Abstract
Pelvic and sacrum bones are highly complex in shape that is why they are one of the most challenging surgeries to achieve in oncologic orthopedics. Traditional resection and reconstruction are done “freehand” that is highly inaccurate. Conventionally, surgeons rely on twodimensional images from the pelvis. In this kind of surgeries it is achieved negative but also wide resections margins to be removed with a surrounding margin of healthy tissue so as to ensure the complete resection of the tumor. The complexity of pelvic surgeries relies on the size of the tumors that use to be huge, the difficulty to access, close proximity to vital structures and multiplanar complexity. It makes impossible to design onedesignfitsall prosthesis that is why this kind of surgeries overturn to computer assisted surgery and navigated guideline because it has identifiable bony prominences to use as reference points for resection. Preoperative navigation enables physicians to explore the tumor area before the operation and learn about the possible way outs of the resection. Intraoperative navigation simplifies surgeries reducing the risk of damaging vital structures and measure depth of penetration of the instruments, guiding the surgeon within the anatomical structures during the whole procedure. Although computer navigation assisted surgery in the Pelvis is in its relative infancy it is a useful asset that results on decreasing revision rate, decreasing need of amputation and saving nerves roots.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Jeys L, Matharu GS, Nandra RS, Grimer RJ. Can computer navigation-assisted surgery reduce the risk of an intralesional margin and reduce the rate of local recurrence in patients with a tumour of the pelvis or sacrum? Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(10):1417–24.
Wong KC, Kumta SM. Computer-assisted tumor surgery in malignant bone tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:750–61.
Ottaviani G, Jaffe N. The epidemiology of osteosarcoma. In: Jaffe N, Bruland O, Bielack S, editors. Pediatric and adolescent osteosarcoma. New York: Springer; 2009.
Bone Sarcomas: incidence and survival rates in England – NCIN Data Briefing. 2010. National Cancer Intelligence Network. 9 3 2014. Ref Type: Online Source.
Unni K. Dahlin’s bone tumors: general aspects and data on 11,087 cases. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997.
Mavrogenis A, Patapis P, Kostopanagiotou G, et al. Tumors of the sacrum. Orthopedics. 2009;32:342–56.
Payer M. Neurological manifestation of sacral tumors. Neurosurg Focus. 2003;15:E1.
Coleman R. Metastatic bone disease: clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies. Cancer Treat Rev. 2001;27:165–76.
Ruggieri P, Mavrogenis A, Angelini A, et al. Metastases of the pelvis: does resection improve survival? Orthopedics. 2011;34:236–44.
Wunder J, Ferguson P, Griffin A, et al. Acetabular metastases: planning for reconstruction and review of results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;415(Suppl):187–97.
Jacofsky D, Papagelopoulos P, Sim F. Advances and challenges in the surgical treatment of metastatic bone disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;415(Suppl):14–8.
Du Z, Zang J, Tang XD, et al. Experts’ agreement on therapy for bone metastases. Orthop Surg. 2010;2:241–53.
Ozaki T, Flege S, Kevric M. Osteosarcoma of the pelvis: experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:334–41.
Fuchs B, Hoekzem N, Larson D. Osteosarcoma of the pelvis: outcome analysis of surgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:510–8.
Campanacci D, Chacon S, Mondanelli N, Beltrami G, Scocianti G, Caff G, Frenos F, Capanna R. Pelvic massive allograft reconstruction after bone tumor resection. Int Orthop. 2012;36(12):2529–36.
Hwan S, Hyun G, Kim H, et al. Computer-assisted sacral tumor resection: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg A. 2008;90:1561–6.
Cheong D, Letson G. Computer-assisted navigation and musculoskeletal sarcoma surgery. Cancer Control. 2011;18:171–6.
Cartiaux O, Docquier P, Paul L, et al. Surgical inaccuracy of tumor resection and reconstruction within the pelvis: an experimental study. Acta Orthop. 2008;79:695–702.
Amiot L, Lang K, Putzier M, et al. Comparative results between conventional and computer-assisted pedicle screw installation in the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine. Spine. 2000;25:606–14.
Grutzner P, Suhm N. Computer aided long bone fracture treatment. Injury. 2004;35:57–64.
Anderson K, Buehler K, Markel D. Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: comparison with conventional methods. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:132–8.
Hufner T, Kfuri MJ, Galanski M. New indications for computer-assisted surgery: tumor resection in the pelvis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;426:219–25.
Krettek C, Geerling J, Bastian L, et al. Computer aided tumor resection in the pelvis. Injury. 2004;35:79–83.
Wong K, Kumta S, Antonio G, et al. Image fusion for computer-assisted bone tumor surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2533–41.
Cho HS, Kang HG, Kim HS, et al. Computer-assisted sacral tumor resection. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg. 2008;90:1561–6.
So T, Lam Y, Mak K. Computer-assisted navigation in bone tumor surgery: seamless workflow model and evolution of technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2985–91.
Jeys L, Grimer R, Carter S, et al. Outcomes of primary bone tumors of the pelvis- the ROH experience [abstract]. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] Orthop Proc. 2012;94-B:39.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jeys, L., May, P.L. (2016). Bone Tumor Navigation in the Pelvis. In: Ritacco, L., Milano, F., Chao, E. (eds) Computer-Assisted Musculoskeletal Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12943-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12943-3_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12942-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12943-3
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)