Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIMS: sacrectomy (TES) and to review its outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 32 patients who underwent TES in our hospital between January 2015 and December 2017. We divided the patients into three groups on the basis of the method of reconstruction: an endoprosthesis group (n = 10); a combined reconstruction group (n = 14), who underwent non-endoprosthetic combined reconstruction, including anterior spinal column fixation; and a spinopelvic fixation (SPF) group (n = 8), who underwent only SPF. Spinopelvic stability, implant survival (IS), intraoperative haemorrhage rate, and perioperative complication rate in the endoprosthesis group were documented and compared with those of other two groups. RESULTS: The mean overall follow-up was 22.1 months (9 to 44). In the endoprosthesis group, the mean intraoperative hemorrhage was 3530 ml (1600 to 8100). Perioperative complications occurred in two patients; both had problems with wound healing. After a mean follow-up of 17.7 months (12 to 38), 9/10 patients could walk without aids and 8/10 patients were not using analgesics. Imaging evidence of implant failure was found in three patients, all of whom had breakage of screws and/or rods. Only one of these, who had a local recurrence, underwent re-operation, at which solid bone-endoprosthetic osseointegration was found. The mean IS using re-operation as the endpoint was 32.5 months (95% confidence interval 23.2 to 41.8). Compared with the other two groups, the endoprosthesis group had significantly better spinopelvic stability and IS with no greater intraoperative haemorrhage or perioperative complications. CONCLUSION: 2019;101-B:880-888.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wei et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: