Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 475, Issue 12, pp 3060–3070 | Cite as

Acetabular Reconstruction With Femoral Head Autograft After Intraarticular Resection of Periacetabular Tumors is Durable at Short-term Followup

  • Xiaodong Tang
  • Wei Guo
  • Rongli Yang
  • Taiqiang Yan
  • Shun Tang
  • Dasen Li
Clinical Research



Pelvic reconstruction after periacetabular tumor resection is technically difficult and characterized by a high complication rate. Although endoprosthetic replacement can result in immediate postoperative functional recovery, biologic reconstructions with autograft may provide an enhanced prognosis in patients with long-term survival; however, little has been published regarding this approach. We therefore wished to evaluate whether whole-bulk femoral head autograft that is not contaminated by tumor can be used to reconstruct segmental bone defects after intraarticular resection of periacetabular tumors.


In a pilot study, we evaluated (1) local tumor control, (2) complications, and (3) postoperative function as measured by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score.


Between 2009 and 2015, we treated 13 patients with periacetabular malignant or aggressive benign tumors with en bloc resection, bulk femoral head autograft, and cemented THA (with or without a titanium acetabular reconstruction cup), and all were included for analysis here. During that time, the general indications for this approach were (1) patients anticipated to have a good oncologic prognosis and adequate surgical margins to allow this approach, (2) patients whose pelvic bone defects did not exceed two types (Types I + II or Types II + III as defined by Enneking and Dunham), and (3) patients whose medical insurance would not cover what otherwise might have been a pelvic tumor prosthesis. During this period, another 91 patients were treated with pelvic prosthetic replacement, which was our preferred approach. Median followup in this study was 36 months (range, 24–99 months among surviving patients; one patient died 8 months after surgery); no patients were lost to followup. Bone defects were Types II + III in five patients, and Types I + II in eight. After intraarticular resection, ipsilateral femoral head autograft combined with THA was used to reconstruct the segmental bone defect of the acetabulum. In patients with Types I + II resections, the connection between the sacrum and the acetabulum was reestablished with a fibular autograft or a titanium cage filled with dried bone-allograft particles which was enhanced by using a pedicle screw and rod system. Functional evaluation was done in 11 patients who remained alive and maintained the femoral head autograft at final followup; one other patient received secondary resection involving removal of the femoral head autograft and internal fixation, and was excluded from functional evaluation. Endpoints were assessed by chart review.


Two patients experienced local tumor recurrence. Finally, eight patients did not show signs of the disease, one patient died of disease for local and distant tumor relapse, and four patients survived, but still had the disease. Three of these four patients had distant metastases without local recurrence and one had local control after secondary resection but still experienced system relapse. We observed the following complications: hematoma (one patient; treated surgically with hematoma clearance), delayed wound healing (one patient; treated by débridement), deep vein thrombosis (one patient), and hip dislocation (one patient; treated with open reduction). The median 1993 Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 83% (25 of 30 points; range, 19–29 points), and all patients were community ambulators; one used a cane, three used a walker, and nine did not use any assistive devices.


In this small series at short-term followup, we found that reconstruction of segmental bone defects after intraarticular resection of periacetabular tumors with femoral head autograft does not appear to impede local tumor control; complications were in the range of what might be expected in a series of large pelvic reconstructions, and postoperative function was generally good.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.



We thank Huayi Qu MD (Musculoskeletal Tumor Center, Peking University People’s Hospital) for help with chart review and Kunkun Sun MD (Department of Pathology, Peking University People’s Hospital) for pathology evaluations.


