- Case report
- Open Access
Using polypropylene mesh graft for soft-tissue reconstruction in internal hemipelvectomy: a case report
© Asavamongkolkul and Waikakul; BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
- Received: 9 February 2012
- Accepted: 28 June 2012
- Published: 28 June 2012
We report the case of a patient with chondrosarcoma involving the right pelvis and contralateral pubic area in a 45-year-old male who underwent an extensive internal hemipelvectomy without bony reconstruction. We demonstrate the technique of using polypropylene mesh graft for soft-tissue reconstruction. Follow-up at 7.5 years showed a good oncological and functional outcome.
- Internal hemipelvectomy
- Malignant tumor
- Polypropylene mesh graft
Pelvic tumors have previously been treated with standard hemipelvectomy, that is, hindquarter amputation . Nowadays, advances in adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation therapy, imaging and surgical techniques have allowed more patients to be treated with limb salvage surgery and have better survival rate and quality of life. However, limb salvage around the periacetabular area following malignant tumor removal is one of the most challenging procedures in musculoskeletal oncology. Because of large tumor size and the complexity of anatomy in this location, resections of tumor are mostly difficult and reconstructions are demanding procedures in this area. Recent reconstructive options for limb salvage around the periacetabular area include vascularized autografts; nonvascularized autografts; autoclaved, resected, or microwave-induced hyperthermia of bone from the same pelvis; massive pelvic allograft; endoprosthesis; resection arthrodesis; local improvised reconstruction with plates, pins and screws augmented with bone cement; and no reconstruction (internal hemipelvectomy) [2–16]. The average functional results following limb salvage in this particular area are fair and the complications for each reconstruction are not uncommon. We report the results of a patient with chondrosarcoma involving the whole pelvis and with contralateral involvement of the pubis, who was treated by an internal hemipelvectomy and by using polypropylene mesh graft for augmentation and reconstruction of muscles around the pelvis.
A 45-year-old Thai male presented with a six-month history of right buttock and hip pain. The patient could not recall any injuries or incidents that may have caused the pain. He had no medical problems nor was he taking any medication. The MRI of the lumbosacral spine from the initial consultation at another hospital was unremarkable. He was treated unsuccessfully with a non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug and acetaminophen. He was referred to our institution for consultation. Physical examination revealed a healthy-appearing adult with an ill-defined 12 cm × 20 cm nontender firm mass at frank and groin area. There was no overlying skin change. Both hips had a full range of movement. The neurovascular function in the field of lower extremity was found to be intact, except the power of extensor hallucis longus on the right side was grade 4/5. He had no palpable lymphadenopathy. Laboratory studies were within normal limits.
Primary malignant bone tumors involving the pelvis account for 15 % of all primary malignant bone tumors . The goal of treating primary malignant bone tumors has expanded to both cure disease and provide a good quality of life. Tumors of the periacetabulum are amenable to curative intent but require wide or radical margins. Inadequate tumor surgical margin has a high risk of local recurrence and a poor prognosis for the patient. Classic hemipelvectomy is a common procedure for the removal of large tumors in the location that cannot be removed by limb salvage surgery with an adequate margin . The rate of local recurrence was reported from 23 to 30 % [14, 15, 20, 21]. This patient had an internal hemipelvectomy with a wide margin of tumor removal. Clear resection margin is the goal for chondrosarcoma, as there seems to be no convincing adjuvant treatment modality to prevent local recurrence in the event of tumor contamination. He remained disease-free without disease relapse at 7.5-year follow-up.
Several options for pelvic and periacetabular reconstruction after internal hemipelvectomy have been reported using vascularized autografts; nonvascularized autografts; autoclaved, resected, or microwave-induced hyperthermia of bone from the same pelvis; massive pelvic allograft; endoprosthesis; resection arthrodesis; local improvised reconstruction with plates, pins and screws augmented with bone cement; and no reconstruction (internal hemipelvectomy) [2–16]. Most reconstructive options for limb salvage in periacetabulum are associated with a high rate of complications and morbidity. The high complication rate is attributed to extensive bone loss and durability of the implant. The complications include deep infection, wound skin necrosis, and implant loosening. The rate of adjunctive surgery is high for the patients with such a complication [22, 23]. Some patients even require implant or allograft removal that can result in a flail hip. Even a classic hemipelvectomy is determined in the final analysis for treating the complications. Several series demonstrated that internal hemipelvectomy without reconstruction in selective patients could provide fewer complications, acceptable function and cost-effectiveness of treatment [12, 15, 24].
For internal hemipelvectomy without reconstruction, surrounding muscles and soft tissue have been dissected from the resected pelvic bone tumor and need to be repaired and reconstructed to maintain the optimal function of the hip and leg for the patient. We used a Parietene polypropylene mesh (Parietene, Sofradim, Trevoux, France) as an anchoring material to re-approximate all the muscles that attach to the pelvis. All muscles including abdominal, gluteal, psoas, rectus femoris and hamstrings must be sewed back with a good anatomical length to gain optimal function . With this technique and an optimal physical therapy program, the patient could gain acceptable function of the affected hip and leg and he could resume his previous profession. Asavamongkolkul et al. and Schwartz et al. demonstrated that patients with primary malignant bone tumor around the pelvic region had fair to good function with acceptable complication rates after tumor excision without reconstruction [15, 16]. The patient in this report experienced a 3 cm leg-length discrepancy, he could compensate for by simple shoe lifting. He could resume his gainful employment and also enjoyed some sporting activities.
