Abstract
-
Satisfactory results in terms of functional and oncological outcomes can be obtained in sacral and pelvic malignant bone tumors.
-
Preoperative planning, adequate imaging, and a multidisciplinary approach are needed.
-
3D-printed prostheses have to fulfill several requirements: (i) mechanical stability, (ii) biocompatibility, (iii) implantability, and (iv) diagnostic compatibility.
-
In this review, we highlight current standards in the use of 3D-printed technology for sacropelvic reconstruction.
Introduction
In recent years, various titanium 3D printing applications are available in a broad spectrum of medical device types (1). In the field of musculoskeletal oncology, the improvement of 3D printing technology allows the creation of customized implants to handle complex reconstructions. This topic is closely related to computer-assisted surgery (CAS) and the optimization of data derived from preoperative imaging studies for the improvement of clinical and surgical outcomes such as the accuracy of bone cuts (2, 3, 4, 5). The first objective of surgery in the oncological setting is local control with complete excision of the tumor, while obtaining wide resection margins (6). However, it is obvious that the orthopedic surgeon must first take into consideration the local and systemic adjuvant treatments that the patient can receive based on the correct histopathological diagnosis. Limb salvage with endoprosthetic replacement surgery is today used for 90–95% of all patients with primary malignant bone tumors without compromising the oncological outcome (7, 8, 9). Prosthetic reconstructions after primary bone tumor removal can be divided into two groups based on (i) availability of modular implants or (ii) custom implants for unusual sites where massive allografts are the main alternative. Modular megaprostheses can be used for reconstruction of the entire humerus and lower limb long bones (femur, tibia) and have shown acceptable performance scores (range 65–82% at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score) with a 5-year estimated revision-free survival of 65–86% (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). Sites where reconstruction after large tumor resection is extremely difficult are the forearm, foot and ankle, and spinopelvic areas. Advances in anesthesiologic and surgical techniques also allow the removal of some extensive tumors of the sacropelvic bone with adequate margins despite the difficulty to perform multiplanar osteotomies (16, 17, 18), whereas the development of surgical techniques allows demanding reconstructions (19, 20, 21, 22). With the use of CAS and custom 3D-printed reconstructions, satisfactory results in terms of functional and oncological outcomes have been also reported in recent series of patients affected by malignant bone tumors of unusual sites including sacrum and pelvis (20, 23, 24, 25, 26). These patient-specific special implants and related surgical tools have been initially studied for revision hip arthroplasties in selected cases (27, 28, 29, 30, 31) and then applied for pelvic tumor surgery (20, 25, 30). The planning of the surgical intervention in oncology depends on several decisive factors: the technique of the previous biopsy and the histopathological diagnosis (complemented by molecular, cytogenetic, and immunological studies), the tumor volume, the soft tissue involvement, and the patient’s general health status (32, 33). Without taking these aspects into account, therapeutic decisions would not be adequate and effective and long-term survival of the patient cannot be expected. This review is focused on the principles, concepts, and use of 3D-printed prosthetic reconstructions after sacral and pelvic resections, reporting the state of the art and the authors experience on this specific topic.
Planning the surgical approach
Once the resection has been planned and confirmed at the multidisciplinary consultation meeting, the surgeon can begin the second stage of surgical treatment planning (34). In addition to the type of tumor and extent of bony invasion, indications for pelvic reconstruction are based on the type of pelvic resection. The Enneking and Dunham surgical classification of pelvic resections into four zones (35) is the most frequently used. Angelini et al. reported an algorithm based on the above classification to guide the reconstructive strategies (30), and custom 3D-printed prosthesis should be used in type I or type I–IV pelvic resections and in pelvic acetabular resections when a cup with modular stem cannot be used due to the small size of the residual ilium. For tumors of the sacrum, the resection procedure must be prepared in terms of oncological adequacy, but also considering the possible complications deriving from secondary dysfunctions of the axial and supportive functions of the spine and pelvis. Loss or dysfunction of any component of this complex anatomical system causes failure of other adjacent organs of movement, such as the hip joints. Spinopelvic reconstruction should be considered, in relation to expected neurologic loss and functional instability (Fig. 1), following a total or high sacrectomy or sacroiliac joint removal.