  1. 1.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biau DJ, Thevenin F, Dumaine V, Babinet A, Tomeno B, Anract P. Ipsilateral femoral autograft reconstruction after resection of a pelvic tumor. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:142–151.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bus MP, Boerhout EJ, Bramer JA, Dijkstra PD. Clinical outcome of pedestal cup endoprosthetic reconstruction after resection of a peri-acetabular tumour. Bone Joint J. 2014;96:1706–1712.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bus MP, Szafranski A, Sellevold S, Goryn T, Jutte PC, Bramer JA, Fiocco M, Streitburger A, Kotrych D, van de Sande MA, Dijkstra PD. LUMiC® endoprosthetic reconstruction after periacetabular tumor resection: short-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:686–695.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campanacci D, Chacon S, Mondanelli N, Beltrami G, Scoccianti G, Caff G, Frenos F, Capanna R. Pelvic massive allograft reconstruction after bone tumour resection. Int Orthop. 2012;36:2529–2536.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dominkus M, Darwish E, Funovics P. Reconstruction of the pelvis after resection of malignant bone tumours in children and adolescents. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2009;179:85–111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:241–246.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Enneking WF, Dunham WK. Resection and reconstruction for primary neoplasms involving the innominate bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60:731–746.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Falkinstein Y, Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR. Reconstruction of type II pelvic resection with a new peri-acetabular reconstruction endoprosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:371–376.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fuchs B, Yaszemski MJ, Sim FH. Combined posterior pelvis and lumbar spine resection for sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;397:12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gebert C, Wessling M, Hoffmann C, Roedl R, Winkelmann W, Gosheger G, Hardes J. Hip transposition as a limb salvage procedure following the resection of periacetabular tumors. J Surg Oncol. 2011;103:269–275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guo W, Li D, Tang X, Yang Y, Ji T. Reconstruction with modular hemipelvic prosthesies for periacetabular tumor. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 461:180–188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Han I, Lee YM, Cho HS, Oh JH, Lee SH, Kim HS. Outcome after surgical treatment of pelvic sarcomas. Clin Orthop Surg. 2010;2:160–166.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hillmann A, Hoffmann C, Gosheger G, Rodl R, Winkelmann W, Ozaki T. Tumors of the pelvis: complications after reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123:340–344.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jaiswal PK, Aston WJ, Grimer RJ, Abudu A, Carter S, Blunn G, Briggs TW, Cannon S. Peri-acetabular resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumours of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1222–1227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jeon DG, Kim MS, Cho WH, Song WS, Lee SY. Reconstruction with pasteurized autograft-total hip prosthesis composite for periacetabular tumors. J Surg Oncol. 2007;96:493–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ji T, Guo W, Yang RL, Tang XD, Wang YF. Modular hemipelvic endoprosthesis reconstruction: experience in 100 patients with mid-term follow-up results. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:53–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim M, Kadowaki T. High long-term survival of bulk femoral head autograft for acetabular reconstruction in cementless THA for developmental hip dysplasia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1611–1620.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laffosse JM, Pourcel A, Reina N, Tricoire JL, Bonnevialle P, Chiron P, Puget J. Primary tumor of the periacetabular region: resection and reconstruction using a segmental ipsilateral femur autograft. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:309–318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nigro N, Grace D. Radiographic evaluation of bone grafts. J Foot Ankle Surg. 1996;35:378–385.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nishida J, Shiraishi H, Okada K, Ehara S, Shimamura T. Vascularized iliac bone graft for iliosacral bone defect after tumor excision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;447:145–151.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ogura K, Sakuraba M, Miyamoto S, Fujiwara T, Chuman H, Kawai A. Pelvic ring reconstruction with a double-barreled free vascularized fibula graft after resection of malignant pelvic bone tumor. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135:619–625.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ozaki T, Hillmann A, Bettin D, Wuisman P, Winkelmann W. High complication rates with pelvic allografts: experience of 22 sarcoma resections. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:333–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Puri A, Pruthi M, Gulia A. Outcomes after limb sparing resection in primary malignant pelvic tumors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:27–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shao QD, Yan X, Sun JY, Xu TM. Internal hemipelvectomy with reconstruction for primary pelvic neoplasm: a systematic review. ANZ J Surg. 2015;85:553–560.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tsukada S, Wakui M. Bulk femoral head autograft without decortication in uncemented total hip arthroplasty: seven- to ten-year results. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:437–444.e1.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wirbel RJ, Schulte M, Maier B, Koschnik M, Mutschler WE. Chondrosarcoma of the pelvis: oncologic and functional outcome. Sarcoma. 2000;4:161–168.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zang J, Guo W, Yang Y, Xie L. Reconstruction of the hemipelvis with a modular prosthesis after resection of a primary malignant peri-acetabular tumour involving the sacroilliac joint. Bone Joint J. 2014;96:399–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaodong Tang
    • 1
  • Wei Guo
    • 1
  • Rongli Yang
    • 1
  • Taiqiang Yan
    • 1
  • Shun Tang
    • 1
  • Dasen Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Musculoskeletal Tumor CenterPeking University People’s HospitalBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations