3D-Printed Prosthesis with an Articular Interface for Anatomical Acetabular Reconstruction After Type I + II (+ III) Internal Hemipelvectomy: Clinical Outcomes and Finite Element Analysis

Xin Huang; Donghua Huang; Nong Lin; Xiaobo Yan; Hao Qu; Zhaoming Ye

doi:10.2106/JBJS.23.01462

3D-Printed Prosthesis with an Articular Interface for Anatomical Acetabular Reconstruction After Type I + II (+ III) Internal Hemipelvectomy: Clinical Outcomes and Finite Element Analysis

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2024 Oct 15. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.23.01462. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Xin Huang^{1

2

3

4}, Donghua Huang^{1

2

3

4}, Nong Lin^{1

2

3

4}, Xiaobo Yan^{1

2

3

4}, Hao Qu^{1

2

3

4}, Zhaoming Ye^{1

2

3

4}

Affiliations

¹ Musculoskeletal Tumor Center, Department of Orthopedics, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
² Orthopedics Research Institute of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
³ Key Laboratory of Motor System Disease Research and Precision Therapy of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
⁴ Clinical Research Center of Motor System Disease of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.

PMID: 39729975
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.23.01462

Abstract

Background: Pelvic reconstruction after type I + II (or type I + II + III) internal hemipelvectomy with extensive ilium removal is a great challenge. In an attempt to anatomically reconstruct the hip rotation center (HRC) and achieve a low mechanical failure rate, a custom-made, 3D-printed prosthesis with a porous articular interface was developed. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients treated with this prosthesis.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 28 patients with type I + II (+ III) internal hemipelvectomy through the articular interface of the sacroiliac joint and managed with a prosthesis at a single center between August 2016 and August 2021. Complications and oncological outcomes were analyzed. The position of the reconstructed HRC was assessed and lower-limb function was evaluated. Biomechanical analyses of different fixation modes of the prosthesis were conducted using finite element analysis.

Results: The displacement distance of the HRC from preoperatively to postoperatively was a mean (and standard deviation) of 14.12 ± 8.75 mm. The rate of implant-related complications was 14.3% (4 of 28) for prosthetic breakage, 14.3% (4 of 28) for aseptic loosening, 7.1% (2 of 28) for dislocation, and 7.1% (2 of 28) for deep infection. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS)-93 score was 18.2. The aseptic loosening rate was significantly greater for prostheses fixed with 3 sacral screws (4 of 10, 40.0%) than for those fixed with 4 (0 of 10, 0%) or 5 screws (0 of 8, 0%) (p = 0.024). The prosthetic breakage rate was lower in patients who underwent lumbosacral fixation (0 of 13, 0%) than in those who did not (4 of 15, 26.7%), although the difference did not reach significance (p = 0.102). Biomechanical analyses suggested that the addition of lumbosacral fixation or increasing the number of sacral screws from 3 to 4 or 5 visibly reduced the peak stress of the sacral screws.

Conclusions: The use of a 3D-printed prosthesis with an articular interface for pelvic reconstruction demonstrated stable prosthetic fixation, anatomical acetabular reconstruction, and acceptable early functional outcomes.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.