Using polypropylene mesh graft for soft-tissue reconstruction in internal hemipelvectomy following malignant tumor removal is an alternative reconstruction in selected cases of pelvic malignant tumor. Patients undergoing this type of reconstruction, according to our prior experiences and from literature, can benefit from fewer complications with acceptable function.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and the accompanying images. Copies of the written consent form are available for review upon request.
Acknowledgements and funding
- Miller TR: 100 cases of hemipelvectomy: a personal experience. Surg Clin North Am. 1974, 54: 905-913.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hubert DM, Low DW, Serletti JM, Chang B, Dormans JP: Fibula free flap reconstruction of the pelvis in children after limb-sparing internal hemipelvectomy for bone sarcoma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010, 125: 195-200. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c2a607.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Akiyama T, Clark JC, Miki Y, Choong PF: The non-vascularised fibular graft: a simple and successful method of reconstruction of the pelvic ring after internal hemipelvectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010, 92: 999-1005. 10.1302/0301-620X.92B7.23497.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Harrington KD: The use of hemipelvic allografts or autoclaved grafts for reconstruction after wide resections of malignant tumors of the pelvis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992, 74: 331-341.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Satcher RL, O’Donnell RJ, Johnston JO: Reconstruction of the pelvis after resection of tumors about the acetabulum. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003, 409: 209-217.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fan QY, Ma BA, Zhou Y, Zhang MH, Hao XB: Bone tumors of the extremities of pelvis treated by microwave-induced hyperthermia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003, 406: 165-175.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mnaymneh W, Malinin T, Mnaymneh LG, Robinson D: Pelvic allograft. A case report with a follow-up evaluation of 5.5 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990, 255: 128-132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bruns J, Luessenhop SL, Dahmen G: Internal hemipelvectomy and endoprosthetic pelvic replacement: long-term follow-up results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997, 116: 27-31. 10.1007/BF00434096.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sun W, Li J, Li Q, Li G, Cai Z: Clinical effectiveness of hemipelvic reconstruction using computer-aided custom-made prostheses after resection of malignant pelvic tumors. J Arthroplasty. 2011, 26: 1508-1513. 10.1016/j.arth.2011.02.018.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Muller PE, Durr HR, Wegener B, Pellengahr C, Refior HJ, Jansson V: Internal hemipelvectomy and reconstruction with a megaprosthesis. Int Orthop. 2002, 26: 76-79. 10.1007/s00264-001-0322-4.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Renard AJ, Veth RP, Schreuder HW, Pruszczynski M, Keller A, van Hoesel Q, Bokkerink JP: The saddle prosthesis in pelvic primary and secondary musculoskeletal tumors: functional results at several postoperative intervals. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000, 120: 188-194. 10.1007/s004020050041.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eilber FR, Grant TT, Sakai D, Morton DL: Internal hemipelvectomy-excision of the hemipelvis with limb preservation. An alternative to hemipelvectomy. Cancer. 1979, 43: 806-809.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Steel HH: Partial or complete resection of the hemipelvis. An alternative to hindquarter amputation for periacetabular chondrosarcoma of the pelvis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978, 60: 719-730.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Enneking WF, Dunham WK: Resection and reconstruction for primary neoplasms involving the innominate bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978, 60: 731-746.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Asavamongkolkul A, Pimolsanti R, Waikakul S, Kiatisevi P: Periacetabular limb salvage for malignant bone tumours. J Orthop Surg. 2005, 13: 273-279.Google Scholar
- Schwartz AJ, Kiatisevi P, Eilber FC, Eilber FR, Eckardt JJ: The Friedman-Eilber resection arthroplasty of the pelvis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009, 467: 2825-2830. 10.1007/s11999-009-0844-4.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA: A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980, 286: 241-246.Google Scholar
- Enneking W, Dunham W, Gebhardt M, Malawar M, Pritchard D: A system for the classification of skeletal resections. Chir Organi Mov. 1990, 1: S217-S240.Google Scholar
- Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ: A system for the function evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993, 286: 241-246.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Guest CB, Bell RS, Davis A, Langer F, Ling H, Gross AE, Czitrom A: Allograft-implant composite reconstruction following periacetabular sarcoma resection. J Arthroplasty. 1990, 5: S25-S34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- O’Connor MI, Sim FH: Salvage of the limb in the treatment of malignant pelvic tumors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989, 71: 481-494.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stephenson RB, Kaufer H, Mankin FM: Partial pelvic resection as an alternative to hindquarter amputation for skeletal neoplasms. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989, 242: 1401-1406.Google Scholar
- 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. 10.1302/0301-620X.79B5.6749.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bruns J, Luessenhop S, Behrens P: Cost analysis of three different surgical procedures for treatment of a pelvic tumour. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 1998, 383: 359-363. 10.1007/s004230050149.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.