Search

Background: Debates persist over optimal pelvic girdle reconstruction after acetabular tumor resection, with surgeons grappling between modular and 3D-printed hemipelvic endoprostheses. We hypothesize superior outcomes with 3D-printed versions, yet scarce comparative research exists. This study fills the gap, examining biomechanics and clinical results retrospectively. Methods: From February 2017 to June 2021, we retrospectively assessed 32 patients undergoing en bloc resection for malignant periacetabular tumors at a single institution. Primary outcome: limb function. Secondary outcomes: implant precision, hip joint rotation center restoration, prosthesis-bone osteointegration, and complications. Biomechanical characteristics were evaluated through finite element analysis on pelvic defect models. Results: In the 3D-printed group, stress distribution mirrored a normal pelvis, contrasting the modular group with elevated overall stress, unstable transitions, and higher stress peaks. The 3D-printed group exhibited superior functional scores (MSTS: 24.3 ± 1.8 vs. 21.8 ± 2.0, p < 0.05; HHS: 79.8 ± 5.2 vs. 75.3 ± 3.5, p < 0.05). Prosthetic-bone interface osteointegration, measured by T-SMART, favored 3D-printed prostheses, but surgery time (426.2 ± 67.0 vs. 301.7 ± 48.6 min, p < 0.05) and blood loss (2121.1 ± 686.8 vs. 1600.0 ± 505.0 ml, p < 0.05) were higher. Conclusions: The 3D-printed hemipelvic endoprosthesis offers precise pelvic ring defect matching, superior stress transmission, and function compared to modular endoprostheses. However, complexity, fabrication expertise, and challenging surgical implantation result in prolonged operation times and increased blood loss. A nuanced consideration of functional outcomes, complexity, and patient conditions is crucial for informed treatment decisions. Level of evidence: Level III, therapeutic study (Retrospective comparative study). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 endoscopic spine surgeries on the biomechanical properties of normal and osteoporotic spines. Methods: Based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult volunteer, 6 finite element models were created. After validating the normal intact model, a concentrated force of 400 N and a moment of 7.5 Nm were exerted on the upper surface of L3 to simulate 6 physiological activities of the spine. Five types of indices were used to assess the biomechanical properties of the 6 models, range of motion (ROM), maximum displacement value, intervertebral disc stress, maximum stress value, and articular protrusion stress, and by combining them with finite element stress cloud. Results: In normal and osteoporotic spines, there was no meaningful change in ROM or disc stress in the 2 surgical models for the 6 motion states. Model N1 (osteoporotic percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy model) showed a decrease in maximum displacement value of 20.28% in right lateral bending. Model M2 (unilateral biportal endoscopic model) increased maximum displacement values of 16.88% and 17.82% during left and right lateral bending, respectively. The maximum stress value of L4-5 increased by 11.72% for model M2 during left rotation. In addition, using the same surgical approach, ROM, maximum displacement values, disc stress, and maximum stress values were more significant in the osteoporotic model than in the normal model. Conclusion: In both normal and osteoporotic spines, both surgical approaches were less disruptive to the physiologic structure of the spine. Furthermore, using the same endoscopic spine surgery, normal spine biomechanical properties are superior to osteoporotic spines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]