Should the Pelvic Ring Be Closed After Tumor Resection? A Systematic Review

Background: Primary malignant bone tumors of the pelvis account for 10–15% of all primary bone sarcomas, most commonly chondrosarcoma, osteosarcoma, and Ewing’s sarcoma. Although advances have shifted treatment toward internal hemipelvectomy, pelvic resections remain challenging due to the complex anatomy. The need for pelvic reconstruction is controversial, balancing potential stability against higher complication rates. This review evaluates the role of pelvic ring reconstruction, focusing on techniques, outcomes, and complications. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed in June 2025 using PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library as the primary databases, with the following search string: (hemipelvectomy) AND (orthopedic), acknowledging that this search strategy may be limited in scope. Studies published within the last five years were considered. After performing a full-text assessment of 80 studies, 14 studies were included in this review. Data regarding patients, methods, and outcomes were extracted and summarized. Results: Among the 14 included studies, seven investigated patient-specific three-dimensional (3D) printed pelvic reconstructions, four reported biological reconstruction techniques, two studies focused on non-reconstructive management and one study evaluated alternative stabilization using segmental spinal instrumentation. 3D printed and other reconstructive techniques were associated with improvements in the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score, reduced pain, and demonstrated osseointegration with few mechanical failures. Although individual case series demonstrated good ambulation and stable fixation, complication rates, particularly wound and infection-related events, remained frequent. Type III reconstructions and personalized implants showed the highest functional gains but occasionally revealed asymptomatic fretting wear. In contrast, the only Level I evidence indicated significantly higher complication and infection rates in reconstructed patients and better functional outcomes in those managed without reconstruction when spinopelvic stability was preserved. Non-reconstructive strategies, including spinal instrumentation, supported early ambulation with low mechanical failure, while pediatric patients treated without reconstruction experienced a high complication rate but acceptable long-term oncologic outcomes. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that routine pelvic ring reconstruction after internal hemipelvectomy may not be justified based on the currently available evidence. Patient-specific 3D-printed implants appear to provide consistent improvements in function, pain reduction, and mechanical stability, but are associated with a relevant risk of wound-related and infectious complications. In patients with preserved spinopelvic stability, non-reconstructive strategies may achieve comparable functional outcomes with lower morbidity. Therefore, pelvic reconstruction should be performed selectively, and further prospective multicenter studies are needed to better define appropriate patient selection and optimize reconstructive strategies.