Types of sacral bone resection: type 1 – low sacral amputation (partial sacrectomy below S2), type 2 – high sacral amputation (partial sacrectomy through S1 or S1–S2), type 3 – total sacrectomy (sacrectomy at L5-S1 level), and type 4 – extended sacrectomy (resection of tumor extending beyond the sacroiliac joint or the L5 vertebra).
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 8, 5; 10.1530/EOR-23-0066
Once the decision to perform a reconstruction with a custom 3D-printed prosthesis has been made, it is important to have adequate imaging studies for the virtual model and a multidisciplinary discussion with the engineers (36, 37).
Radiological imaging
Comprehensive oncological staging is based on imaging studies: computed tomography (CT) of the pelvis and chest, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and bone scan or PET/CT (33, 38). Each of the tests mentioned earlier has its own sensitivity and specificity which complete the patient's clinical evaluation. CT perfectly shows bone morphology, the extension of the tumor in the soft tissues, and the presence of calcifications in the tumor mass. The MRI exam evaluates the tumor infiltration in the medullary cavity and in the soft tissues and the presence of micrometastases (the so-called 'skip metastases') within the same bone or in the adjacent one. Both exams are used to evaluate the response of the tumor to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Bone scintigraphy and PET/CT are useful for evaluating systemic spread, the metabolic activity of the tumor, and detecting viable tumor tissue throughout the bone.
Patient-specific implants (PSI) are implants custom-made to the individual patient's anatomical bone structures that can be used intraoperatively to allow safe resection and reconstruction of the bone defect (39). The modeling is based on a high-resolution CT scan, converting the imaging data (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) into a digital virtual 3D model (40). Preoperative determination of bone resection is possible manually, by placing cutting planes and drawing the tumor volume, but is a technically demanding and time-consuming task. This process called ‘segmentation’ is the delineation of tumor and anatomic structures by defining their contours. Nowadays, software exists that allows automatic segmentation of healthy bone, identification of tumor volume (Fig. 2), and generation of bone tumor resection plans, with the possibility of manual changes (slice-by-slice), in an acceptable time-frame of 20–30 min.
A 46-year-old patient with extensive chondrosarcoma of the sacrum: preoperative planning of the extent of resection according to the ICAPS computer system (Germany): (A) coronal (B) sagittal, and (C) axial view. Tumor and sacrum are automatically mapped with red lines
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 8, 5; 10.1530/EOR-23-0066
Patient positioning and surgical approach
The close multidisciplinary collaboration between surgeons and engineers is essential for implant design: the surgeon contributes by transferring the surgical approach and anatomical landmarks that can be reached within the surgical field to the team. Furthermore, it is well known that the choice of surgical approach is one of the most important factors determining wound healing in the postoperative period (41). Incisions in the midline of the sacrum that reach into the gluteal fissure have a potential risk of infective complications (42). On the other hand, the surgical approach passing through both buttocks, transverse or straight cuts at the level of L5 to S3 extending bilaterally to the buttocks in the shape of the well-known star symbol is recommended for partial or total transverse sacrectomies in selected cases (Fig. 3), accepting the risk of flap necrosis (42, 43, 44). In type 4 extended sacrectomies, the best surgical approach appears to be the ‘Marcy–Fletcher posterior pelvic access’ which allows dissection of the L5 vertebra, the sacroiliac joint, the ilium, and even the hip joint (Fig. 4). In pelvic surgery, the patient positioning and surgical incision depend on the portion of bone to be resected, surgeon preference, and experience: supine position or lateral decubitus, combined approaches, and simultaneous or staged procedures are only some technical aspects that need to be considered in preoperative planning. Different surgical approaches have been described with pros and cons, such as the Kocher–Langenbach approach, Ollier's lateral U, ‘reverse question mark’, the utilitarian pelvic incision, and an ‘S’ shaped incision (45).
