Tag Archive for: Ashish Gulia

Rehabilitation following Limb-Salvage Surgery in Sarcoma

Volume 2 | Issue 2 | May-Aug 2016 | Page 20-24 | Vincent S Paramanandam, Anuradha A Daptardar, Ashish Gulia

Authors: Vincent S Paramanandam [1], Anuradha A Daptardar [1], Ashish Gulia [2].

1Physiotherapy Department, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai
2Orthopedic Oncology Services, Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Paramanandam V
Technichal Officer C, Physiotherapy Department, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai
Email: vinsu24@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Limb salvage after tumor resection has become a norm in today’s era. There are number of biological and non biological reconstruction options available for the reconstruction of these bone defects. The success story of these surgical procedures is mainly based on their excellent functional outcome. Post surgical rehabilitation plays an important role in achieving optimal functional outcome and good quality of life. The rehabilitation protocol following limb salvage surgery is complex and it differs with type of reconstruction procedure. Present articles discusses in detail the various rehabilitation protocols required to achieve above goals.

Keywords: Limb salvage surgery, rehabilitation, sarcoma

Introduction

Until 1970, amputation was the primary surgical treatment offered to bone and soft tissue sarcomas. However, from that time the treatment options have evolved dramatically and now approximately 90% of these cases undergo Limb Salvage Surgery (LSS)[1]. LSS has become the main line of treatment option for bone and soft tissue sarcomas along with adjuvant and/or neo adjuvant treatment modalities (Chemotherapy/ radiotherapy). The overall survival rate has been estimated as 55%-65%, based on the age of diagnosis, and it is considered to be comparable to that of amputation.
LSS is considered to be less invasive, provides better function and quality of life than amputation [2]. Moreover, it has been proposed that patients’ acceptability of LSS is high in view of the fact that it restores the body image better than amputation[3]. Nevertheless, LSS, unlike amputation, is associated with more peri-operative complications, prolonged hospital stay and requires repeated surgeries due to various reasons such as infection and prosthetic failure. LSS demands high surgical skills, whereas, amputation is a simple surgical procedure. Additionally, recent progress in prosthetic limbs, for example microprocessor based joints and endo-skeletal prosthetic reconstructions, have improved the functional outcome and cosmetic outlook following amputation [4]. A systematic review conducted by Bekkering et al [5] reported that the quality of life outcome from current available evidence is inconclusive in supporting LSS or amputation. Another recent systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that both surgical procedures provides similar functional recovery and quality of life [6].Despite the fact that early physical rehabilitation is the key to achieve good functional outcome and quality of life after LSS, rehabilitation techniques following LSS is largely neither tested nor documented in detail [7]. Lack of adequate early rehabilitation measures following LSS could be one of the rationales for conflicting interests reported by various studies examining the quality of life in LSS vs amputation.Hence, we have attempted to summarise basic principles and site specific considerations one must utilise to develop individual case specific rehabilitation protocol.

Common rehabilitation principles in LSS
In a recent paper, Shehadeh et al. [7] attempted to standardize the rehabilitation protocol for LSS following high grade bone and soft tissue sarcomas. They reported that following a standardized rehabilitation protocol produced improved functional outcome in group of 59 patients with LSS. Their conclusion, however, is based on small observational study with heterogeneous population who received different type of LSS for different anatomical sites. Following set protocol in LSS, unlike general orthopaedic procedure, will be counterproductive. In general orthopaedic procedures, more or less,
specific anatomical structures are involved with minimal damage to the bone, joint and soft tissue structures. In contrast, in LSS following sarcomas, these structures are extensively resected and may not be identical between two individuals undergoing similar procedures for a particular site. For example, resection length for distal end of femur osteogenic sarcoma may depend on the extent of disease in two individuals [4].  Following are common rehabilitation prospectives that need to be considered to formulate comprehensive rehabilitation protocol for LSS. 
Bone and joint reconstructions: Stability and mobility following LSS largely depends on the bone and joint structure loss and the type of reconstruction. For example, megaprosthetic distal femur replacement with cementing will allow the patient to be ambulated full weight bearing (FWB), whereas, if it is a bone graft , like in most of biological reconstructions, weight bearing needs to be delayed till the osteosynthesis is confirmed by radiographical evaluation.
Neuromuscular loss: Oncology resection demands large resections, which will also include a part of uninvolved soft tissue cover as surgical margin. Large resection may require additional rotational or free flaps for soft tissue coverage. In addition, nearby neuro-vascular bundle may need to be excised or repaired, hence, complete evaluation of neuro-motor loss would be necessary to plan the dynamic strength training and external support requirements.
Skin involvement: Donor sites of free flaps often receive split thickness skin graft which may hinder the early mobilisation of nearby joint. Moreover, scar development following open biopsy and LSS may need special attention from the rehabilitation team to prevent any future functional loss.
External supports: Temporary or permanent external support in the form of static or dynamic splinting may be required to provide support to the limb. To exemplify, prophylactic use of abduction brace along with derotation boot to prevent hip dislocation following proximal femur replacement and dynamic cock-up splint for radial nerve palsy needs to be the integral part of rehabilitation service.
Oncology treatments: Deranged blood count often hinders with the intensity of rehabilitation; hence, it prolongs the overall rehabilitation(8). Radiation induced fibrosis could cause severe restrictions in the joint range of motion. Thus, rehabilitation professionals must plan around the chemotherapy cycles and add prophylactic measures to prevent any impending radiation induced joint and soft tissue dysfunction.
Multidisciplinary approach: Limb salvage surgery is complex and demands close concordance in treatment specific outcomes between various health professional working in the rehabilitation team. This team may comprise of surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation therapists, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, prosthetics orthotics and medical social workers. Prehabilitation, rehabilitation even before starting the primary cancer therapy and surgery, such as crutch muscles strengthening, would be greatly beneficial in post-treatment functional outcome. Although in the field of LSS evidence of prehabilitation is lacking, there are considerable evidence to show beneficial effects in overall rehabilitation following cancer therapies [9–11].
Rehabilitation prescriptions and follow-up: Rehabilitation protocol for LSS must be tailor made considering the general principles and site specific modification, hence specific and also progressive. However, some negative effects of adjuvant therapies, such as the deranged blood counts and infection, may alter the course of rehabilitation process. Thus, frequent follow-up and close monitoring may be required during adjuvant therapy till they are functionally independent. 

