Variability in the reported surgical techniques and methods for intercalary reconstruction following tumor resection. (September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ugur, Elif; Volaski, Harrison; Yang, Rui; Hoang, Bang; Levine, Nicole; Singh, Swapnil; Wang, Jichuan; Geller, David
• Is Part Of: Surgical oncology. Volume 38(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-09
• Subjects: Limb-sparing surgery -- Intercalary reconstruction -- Allograft; Cancer -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- surgery -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.994059
• DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2021.101610
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0960-7404

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: There is currently no consensus regarding the best techniques or surgical strategies with which to maximize intercalary allograft reconstruction outcomes. The purpose of the current study was to assess which techniques and methods are being utilized by North American orthopaedic oncologists. Methods: Members of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) were invited to complete an anonymous online questionnaire. The survey presented participants with two clinical scenarios and interrogated them on their preferred type of allograft, method of compression and fixation, and additional techniques used. Results: One hundred and twenty-six physicians completed the questionnaire. The majority studied in the United States (82%) and worked at an academic medical center (71%). Over half (54%) reported seeing over 10 primary bone tumors every year. Respondents were split between preferring a structural allograft alone or using a combined allograft-vascularized fibular graft. A majority indicated a preference for plate(s) and screw fixation but were divided between the use of two compression plates with a spanning plate, a single compression plate with a spanning plate, and two compression plates with an intramedullary nail. Screw fixation preferences were split between the use of unicortical locking only, bicortical locking only, and a combination of unicortical and bicortical locking. Almost equal percentages of respondents reported they would have used two, three, or four screws in both scenarios. Respondents were split between placing screws equidistantly and placing them peripherally within the allograft, adjacent to the allograft-host junction. Discussion: There is no clear surgical preference for intercalary reconstruction following tumor extirpation within this sample of orthopaedic oncologists. The current survey demonstrates variability across nearly every aspect of allograft reconstruction, which may, in part, explain the wide spectrum of outcomes reported within the literature. Prospective studies are warranted to better evaluate technique-specific outcomes in an effort to maximize reconstructive longevity and minimize allograft related complications. Highlights: There is no consensus on what the best techniques or surgical strategies are for intercalary allograft reconstruction. We surveyed membership of a specialty society comprised of only orthopaedic oncologists. Variability in preferences was found across almost every aspect of allograft reconstruction.