A 36-year-old patient with G3 mesenchymal chondrosarcoma. (A) intraoperative picture of modified epaulette intraoperative access for total sacrectomy including open biopsy tract. (B) Intraoperative picture after tumor removal and (C) surgical specimen. (D) Intraoperative custom-made endoprosthesis realized with 3D-printing technology (MUTARS® Implantcast Gmbh, Buxtehüde, Germany). (E) Postoperative radiograph.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 8, 5; 10.1530/EOR-23-0066
(A) Modified posterior Marcy–Fletcher approach for type 4 sacrectomies: intraoperative picture shows the wide exposure of the sacrum and pelvic area. (B) Preoperative axial and (C) 3D CT reconstruction of the pelvis in a patient with osteosarcoma of the sacroiliac joint and L5 vertebra. (D) Clinical results after wound healing.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 8, 5; 10.1530/EOR-23-0066
Implant details
Due to the value and complexity of the anatomical pelvic area, custom-made 3D-printed prostheses have to fulfill several requirements: (i) mechanical stability, (ii) biocompatibility, (iii) implantability, and (iv) diagnostic compatibility.
Mechanical stability
Starting from the virtual model, it is possible to create any complex shape with solid and porous sections to be combined to provide optimal strength and performance (46, 47). Ideally, the resistance and stiffness of the implant, and forces distribution should be identical to the removed bone it replaces. In real life, there are different opinions and prosthetic design based on surgeons’ experience. In sacral reconstructions, some authors preferred a prosthetic implant closely matching the anatomical structure of the sacrum (48), while others opt for an implant reduced in size (20, 23, 49) (Fig. 5). Huang et al. performed a biomechanical comparison of a 3D-printed sacrum prosthesis vs rod-screw systems for reconstruction after total sacrectomy, concluding that the prosthesis has the biomechanical advantages of a more uniform stress distribution (50). However, a combined custom pelvic prosthesis with posterior pedicle screw-rod fixation directly connected to tulip-head screws should be considered to increase stability in the proximal part of the ilium (Fig. 5) (51). Mechanical stability can be improved by adding porous surfaces in the contact areas with host bone facilitating bone ingrowth and long-term mechanical strength (Fig. 6) (52, 53). Specific porous or textured surfaces can be realized to favor strict adherence of vascularized soft tissues (p.e. muscles) obtaining stability, coverage of the implant, reduction of dead space, and the consequent risk of infection (20, 24, 25, 30). Other relevant aspects are the need for a primary stable fixation using long cancellous screws, cortical screws, press-fit porous stems, and small hooks for stabilization, often used in combination (Fig. 6) (20, 24, 25, 30, 54).
3D-printed sacral endoprostheses (additive manufacturing, EBM - electron beam melting, Implantcast Gmbh, Buxtehüde, Germany) in (A) anatomical version and (B) reduced in size. (C) Different design of sacral 3D-printed custom prosthesis with the possibility of connection to posterior spine stabilization using polyaxial screws.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 8, 5; 10.1530/EOR-23-0066
Wide margin hemisacrectomy plus hemipelvectomy (type I–II) for huge osteosarcoma after a good response to induction chemotherapy in a 25-year-old patient. (A) Scope of resection; (B) surgical technique with a custom cutting guide (in the circle) fixed with two pins in a virtual model; (C) 3D-printed implant with acetabular component and sacral proximal fixation. (D) Specific technical tricks: safety screws and 3D-printed plastic guide for adequate drilling. (E) Further details of the implant that increase long-term fixation: hooks for additional stability (black arrows), holes for soft tissue attachment (small arrows), EPORE® structure (asterisks), polyaxial screw system for spino-implant attachment, and tripolar acetabular system (Ecofit® 2M), (MUTARS ® Implantcast Gmbh, Buxtehüde, Germany).
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 8, 5; 10.1530/EOR-23-0066
Biocompatibility
The main complications of massive allograft in pelvic reconstruction are infection and mechanical failures (55, 56). Even if cadaveric bone should have the maximum biocompatibility, the host considers that bone as a non-vascularized foreign body. Studies on biomaterials tried to minimize the adverse interactions of the prosthesis with the surrounding bone and soft tissue ((57). 3D-printed technology is able to create titanium alloy implants through two strategies (powder bed method and power deposit method), exploiting the known characteristics of the metal such as high strength, low density, high corrosion resistance, and excellent biocompatibility (58, 59). Some studies demonstrated that titanium alloy materials have a very good effect on promoting the proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts (60, 61). Others confirmed that 3D printing process technology can integrate dense parts and porous structures to promote osteoblast adhesion and autologous bone ingrowth (62, 63). In the pelvis and sacrum, there are vascular and neurologic structures that should be protected from possible friction with the prosthetic implant (64). With 3D-printed technology is possible to realize smooth areas in close proximity to the vascular structures (Fig. 7).
