could prevent the occurrence of herniation, decrease the infection rate by minishing the dead space, and achieve good patient-reported outcome.

Key words: Pubic tumor, Pelvic tumor, Artificial ligament, Abdominal wall reconstruction, Hernia

CLC Number: 

  • R738.1

Figure 1

Pelvic plain filmIt showed a male patient, 49-year-old, with giant chondrosarcoma of right pubis."

Figure 2

Pelvic CT scanThe scan showed the tumor was originating from superior ramus of pubis with serious bone destruction, forming giant soft tissue mass. Punctate calcification could be observed in the tumor."

Figure 3

Intraoperative image of surgical field after tumor wide resection It showed a large lower abdominal defect was formed after tumor resection. RP, residual pubis; D, defect; PS, pubic symphysis."

Figure 4

Intraoperative image of surgical field after local reconstruction The defect was reconstructed with artificial ligament."

Figure 5

Pelvic plain film post operation"

Table 1

Surgical and function outcomes"

Location Superior ramus (n=8) Inferior ramus (n =5) Superior and inferior ramus (n =12) Total (n =25) P
Mean blood loss/mL 763±802 730±315 808±485 774±580 0.965
Mean operation time/min 133±27 135±35 143±20 138±25 0.619
Mean hospital stay/d 18±5 22±9 19±6 19±6 0.579
Mean MSTS scores 84±7 89±3 88±3 87±4 0.099

Figure 6

The K-M survival curve showed the overall survival of the patients after surgery"

[1] Enneking WF, Dunham WK . Resection and reconstruction for primary neoplasms involving the innominate bone[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1978,60(6):731-746.
doi: 10.2106/00004623-197860060-00002 pmid: 701308
[2] Angelini A, Drago G, Trovarelli G , et al. Infection after surgical resection for pelvic bone tumors: an analysis of 270 patients from one institution[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2014,472(1):349-359.
doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3250-x pmid: 3889428
[3] Karim SM, Colman MW, Lozano-Calderon SA , et al. What are the functional results and complications from allograft reconstruction after partial hemipelvectomy of the pubis[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2015,473(4):1442-1448.
doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-4009-8 pmid: 4353538
[4] Mankin HJ, Hornicek FJ . Internal hemipelvectomy for the management of pelvic sarcomas[J]. Surg Oncol Clin N Am, 2005,14(2):381-396.
doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2004.11.010 pmid: 15817245
[5] Die Trill J, Madrid JM, Ferrero E , et al. Posthemipelvectomy hernia[J]. Hernia, 2005,9(4):375-377.
doi: 10.1007/s10029-005-0328-8 pmid: 15912261
[6] Reddy SS, Bloom ND . En bloc resection of extra-peritoneal soft tissue neoplasms incorporating a type Ⅲ internal hemipelvectomy: a novel approach[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2012,10:222.
doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-10-222 pmid: 3543210
[7] Sternberg A, Yosipovich Z . Primary marlex-mesh reconstruction in partial resections of the hemipelvis. Report of 2 cases[J]. Acta Orthop Scand, 1989,60(3):365-368.
doi: 10.3109/17453678909149296 pmid: 2750517
[8] Chao AH, Neimanis SA, Chang DW , et al. Reconstruction after internal hemipelvectomy: outcomes and reconstructive algorithm[J]. Ann Plast Surg, 2015,74(3):342-349.
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31829778e1
[9] Lavoie P, Fletcher J, Duval N . Patient satisfaction needs as related to knee stability and objective findings after ACL reconstruction using the LARS artificial ligament[J]. Knee, 2000,7(3):157-163.
doi: 10.1016/S0968-0160(00)00039-9 pmid: 10927209
[10] Parchi PD, Ciapini G, Paglialunga C , et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS artificial ligament-clinical results after a long-term follow-up[J]. Joints, 2018,6(2):75-79.
doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1653950
[11] Wang XM, Ji G, Wang XM , et al. Biological and biomechanical evaluation of autologous tendon combined with ligament advanced reinforcement system artificial ligament in a rabbit model of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction[J]. Orthop Surg, 2018,10(2):144-151.
doi: 10.1111/os.12370 pmid: 29624874
[12] Wilson RJ, Freeman TH Jr, Halpern JL , et al. Surgical outcomes after limb-sparing resection and reconstruction for pelvic sarcoma: asystematic review[J]. JBJS Rev, 2018,6(4):e10.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00072
[13] Reali C, Guy R, Darby CR , et al. Complex reconstruction with flaps after abdominoperineal resection and groin dissection for anal squamous cell carcinoma: adifficult case involving many specialities[J]. Am J Case Rep, 2018,19:61-67.
doi: 10.12659/AJCR.906818
[1] YUE Lei,WANG Yue-tian,BAI Chun-bi,CHEN Hao,FU Hao-yong,YU Zheng-rong,LI Chun-de,SUN Hao-lin. Analysis of surgical strategy of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in young and middle-aged double-segment patients with lumbar disc herniation [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(4): 734-739.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!