Leaving half the acetabulum in pelvic resections improves hip function. Is there a need to revisit conventional pelvic resections?

Background Conventional periacetabular pelvic resections are associated with poor functional outcomes. Resections through surgical corridors beyond the conventional margins may be helpful in retaining greater function without compromising the oncological margins. Methods The study included a retrosp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of surgical oncology 2022-05, Vol.125 (6), p.1032-1041
Main Authors: Kapoor, Love, Sahoo, Bismaya, Majeed, Abdul, Banjara, Roshan, Kumar, Venkatesan S., Bakhshi, Sameer, Khan, Shah A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acetabulum - pathology
Acetabulum - surgery
Bone Neoplasms - pathology
Cancer surgery
Hip joint
Humans
Margins of Excision
Pelvic Neoplasms - pathology
Pelvic Neoplasms - surgery
pelvic tumors
Pelvis
Retrospective Studies
Surgical outcomes
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Treatment Outcome
Tumors
Type III + half pelvic resection
Type I + half pelvic resection
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Conventional periacetabular pelvic resections are associated with poor functional outcomes. Resections through surgical corridors beyond the conventional margins may be helpful in retaining greater function without compromising the oncological margins. Methods The study included a retrospective review of 82 cases of pelvic resections for pelvic tumors. Outcomes of acetabulum preservation (Group A) were compared with complete acetabular resection (Group B). Also, we compared outcomes of Type I + half resections (Group 1) with Type I + II resections (Group 2), and Type III + half resections (Group 3) with Type II + III resections (Group 4). Results Group A (n = 44) had significantly better functional outcome than Group B (n = 38) with average MSTS93 score 22.3 versus 20.1 and average HHS 91.3 versus 82.5 (p 
ISSN:0022-4790
1096-9098
DOI:10.1002/jso.26806