A 30-year-old patient with osteosarcoma of the left hemipelvis. (A) Intraoperative image of nerve root preservation; (B) 3D-printed implant with designed holes for muscle reconstructions and EPORE® structure; (C) hip muscle transfer through the implant; (D) postoperative radiograph shows definitive implant.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 8, 5; 10.1530/EOR-23-0066
Implantability
One significant advantage of PSI is the specific cutting guides (jigs) that are designed by the multidisciplinary team considering the surgical approach (65). These guides can be sterilized and fixed to the host bone to exactly define resection planes, which could prevent misfitting of the definitive custom prosthesis (Fig. 6).
Diagnostic compatibility
The properties of the custom implant used for pelvic reconstruction should cause no or minimal artifacts with imaging studies, considering the need of strict follow-up evaluation of the malignant underlying pathology. The risk of local recurrence in primary tumors such as chondrosarcoma is high (Fig. 8). The event-free survival to local recurrence in a series of 409 chondrosarcomas was 85% at 5 years and 78% at 10 and 15 years (66). Analyzing a series of 215 chondrosarcomas of the pelvis, the overall 5- and 10-year survival to local recurrence drops to 75 and 66%, respectively (67).
Total sacrectomy and spinopelvic stabilization in a patient with G3 chondrosarcoma. (A) Radiograph at 3 years of follow-up shows local recurrence (black arrow) in the posterior pelvic column; (B) virtual model with new resection-planes highlighted in red color and the custom 3D prosthetic reconstruction with a hole (empty arrow) to connect the previously implanted posterior stabilization rods; (C) intraoperative picture of the reconstruction; (D) surgical approach wide good healing of the wound; (E) postoperative radiograph.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 8, 5; 10.1530/EOR-23-0066
Pure titanium implants are unfortunately associated with several drawbacks regarding subsequent RT (68). In fact, these implants make notable artifacts on CT scans (used for both oncologic follow ups and to generate RT plans). Ongoing studies are evaluating the further improvement in 3D-printed technology to overcome those problems with metal hardware, such it happens in carbon fiber reinforced polyetheretherketone and titanium (CFP-T) that are now widely used in spine surgery (69).
Conclusion
An increasing role of surgery in the treatment of musculoskeletal sarcomas can be recently observed, particularly in axial localization. The 3D-printed technology associated with CAS dramatically changed the approach to malignant tumors of the pelvis and sacrum, allowing wide resection and stable reconstructions with good oncologic and functional outcomes. Improving surgeon and engineer expertise is changing the use of 3D-printed technology in musculoskeletal oncology, as implant design is moving from customized prostheses to a ‘standardized’ implant that can be tailored to a specific patient based on tumor site.
ICMJE conflict of interest statement
Ruggieri reports he is a consultant for Stryker and Exactech. The other authors declare that there are no relationships/conditions/circumstances that present a potential conflict of interest with the present manuscript.
Funding statement
There was no external funding source in support of this study.
References
- 1.↑
Popov VV Jr, Muller-Kamskii G, Kovalevsky A, Dzhenzhera G, Strokin E, Kolomiets A, & Ramon J. Design and 3D-printing of titanium bone implants: brief review of approach and clinical cases. Biomedical Engineering Letters 2018 8 337–344. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s13534-018-0080-5)
- 2.↑
Bosma SE, Cleven AHG, & Dijkstra PDS. Can navigation improve the ability to achieve tumor-free margins in pelvic and sacral primary bone sarcoma re- sections? A historically controlled study. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2019 477 1548–1559. (https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000000766)
- 3.↑
Cheong D, & Letson GD. Computer-assisted navigation and musculoskeletal sarcoma surgery. Cancer Control 2011 18 171–176. (https://doi.org/10.1177/107327481101800304)
- 4.↑
Ieguchi M, Hoshi M, Takada J, Hidaka N, & Nakamura H. Navigation-assisted surgery for bone and soft tissue tumors with bony extension. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2012 470 275–283. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2094-5)
- 5.↑
Abraham JA, Kenneally B, Amer K, & Geller DS. Can navigation-assisted surgery help achieve negative margins in resection of pelvic and sacral tumors? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2018 476 499–508. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999.0000000000000064)
- 6.↑
Young PS, Bell SW, & Mahendra A. The evolving role of computer-assisted navigation in musculoskeletal oncology. Bone and Joint Journal 2015 97–B 258–264. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34461)
- 7.↑
Jeys LM, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, & Tillman RM. Risk of amputation following limb salvage surgery with endoprosthetic replacement, in a consecutive series of 1261 patients. International Orthopaedics 2003 27 160–163. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-003-0429-x)
- 8.↑
Aksnes LH, Bauer HCF, Jebsen NL, Follerås G, Allert C, Haugen GS, & Hall KS. Limb-sparing surgery preserves more function than amputation: a Scandinavian sarcoma group study of 118 patients. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 2008 90 786–794. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.90B6.19805)
- 9.↑
Tsantes AG, Altsitzioglou P, Papadopoulos DV, Lorenzo D, Romanò CL, Benzakour T, Tsukamoto S, Errani C, Angelini A, & Mavrogenis AF. Infections of tumor prostheses: an updated review on risk factors, microbiology, diagnosis, and treatment strategies. Biology (Basel) 2023 12 314. (https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12020314)
- 10.↑
Pala E, Henderson ER, Calabrò T, Angelini A, Abati CN, Trovarelli G, & Ruggieri P. Survival of current production tumor endoprostheses: complications, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis. Journal of Surgical Oncology 2013 108 403–408. (https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23414)
- 11.↑
Qadir I, Umer M, & Baloch N. Functional outcome of limb salvage surgery with mega-endoprosthetic reconstruction for bone tumors. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2012 132 1227–1232. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1542-3)
- 12.↑
Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR, Kermani C, & Gotha H. Survivorship and clinical outcome of modular endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplastic disease of the lower limb. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 2006 88 790–795. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B6.17519)
- 13.↑
Pala E, Trovarelli G, Calabrò T, Angelini A, Abati CN, & Ruggieri P. Survival of modern knee tumor megaprostheses: failures, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2015 473 891–899. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3699-2)
- 14.↑
Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Pala E, Dennis JA, Wooten R, Cheong D, Windhager R, Kotz RI, Mercuri M, Funovics PT, et al.Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2011 93 418–429. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00834)
- 15.↑
Trovarelli G, Cappellari A, Angelini A, Pala E, & Ruggieri P. What is the survival and function of modular reverse total shoulder prostheses in patients undergoing tumor resections in whom an innervated deltoid muscle can be preserved? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2019 477 2495–2507. (https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000899)
- 16.↑
Docquier PL, Paul L, Cartiaux O, Delloye C, & Banse X. Computer-assisted resection and reconstruction of pelvic tumor sarcoma. Sarcoma 2010 2010 125162. (https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/125162)
- 17.↑
Hufner T, Kfuri M Jr, Galanski M, Bastian L, Loss M, Pohlemann T, & Krettek C. New indications for computer-assisted surgery: tumor resection in the pelvis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2004 426 219–225. (https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000138958.11939.94)
- 18.↑
Puchner SE, Funovics PT, Böhler C, Kaider A, Stihsen C, Hobusch GM, Panotopoulos J, & Windhager R. Oncological and surgical outcome after treatment of pelvic sarcomas. PLoS One 2017 12 e0172203. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172203)
- 19.↑
Bus MP, Boerhout EJ, Bramer JA, & Dijkstra PD. Clinical outcome of pedestal cup endoprosthetic reconstruction after resection of a peri-acetabular tumour. Bone and Joint Journal 2014 96–B 1706–1712. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B12.34622)
- 20.↑
Angelini A, Kotrych D, Trovarelli G, Szafrański A, Bohatyrewicz A, & Ruggieri P. Analysis of principles inspiring design of three-dimensional-printed custom-made prostheses in two referral centres. International Orthopaedics 2020 44 829–837. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04523-y)
- 21.↑
Abudu A, Grimer RJ, Cannon SR, Carter SR, & Sneath RS. Reconstruction of the hemipelvis after the excision of malignant tumours. Complications and functional outcome of prostheses. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 1997 79 773–779. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.79b5.6749)
- 22.↑
Bus MP, Szafranski A, Sellevold S, Goryn T, Jutte PC, Bramer JA, Fiocco M, Streitbürger A, Kotrych D, van de Sande MA, et al.LUMiC® endoprosthetic reconstruction after periacetabular tumor resection: short-term results. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2017 475 686–695. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4805-4)
- 23.↑
Wei R, Guo W, Ji T, Zhang Y, & Liang H. One-step reconstruction with a 3D-printed, custom-made prosthesis after total en bloc sacrectomy: a technical note. European Spine Journal 2017 26 1902–1909. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4871-z)
- 24.↑
Liang H, Ji T, Zhang Y, Wang Y, & Guo W. Reconstruction with 3D-printed pelvic endoprostheses after resection of a pelvic tumour. Bone and Joint Journal 2017 99–B 267–275. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B2.BJJ-2016-0654.R1)
- 25.↑
Wang B, Hao Y, Pu F, Jiang W, & Shao Z. Computer-aided designed, three dimensional-printed hemipelvic prosthesis for peri-acetabular malignant bone tumour. International Orthopaedics 2018 42 687–694. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3645-5)
- 26.↑
Albergo JI, Farfalli GL, Ayerza MA, Ritacco LE, & Aponte-Tinao LA. Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in orthopedic oncology. Which were the indications, problems and results in our first consecutive 203 patients? European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2021 47 424–428. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.06.008)
- 27.↑
Citak M, Kochsiek L, Gehrke T, Haasper C, Suero EM, & Mau H. Preliminary results of a 3D-printed acetabular component in the management of extensive defects. Hip International 2018 28 266–271. (https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000561)
- 28.↑
Hao Y, , Luo D, , Wu J, , Wang L, , Xie K, , Yan M, , Dai K, & Hao Y. A novel revision system for complex pelvic defects utilizing 3D-printed custom prosthesis. Journal of Orthopaedic Translation 2021 31 102–109. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2021.09.006)
- 29.↑
Wyatt MC. Custom 3D-printed acetabular implants in hip surgery--innovative breakthrough or expensive bespoke upgrade? Hip International 2015 25 375–379. (https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000294)
- 30.↑
Angelini A, Trovarelli G, Berizzi A, Pala E, Breda A, & Ruggieri P. Three-dimension-printed custom-made prosthetic reconstructions: from revision surgery to oncologic reconstructions. International Orthopaedics 2019 43 123–132. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4232-0)
- 31.↑
Berasi CC 4th, Berend KR, Adams JB, Ruh EL, & Lombardi AV Jr. Are custom triflange acetabular components effective for reconstruction of catastrophic bone loss? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2015 473 528–535. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3969-z)
- 32.↑
Mavrogenis AF, Angelini A, Errani C, & Rimondi E. How should musculoskeletal biopsies be performed? Orthopedics 2014 37 585–588. (https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20140825-03)
- 33.↑
Mavrogenis AF, Angelini A, Vottis C, Palmerini E, Rimondi E, Rossi G, Papagelopoulos PJ, & Ruggieri P. State-of-the-art approach for bone sarcomas. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology: Orthopedie Traumatologie 2015 25 5–15. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-014-1468-2)
- 34.↑
Angelini A, Piazza M, Pagliarini E, Trovarelli G, Spertino A, & Ruggieri P. The orthopedic-vascular multidisciplinary approach improves patient safety in surgery for musculoskeletal tumors: a large-volume center experience. Journal of Personalized Medicine 2021 11 462. (https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11060462)
- 35.↑
Enneking WF, & Dunham WK. Resection and reconstruction for primary neoplasms involving the innominate bone. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 1978 60 731–746. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197860060-00002)
- 36.↑
Song B, Zhao X, Li S, Han CJ, Wei QS, Wen SF, Liu J, & Shi Y. Differences in microstructure and properties between selective laser melting and traditional manufacturing for fabrication of metal parts: a review. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering 2015 10 111–125. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-015-0341-2)
- 37.↑
Ruggieri P, Cerchiaro M, & Angelini A. Multidisciplinary approach in patients with metastatic fractures and oligometastases. Injury 2023 54 268–270. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.11.027)
- 38.↑
Caracciolo JT, & Letson GD. Radiologic approach to bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Surgical Clinics of North America 2016 96 963–976. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2016.05.007)
- 39.↑
Döring K, Staats K, Puchner S, & Windhager R. Patient-specific implants for pelvic tumor resections. Journal of Personalized Medicine 2021 11 683. (https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11080683)
- 40.↑
Ritacco LE, Milano FE, Farfalli GL, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL, & Aponte-Tinao LA. Accuracy of 3-D planning and navigation in bone tumor resection. Orthopedics 2013 36 e942–e950. (https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20130624-27)
- 41.↑
Angelini A, Pala E, Calabrò T, Maraldi M, & Ruggieri P. Prognostic factors in surgical resection of sacral chordoma. Journal of Surgical Oncology 2015 112 344–351. (https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23987)
- 42.↑
Ruggieri P, Angelini A, Pala E, & Mercuri M. Infections in surgery of primary tumors of the sacrum. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012 37 420–428. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182213a44)
- 43.↑
Verlaan JJ, Kuperus JS, Slooff WB, Hennipman A, & Oner FC. Complications, secondary interventions and long term morbidity after en bloc sacrectomy. European Spine Journal 2015 24 2209–2219. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3729-5)
- 44.↑
Angelini A, Mavrogenis AF, & Ruggieri P. Chondrosarcoma of the sacrum. In Tumors of the Sacrum. Ruggieri P, Angelini A, Vanel D, & Picci P Eds. Cham: Springer 2017.
- 45.↑
Angelini A, Crimì A, Pala E, & Ruggieri P. Surgical approaches in pelvic bone tumors. In Surgery of Pelvic Bone Tumors. Ruggieri P & Angelini A Eds. Cham: Springer 2021. (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77007-5_1).
- 46.↑
Sing SL, Wang S, Agarwala S, Wiria FE, Ha TMH, & Yeong WY. Fabrication of titanium based biphasic scaffold using selective laser melting and collagen immersion. International Journal of Bioprinting 2017 3 007. (https://doi.org/10.18063/IIB.2017.01.007)
- 47.↑
Xiu P, Jia Z, Lv J, Yin C, Cheng Y, Zhang K, Song C, Leng H, Zheng Y, Cai H, et al.Tailored surface treatment of 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V by microarc oxidation for enhanced osseointegration via optimized bone in-growth patterns and interlocked bone/implant interface. ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 2016 8 17964–17975. (https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b05893)
- 48.↑
Kim D, Lim JY, Shim KW, Han JW, Yi S, Yoon DH, Kim KN, Ha Y, Ji GY, & Shin DA. Sacral reconstruction with a 3D-printed implant after hemisacrectomy in a patient with sacral osteosarcoma: 1-year follow-up result. Yonsei Medical Journal 2017 58 453–457. (https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2017.58.2.453)
- 49.↑
Wei R, Guo W, Yang R, Tang X, Yang Y, Ji T, & Liang H. Reconstruction of the pelvic ring after total en bloc sacrectomy using a 3D-printed sacral endoprosthesis with re-establishment of spinopelvic stability: a retrospective comparative study. Bone and Joint Journal 2019 101–B 880–888. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1010.R2)
- 50.↑
Huang S, Ji T, & Guo W. Biomechanical comparison of a 3D-printed sacrum prosthesis versus rod-screw systems for reconstruction after total sacrectomy: a finite element analysis. Clinical Biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) 2019 70 203–208. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.10.019)
- 51.↑
Mindea SA, Salehi SA, Ganju A, Rosner MK, O’Shaughnessy BA, Jorge A, & Ondra SL. Lumbosacropelvic junction reconstruction resulting in early ambulation for patients with lumbosacral neoplasms or osteomyelitis. Neurosurgical Focus 2003 15 1–6. (https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2003.15.2.6)
- 52.↑
Dai KR, Yan MN, Zhu ZA, & Sun YH. Computer-aided custom-made hemipelvic prosthesis used in extensive pelvic lesions. Journal of Arthroplasty 2007 22 981–986. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.002)
- 53.↑
Fang C, Cai H, Kuong E, Chui E, Siu YC, Ji T, & Drstvenšek I. ISurgical applications of three-dimensional printing in the pelvis and acetabulum: from models and tools to implants. Der Unfallchirurg 2019 122 278–285. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-019-0626-8)
- 54.↑
Jackson RJ, & Gokaslan ZL. Spinal-pelvic fixation in patients with lumbosacral neoplasms. Journal of Neurosurgery 2000 92 61–70. (https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2000.92.1.0061)
- 55.↑
Angelini A, Drago G, Trovarelli G, Calabrò T, & Ruggieri P. Infection after surgical resection for pelvic bone tumors: an analysis of 270 patients from one institution. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2014 472 349–359. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3250-x)
- 56.↑
Ayvaz M, Bekmez S, Mermerkaya MU, Caglar O, Acaroglu E, & Tokgozoglu AM. Long-term results of reconstruction with pelvic allografts after wide resection of pelvic sarcomas. TheScientificWorldJournal 2014 2014 605019. (https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/605019)
- 57.↑
Sheng X, Wang A, Wang Z, Liu H, Wang J, & Li C. Advanced surface modification for 3D-printed titanium alloy implant interface functionalization. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 2022 10 850110. (https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.850110)
- 58.↑
Wang Z, Wang C, Li C, Qin Y, Zhong L, Chen B, Li Z, Liu H, Chang F, & Wang J. Analysis of factors influencing bone ingrowth into three-dimensional printed porous metal scaffolds: a review. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2017 717 271–285. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.05.079)
- 59.↑
Kermavnar T, Shannon A, O'Sullivan KJ, McCarthy C, Dunne CP, & O'Sullivan LW. Three-dimensional printing of medical devices used directly to treat patients: a systematic review. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing 2021 8 366–408. (https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2020.0324)
- 60.↑
Zhang Q, , Zhou J, , Zhi P, , Liu L, , Liu C, , Fang A, & Zhang Q. 3D printing method for bone tissue engineering scaffold. Medicine in Novel Technology and Devices 2023 17. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medntd.2022.100205)
- 61.↑
Palmquist A, Shah FA, Emanuelsson L, Omar O, & Suska F. A technique for evaluating bone ingrowth into 3D printed, porous Ti6Al4V implants accurately using X-ray micro-computed tomog- raphy and histomorphometry. Micron 2017 94 1–8. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2016.11.009)
- 62.↑
Dhawan A, Kennedy PM, Rizk EB, & Ozbolat IT. Three-dimensional bioprinting for bone and cartilage restoration in orthopaedic surgery. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2019 27 e215–e226. (https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00632)
- 63.↑
Wixted CM, Peterson JR, Kadakia RJ, & Adams SB. Three-dimensional printing in orthopaedic surgery: current applications and future developments. Respiratory Research 2021 5 e20.00230–e20.00211. (https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-20-00230)
- 64.↑
Angelini A, Calabrò T, Pala E, Trovarelli G, Maraldi M, & Ruggieri P. Resection and reconstruction of pelvic bone tumors. Orthopedics 2015 38 87–93. (https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20150204-51)
- 65.↑
Gouin F, Paul L, Odri GA, & Cartiaux O. Computer-assisted planning and patient-specific instruments for bone tumor resection within the pelvis: a series of 11 patients. Sarcoma 2014 2014 842709. (https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/842709)
- 66.↑
Angelini A, Guerra G, Mavrogenis AF, Pala E, Picci P, & Ruggieri P. Clinical outcome of central conventional chondrosarcoma. Journal of Surgical Oncology 2012 106 929–937. (https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23173)
- 67.↑
Mavrogenis AF, Angelini A, Drago G, Merlino B, & Ruggieri P. Survival analysis of patients with chondrosarcomas of the pelvis. Journal of Surgical Oncology 2013 108 19–27. (https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23351)
- 68.↑
Henzen D, Schmidhalter D, Guyer G, Stenger-Weisser A, Ermiş E, Poel R, Deml MC, Fix MK, Manser P, Aebersold DM, et al.Feasibility of postoperative spine stereotactic body radiation therapy in proximity of carbon and titanium hybrid implants using a robotic radiotherapy device. Radiation Oncology 2022 17 94. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02058-7)
- 69.↑
Li CS, Vannabouathong C, Sprague S, & Bhandari M. The use of carbon-fiber-reinforced (CFR) peek material in orthopedic implants: a systematic review. Clinical Medicine Insights. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders 2015 8 33–45. (https://doi.org/10.4137/CMAMD.S20354)
