European Spine Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 7, pp 1902–1909 | Cite as

One-step reconstruction with a 3D-printed, custom-made prosthesis after total en bloc sacrectomy: a technical note

  • Ran Wei
  • Wei Guo
  • Tao Ji
  • Yidan Zhang
  • Haijie Liang
Original Article



Surgeries for primary malignancies involving upper sacrum require total en bloc sacrectomy followed by complex mechanical reconstruction, which might be simplified by application of the three-dimensional (3D) printing technique.


To describe the design of a 3D-printed custom-made prosthesis for reconstruction after total en bloc sacrectomy, the surgical technique, and the clinical and functional outcome of a patient.


A 62-year-old patient with recurrent sacral chordoma was admitted in our center. One-stage total en bloc sacrectomy through posterior approach was planned, and a 3D-printed sacral prosthesis was prepared for reconstruction according to the anticipated osteotomic planes.


The patient received one-stage total en bloc sacrectomy through posterior approach followed by reconstruction with the 3D-printed sacral prosthesis. The whole procedure took 5 h, and intra-operative blood loss was 3400 ml. The patient recovered uneventfully and started ambulation at 3 weeks after surgery. An asymptomatic instrument failure was found radiographically at 8-month follow-up. At 1 year after surgery, the patient was disease free and could walk over short distance with crutches without pain or any mechanical instability.


The advantages of our reconstruction method included: (1) the prosthesis provided an optimal reconstruction of lumbosacral and pelvic ring by integrating spinal pelvic fixation, posterior pelvic ring fixation, and anterior spinal column fixation in one step and (2) its porous surface could induce bone ingrowth and might enhance stability. Although there was an instrumental failure, we considered that it could be one reconstructive option. More research is warranted focusing on the modification of locations, diameters, and quantity of screws and biomechanical characteristics. The long-term functional and bone in-growth outcome will be followed to validate the use of the prosthesis.


Total en bloc sacrectomy Prosthesis 3D printing Reconstruction Oncology Chordoma 



No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Sciubba DM, Petteys RJ, Garces-Ambrossi GL et al (2009) Diagnosis and management of sacral tumors. J Neurosurg Spine 10(3):244–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li D, Guo W, Tang X et al (2011) Surgical classification of different types of en bloc resection for primary malignant sacral tumors. Eur Spine J 20(12):2275–2281CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wuisman P, Lieshout O, Sugihara S et al (2000) Total sacrectomy and reconstruction: oncologic and functional outcome. Clin Orthop Relat Res 381:192–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bederman SS, Shah KN, Hassan JM et al (2014) Surgical techniques for spinopelvic reconstruction following total sacrectomy: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 23(2):305–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guo W, Tang X, Zang J et al (2013) One-stage total en bloc sacrectomy: a novel technique and report of 9 cases. Spine 38(10):E626–E631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zang J, Guo W, Yang R et al (2015) Is total en bloc sacrectomy using a posterior-only approach feasible and safe for patients with malignant sacral tumors? J Neurosurg Spine 22(6):563–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gallia GL, Haque R, Garonzik I et al (2005) Spinal pelvic reconstruction after total sacrectomy for en bloc resection of a giant sacral chordoma. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 3(6):501–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gallia GL, Suk I, Witham TF et al (2010) Lumbopelvic reconstruction after combined L5 spondylectomy and total sacrectomy for en bloc resection of a malignant fibrous histiocytoma. Neurosurgery 67(2):E498–E502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nishizawa K, Mori K, Saruhashi Y et al (2014) Long-term clinical outcome of sacral chondrosarcoma treated by total en bloc sacrectomy and reconstruction of lumbosacral and pelvic ring using intraoperative extracorporeal irradiated autologous tumor-bearing sacrum: a case report with 10 years follow-up. Spine J 14(5):e1–e8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wuisman P, Lieshout O, van Dijk M et al (2001) Reconstruction after total en bloc sacrectomy for osteosarcoma using a custom-made prosthesis: a technical note. Spine 26(4):431–439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Newman CB, Keshavarzi S, Aryan HE (2009) En bloc sacrectomy and reconstruction: technique modification for pelvic fixation. Surg Neurol 72(6):752–756 (discussion 6) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gokaslan ZL, Romsdahl MM, Kroll SS et al (1997) Total sacrectomy and Galveston L-rod reconstruction for malignant neoplasms. Technical note. J Neurosurg 87(5):781–787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shah FA, Snis A, Matic A, Thomsen P, Palmquist A (2016) 3D printed Ti6Al4V implant surface promotes bone maturation and retains a higher density of less aged osteocytes at the bone-implant interface. Acta Biomater 30:357–367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wong KC, Kumta SM, Geel NV et al (2015) One-step reconstruction with a 3D-printed, biomechanically evaluated custom implant after complex pelvic tumor resection. Comput Aided Surg 20(1):14–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xu N, Wei F, Liu X et al (2016) Reconstruction of the upper cervical spine using a personalized 3D-printed vertebral body in an adolescent with Ewing sarcoma. Spine 41(1):E50–E54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tang X, Guo W, Yang R et al (2010) Use of aortic balloon occlusion to decrease blood loss during sacral tumor resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(8):1747–1753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Allen BL Jr, Ferguson RL (1982) The Galveston technique for L rod instrumentation of the scoliotic spine. Spine 7(3):276–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang HY, Thongtrangan I, Balabhadra RS et al (2003) Surgical techniques for total sacrectomy and spinopelvic reconstruction. Neurosurg Focus 15(2):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lim SH, Jo DJ, Kim SM et al (2015) Reconstructive surgery using dual U-shaped rod instrumentation after posterior en bloc sacral hemiresection for metastatic tumor: case report. J Neurosurg Spine 23(5):630–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yu BS, Zhuang XM, Zheng ZM et al (2010) Biomechanical advantages of dual over single iliac screws in lumbo-iliac fixation construct. Eur Spine J 19(7):1121–1128CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mindea SA, Chinthakunta S, Moldavsky M et al (2012) Biomechanical comparison of spinopelvic reconstruction techniques in the setting of total sacrectomy. Spine 37(26):E1622–E1627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spiegel DA, Richardson WJ, Scully SP et al (1999) Long-term survival following total sacrectomy with reconstruction for the treatment of primary osteosarcoma of the sacrum. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(6):848–855CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dickey ID, Hugate RR Jr, Fuchs B et al (2005) Reconstruction after total sacrectomy: early experience with a new surgical technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 438:42–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shen FH, Harper M, Foster WC et al (2006) A novel “four-rod technique” for lumbo-pelvic reconstruction: theory and technical considerations. Spine 31(12):1395–1401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clark AJ, Tang JA, Leasure JM et al (2014) Gait-simulating fatigue loading analysis and sagittal alignment failure of spinal pelvic reconstruction after total sacrectomy: comparison of 3 techniques. J Neurosurg Spine 20(4):364–370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Le VH, Heckmann N, Jain N et al (2015) Biomechanical evaluation of supplemental percutaneous lumbo-sacro-iliac screws for spinopelvic fixation following total sacrectomy. J Spinal Disord Tech 28(4):E181–E185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ran Wei
    • 1
  • Wei Guo
    • 1
  • Tao Ji
    • 1
  • Yidan Zhang
    • 1
  • Haijie Liang
    • 1
  1. 1.Musculoskeletal Tumor CenterPeking University People’s HospitalBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations