Biomechanical and clinical outcomes of 3D-printed versus modular hemipelvic prostheses for limb-salvage reconstruction following periacetabular tumor resection: a mid-term retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Abstract 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).