Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 21;33(5):905–915. doi: 10.1177/11207000221135068

Table 2.

Literature overview of papers reporting on endoprosthetic acetabular reconstruction techniques after tumour resection.

Author Number of patients Follow-up (months) Type of implant Pelvic ring restoration Bloodloss (ml) Surgical time (hours) Clear margins Dislocation Aseptic loosening Structural failure Infection Local recurrence Implant survival MSTS
Pelvic tumour implants non custom or modular
 Bus et al. 33 19 39 Pedestal zimmer No na na na 26% 15% 21% 47% 21% 50% 49%
 Bus et al. 6 47 47 LUMiC implantcast No 2300 6.5 87% 21% 1% 6% 30% 11% 82% 70%
 Ji et al. 34 100 53 Modular na 2700 na 91% 9% 2% 5% 15% 20% 64% 57%
 Wang et al. 35 50 54 Modular Yes 4200 6.8 82% 4% 2% 10% 14% 18% 64% 61%
 Menendez et al. 36 24 29 Modular No na na na 12% na 8% 32% 20% 84% 67%
 Guo et al. 9 28 30 3D printed modular Yes 4800 5.4 96% 4% 0% 7% 14% 25% 93% 62%
 Liang et al. 12 35 21 3D printed modular No 2206 4.3 83% 6% 0% 0% 0%% 14% 100% 64%
Pelvic tumour implants custom. old generation
 Witte et al. 37 40 24 Mutars No na na 98% 3% 8% 15% 30% 18% 61% 50%
 Jaiswal et al. 14 98 65 Stanmore No na na na 20% 24% 3% 30% 31% 68% 59%
 Abudu et al. 15 35 84 Stanmore No na na na 17% 3% 6% 26% 23% na 70%
 Müller et al. 38 9 62 Howmedica Yes na na na 11% 22% na 56% 0% 67% na
 Ozaki et al. 16 12 57 Howmedica Yes na na 92% 8% 8% 33% 25% 50% 58% 37%
 Tunn et al. 39 24 98 Mutars Yes/No 2300 8.8 96% 4% 17% na 42% 21% 33% na
 Dai et al. 40 10 34 Custom Yes na na na 20% 0% 10% 30% 34% 100% na
Pelvic tumour implants custom. new generation
 Wang et al. 13 13 27 Chunli Co Yes 2600 4.3 na 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 100% 77%
 Peng et al. 17 6 (5 oncology) 30 Custom Yes 2500 4.1 na 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 66%
 Angelini et al. 18 41 (22 oncology) 60 Multiple manufacturers na 1200 4.5 76% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 100% 70%
This study 15 34 OSSIS Yes 5000 5.5 92% 7% 0% 20% 7% 7% 73% 63%