Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 305–309 | Cite as

The anatomy of proximal femoral autografts for pelvic reconstruction: a cadaveric study

  • Shoufeng Wang
  • Jin Xiong
  • Chaoshuang Zhan
  • Aiguo Wang
  • Yixin Chen
  • Qing Jiang
  • Yong Qiu
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

One important reconstruction procedure following pelvic tumor resection is ipsilateral femoral autograft reconstruction in which the autograft is transposed onto the defect and a conventional total hip replacement is implanted in the autograft. The purpose of this study is to provide anatomical evidence for this reconstruction by measurement of proximal femoral autografts.

Methods

The anatomical study of proximal femoral autografts was performed on thirteen fresh-frozen Chinese male cadavers. Four parameters were measured and included the diameter of the femoral head (DFH), the distance from the apex of the greater trochanter perpendicular to the medial cortex edge of the femoral neck (DAM), the length between the apex of the femoral head and the midpoint of osteotomy line under the lesser trochanter (LAM), and the width of the greater trochanter from anterior to posterior (WG). The correlation between height and each of the various parameters was analyzed using the Spearman’s correlation.

Results

The median (first and third quartile) values of the measurements for the above mentioned parameters were 49 mm (48–52.7 mm), 58.5 mm (54.5–60.9 mm), 102 mm (96–105.2 mm) and 48 mm (46.5–51 mm), respectively. There was a positive correlation between height and each of these four parameters (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The proximal femoral autograft reconstruction may be a good option after resection of a pelvic tumor because of the provision of biological reconstruction. However, an individual preoperative plan should be carefully performed following evaluating the size of the bone defect after tumor resection and height and width of the remaining greater trochanter prior to conventional hip replacement.

Keywords

Anatomy Proximal femoral autograft Reconstruction Pelvic defect 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and by Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK2010109).

References

  1. 1.
    Aboulafia AJ, Buch R, Mathews J, Li W, Malawer MM (1995) Reconstruction using the saddle prosthesis following excision of primary and metastatic periacetabular tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 314:203–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aboulafia AJ, Malawer MM (1993) Surgical management of pelvic and extremity sarcoma. Cancer 71:3358–3366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abudu A, Grimer RJ, Cannon SR, Carter SR, Sneath RS (1997) Reconstruction of the hemipelvis after the excision of malignant tumours. Complications and functional outcome of prostheses. J Bone Jt Surg Br 79:773–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aljassir F, Beadel GP, Turcotte RE, Griffin AM, Bell RS, Wunder JS, Isler MH (2005) Outcome after pelvic sarcoma resection reconstructed with saddle prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 438:36–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beadel GP, McLaughlin CE, Wunder JS, Griffin AM, Ferguson PC, Bell RS (2005) Outcome in two groups of patients with allograft-prosthetic reconstruction of pelvic tumor defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res 438:30–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benevenia J, Cyran FP, Biermann JS, Patterson FR, Leeson MC (2004) Treatment of advanced metastatic lesions of the acetabulum using the saddle prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 426:23–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biau DJ, Thévenin F, Dumaine V, Babinet A, Tomeno B, Anract P (2009) Ipsilateral femoral autograft reconstruction after resection of a pelvic tumor. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91:142–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cottias P, Jeanrot C, Vinh TS, Tomeno B, Anract P (2001) Complications and functional evaluation of 17 saddle prostheses for resection of periacetabular tumors. J Surg Oncol 78:90–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Delloye C, Banse X, Brichard B, Docquier PL, Cornu O (2007) Pelvic reconstruction with a structural pelvic allograft after resection of a malignant bone tumor. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89:579–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Enneking WF, Dunham WK (1978) Resection and reconstruction for primary neoplasms involving the innominate bone. J Bone Jt Surg Am 60:731–746Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fuchs B, O’Connor MI, Kaufman KR, Padgett DJ, Sim FH (2002) Iliofemoral arthrodesis and pseudarthrosis: a long-term functional outcome evaluation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 397:29–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Genser-Strobl B, Sora MC (2005) Potential of P40 plastination for morphometric hip measurements. Surg Radiol Anat 27:147–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guo W, Li DS, Tang XD, Yang Y, Ji T (2007) Reconstruction with modular hemipelvic prostheses for periacetabular tumor. Clin Orthop Relat Res 461:180–188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guo Z, Li J, Pei GX, Li XD, Wang Z (2010) Pelvic reconstruction with a combined hemipelvic prostheses after resection of primary malignant tumor. Surg Oncol 19:95–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harrington KD (1992) The use of hemipelvis allografts or autoclaved grafts for reconstruction after wide resection of malignant tumors of the pelvis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 74:331–341Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoffmann C, Gosheger G, Gebert C, Jürgens H, Winkelmann W (2006) Functional results and quality of life after treatment of pelvic sarcomas involving the acetabulum. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88:575–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Langlais F, Lambotte JC, Thomazeau H (2001) Long-term results of hemipelvis reconstruction with allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 388:178–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mankin HJ, Hornicek FJ, Temple HT, Gebhardt MC (2004) Malignant tumors of the pelvis: an outcome study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 425:212–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nagoya S, Usui M, Wada T, Yamashita T, Ishii S (2000) Reconstruction and limb salvage using a free vascularised fibular graft for periacetabular malignant bone tumours. J Bone Jt Surg Br 82:1121–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nilsson J, Gustafson P, Fornander P, Ornstein E (2000) The Harrington reconstruction for advanced periacetabular metastatic destruction: good outcome in 32 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 71:591–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ozaki T, Hoffmann C, Hillmann A, Gosheger G, Lindner N, Winkelmann W (2002) Implantation of hemipelvic prosthesis after resection of sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 396:197–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Puget J, Utheza G (1986) Reconstruction of the iliac bone using the homolateral femur after resection for pelvic tumor. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 72:151–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwameis E, Dominkus M, Krepler P, Dorotka R, Lang S, Windhager R, Kotz R (2002) Reconstruction of the pelvis after tumor resection in children and adolescents. Clin Orthop Relat Res 402:220–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sora MC, Jilavu R, Matusz P (2011) Computer aided three-dimensional reconstruction and modeling of the pelvis, by using plastinated cross sections, as a powerful tool for morphological investigations. Surg Radiol Anat (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wentz KU, Lehmann KJ, Wischnik A, Lange S, Suchalla R, Gronemeyer DH, Seibel RM (1994) Pelvimetry using various magnetic resonance tomography techniques vs. digital image enhancement radiography: accuracy, time requirement and energy exposure. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 54:204–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Windhager R, Karner J, Kutschera HP, Polterauer P, Salzer-Kuntschik M, Kotz R (1996) Limb salvage in periacetabular sarcomas: review of 21 consecutive cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 331:265–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yoshida Y, Osaka S, Mankin HJ (2000) Hemipelvic allograft reconstruction after periacetabular bone tumor resection. J Orthop Sci 5:198–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shoufeng Wang
    • 1
  • Jin Xiong
    • 1
  • Chaoshuang Zhan
    • 2
  • Aiguo Wang
    • 1
  • Yixin Chen
    • 1
  • Qing Jiang
    • 1
  • Yong Qiu
    • 1
  1. 1.Spine Surgery, Department of OrthopaedicsDrum Tower Hospital, Nanjing University Medical SchoolNanjingChina
  2. 2.Research Institute of AnatomyNanjing University Medical SchoolNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations