title: Limb-salvage reconstruction with MUTARS hemipelvic endoprosthesis: a prospective multicenter study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Limb-sparing surgery with hemipelvic megaprosthetic replacement is often limited by the high rate of associated complications. The aim of this evaluation was to assess clinical and oncological findings with respect to type, treatment and outcome of post-operative complications.
  
  
  METHODS
  First results of 40 patients treated with individual MUTARS hemipelvic endoprostheses were evaluated in a prospective multicenter study.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean follow-up period of the 27 male and 13 female patients was 24 months (range 1-61). The diagnosis was, in 29 cases, a primary bone or soft tissue sarcoma, in 11 patients, a metastasis. Clinical evaluation showed a mean Enneking score of 50% (range 10-70%). The oncological outcome revealed 25 patients (62.5%) alive with no evidence of disease. Seventeen of them had a primary tumour, eight a metastatic malignancy. Seven patients (17.5%) had died of their disease and eight (20%) were still alive but had developed a metastases and/or had had a recurrence of the primary tumour. The one- and two-year overall survival rate of the patients was 89% (+/- 0.10) and 81% (+/- 0.19), respectively. Post-operative complications occurred in 75% of the patients, predominantly wound-related disorders. The rate of implant revision was 22.5% with three septic and six aseptic cases of implant loosening. The estimated three-year-survival rate of the implant was 61.4% [CI95%: 0.36;0.87].
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Periacetabular endoprosthetic replacement showed an acceptable functional and oncological outcome but had a high complication rate owing, predominantly, to infection. The indication for hemipelvic prosthesis in patients with a metastatic disease must be considered seriously.
authors.affiliation: Orthopaedic University Hospital of Heidelberg, Schlierbacher Landstrasse 200a, 69118 Heidelberg, Germany. daniela.witte@onlinehome.de
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Witte
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Bernd
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Bruns
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Gosheger
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Hardes
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Hartwig
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Lehner
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Melcher
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Mutschler
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Schulte
authors.forename: P-U
authors.initials: PU
authors.lastname: Tunn
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Wozniak
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Zahlten-Hinguranage
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Zeifang
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001859:Bone Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology / Q000534:rehabilitation / Q000601:surgery*; D002648:Child; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D023821:Limb Salvage / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010384:Pelvic Bones / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D011446:Prospective Studies; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D019919:Prosthesis Implantation; D016896:Treatment Outcome