Hip Transposition Can Provide Early Walking Function After Periacetabular Tumor Resection: A Multicenter Study

Abstract

Abstract Background Reconstruction after periacetabular bone tumor resection involves important tradeoffs; large bone grafts or endoprostheses are reported to offer fair walking function in general but can be technically demanding and carry a high risk of severe complications. Conversely, hip transposition avoids implant-related risks, but stability and functional return may be less consistent. Fewer studies are available on hip transposition, which is also appealing in more resource-constrained environments, and little is known about the time course from surgery to functional return after hip transposition. Questions/purposes (1) What is the time course of recovery of walking function after hip transposition, especially in the first 6 months? (2) What factors are associated with a greater likelihood of early functional recovery? (3) Is early (2-month) functional recovery associated with a greater likelihood of walking ability and higher Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores? Methods Between 2009 and 2019, six tertiary care centers in Japan treated 48 patients with internal hemipelvectomy for malignant tumors. During that time, the preferred reconstructive approach was hip transposition, and 92% (44 of 48) of our patients were treated with this procedure. Among them, 86% (38 of 44) had follow-up of at least 6 months, had no local recurrence during that time, and were included in our retrospective study. We chose 6 months as the minimum follow-up duration because the endpoints in this study pertained to early recovery rather than reconstructive durability. Hip transposition involved moving the proximal end of the femur (femoral head, resection end of the trochanteric area, and spacers such as prostheses) upward to the underside of the resected ilium or the lateral side of the sacrum if sacroiliac joint resection was performed. The end of the proximal femur was stabilized to the remaining ilium or sacrum using polyethylene tape, polyethylene terephthalate mesh, an iliotibial tract graft, or an external fixator, according to the surgeon’s preference. The median age at surgery was 46 years (range 9 to 76 years), there were 23 women and 15 men, and the median follow-up duration was 17 months (range 6 to 110 months). The postoperative time course of functional recovery was assessed with a record review, the timing of functional milestones was identified (wheelchair, walker, bilateral crutches, single crutch or cane, and walking without an aid), and the MSTS score at the final follow-up was assessed. Additionally, demographic and surgical factors were reviewed, and their association with short-term functional recovery and the final functional outcome was analyzed. Results Patients started using a walker at median postoperative day (POD) 20 (IQR 14 to 36) and with bilateral crutches at median POD 35 (IQR 20 to 57). At POD 60, which was the approximate median date of discharge, 76% (29 of 38) of patients were able to walk using bilateral crutches (the early recovery group) and 24% (nine of 38) of patients were not able to do so (the delayed recovery group). No baseline factors were different between the two groups. The early recovery group had a higher median MSTS score than the delayed recovery group: 57% (range 17% to 90%) versus 45% (13% to 57%) (p = 0.047). Moreover, more patients acquired better function (a single crutch or cane or more) in the early recovery group, with a median of 5 months (95% CI 4 to 11) than did those in the delayed recovery group (median not reached) (p = 0.0006). The HR was 15.2 (95% CI 2.5 to 93). Forty-two percent (16 of 38) underwent additional surgery for wound management. Conclusion It took patients a fair amount of time to recover walking function after hip transposition, and patients who could not walk on bilateral crutches at POD 60 seemed less likely to regain walking function and were likely to have lower MSTS scores thereafter. Wound-related complications were frequent. This method may be a realistic alternative for younger patients who have the strength for a long rehabilitation period or those who want to minimize prosthesis-related complications. Future studies with more patients are necessary to understand the risk factors associated with delayed recovery. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.