Skip to main content
. 2021 Sep 7;28(5):3463–3473. doi: 10.3390/curroncol28050299

Table 3.

Previous studies in literature describe several reconstruction techniques in the treatment of distal fibula sarcomas, complications, follow-up and functional outcomes.

RT N. of Cases Author Complications MFU (Months) FO
AA 9 Dieckmann [11] DWH, Pseudoarthrosis, Talipes equinus, Deep infection, Fracture 39.9 E
1 Ozaki [23] - 50 G
Ped VFT 2 Capanna [7] Reduced ankle mobility 15 -
1 De Gauzy [9] - 30 E
NVFT 1 Dieckmann [11] Intralesional resection (Amputation) 155 -
1 Leibner [5] - 60 E
1 Ozaki [23] Intralesional resection (Amputation) 43 P
BC + NVG 1 Ozaki [23] Fatigue Fracture, LLD 114 G
IG 3 Capanna [7] - 12 E
4 Jamshidi [12] Valgus deformity, Syndesmosis screw breakage 38 E
NR 1 Jung [6] Severe valgus deformity, Limited mobilities, LLD 84 -
3 Ozaki [23] Wound Necrosis, Drop foot, Intralesional resection (Amputation) 31 P
3 Capanna [7] - 13.5 E

RT = Resection Type, N. of cases = Number of Cases, MFU = Mean Follow-up, FO = Functional Outcome, AA = Ankle Arthrodesis, Ped VFT = Pedicled Vascularized Fibula Transposition, NVFT = Non-Vascularized Fibula Transposition, BC + NVG = Bone Cement and Non-Vascularized graft, IG = Intercalary Graft, NR = No reconstruction, DWH = Delayed Wound Healing, LLD = Limb Length Discrepancy, E = Excellent, G = Good, P = Poor.