Rehabilitation consideration for specific sites
Site specific rehabilitation principles following LSS have been presented below for few common sites.
Mega prosthetic replacement for distal femoral resection:
Distal femur is the commonest site for primary high grade sarcoma and giant cell tumors. Overall strengthening other than the affected site, in all possibility, should begin preoperatively. Limb elevation and ankle toe movement should be encouraged from post operative day one to prevent deep vein thrombosis. Cemented and semiconstrained (allows rotations and flexion/extension) knee joint endoprosthetic replacement permits early joint mobilization and FWB walking. Unlike other centres [4,7], in our centre knee joint mobilisation starts from day one with the help of continuous passive motion units (Fig.1) and active assisted methods within the pain tolerance level unless tight suturing. Close communication between the surgical team and the rehabilitation team helps in personalising the rehabilitation protocol as per the patients’ requirements. With adequate pain relief through appropriate medical management, active exercises could be started from day one to three. Full weight bearing walking could be started from day one initially with walker and later without any support if patient could effectively extend the knee “locking the knee”. Prior to ambulation, one leg standing and spot marching must be encouraged with appropriate support. After acute inflammation subsides slow progressive muscle strengthening exercises must be encouraged with the goal of achieving 900knee flexion, complete knee extension and muscle strength equivalent to the contra lateral lower limb by end of three months. Active passive motion devices, such as the one shown in Fig. 2, may help in joint mobilisation and strengthening.  Summary of rehabilitation protocol is tabulated in Table 1.
Mega prosthetic replacement for proximal tibial resection:
Proximal tibia and knee joint is the second most common site for primary high grade sarcoma and giant cell tumors. It is indeed a challenging location for rehabilitation in view of the fact that the extensor mechanism have to be reconstructed in these cases [4]. In most of the cases a gastrocnemius flap is done to provide a dynamic anchorage and direct anchorage to prosthesis provide a static attachment to help reattaching extensor mechanism to proximal tibial prosthesis. Protecting the extensor mechanism reconstruction till it attaches through fibrosis along with the surrounding soft tissue structures are crucial to prevent quadriceps lag. Hence, knee bending and quadriceps strengthening will be delayed for six weeks until then the knee is protected with the help of long knee brace. Re-attached gastrocnemius flap could lead to protective muscle spasm of plantar flexors and if not mobilised early it may create plantar flexors contracture. Thus, achieving/maintaining dorsi flexion of the ankle joint in the early post operative period is crucial for appropriate weight bearing.  Mobilisation of knee joint and quadriceps strengthening could be started after six weeks; however, therapist must consider that immobilisation of the knee joint in long knee brace leads to severe restriction of patella mobility. Unless adequate patella mobility is achieved, especially the medial lateral movement, knee flexion exercises could prevent smooth gliding of patella over the femoral condyle. This will increase strain on the reconstructed patella ligament. Therefore, our institute follows a unique mobilisation protocol following proximal tibia and knee replacement which is depicted in the Table 2. In few cases quadriceps lag could be evident due to patella tendon overstretch/avulsion, this could be due to improper patella mobilisation or forceful knee bending. Fig. 3 a, b and c depicts the patella tendon overstretch.
Mega prosthetic replacement for proximal and total femoral resection:
Resection of proximal femur and prosthetic replacement may be done for proximal femur tumor or as a part of total femoral resection and reconstruction. Partial or complete loss of joint capsule and dynamic stabilisers of hip joint during tumor resection may leave the hip joint vulnerable to dislocation. This may get potentiated with certain combination movements, if these joint movements are allowed beyond a certain limit. This restriction largely depends upon the surgical approach. Postero-lateral approach being most common in the LSS of this site, hip rotations, especially internal rotation and, flexion more than 600 and adduction of the hip joint needs to be prevented up to 6 weeks [4,7]. These movement restrictions could be achieved using hip abduction pillow/brace and de-rotation splint. Before the patient gets discharged from the hospital, training them for bed transfer, supine to standing, standing to supine and sitting in a chair/commode becomes paramount important in the early phase of rehabilitation. Knee joint mobilisation must be started early either by the edge of bed with hip joint well supported or in side lying with pillows between legs. Any restriction of knee joint range would adversely affect the overall function since hip joint function of the ipsilateral leg has already been compromised. Early FWB ambulation could be started from post operative day one initially with walker, then with walking stick. Later most of them would be trained to walk without any walking aid. Total femoral resections may require more intense rehabilitation with additional emphasis on knee strengthening as discussed earlier (Table 2). Patients may life long need to use walking aids in view of the fact that large motor loss in these cases.
Mega prosthetic replacement for proximal humeral resections:
Proximal humerus and the shoulder girdle are the third common place for primary bone sarcomas [4]. Despite endoprosthetic replacements for functional shoulder girdle structures, such as reverse glenoid prosthesis, are available, lack of muscular structures post excision and damage to the axillary nerve often prevent their use. Frequently, the proximal end of the humerus is replaced with the endoprosthesis and suspended by the remaining muscles and soft tissue structures by suturing around the proximal end of the prosthesis. The objective of the procedure is to achieve a stable shoulder to facilitate good elbow and hand function.
To prevent the weight of the endoprosthesis and the limb acting on the newly formed pseudo joint, shoulder sling and elbow pouch are provided for 4 – 6 weeks. Early post operative rehabilitation consists of elbow and hand range of motion (ROM) and strengthening exercises within pain limit. Again these exercises must be performed in supine position only to avoid undue stress on the shoulder. After six weeks, shoulder joint limited ROM exercise in the form of pendular movements and vigorous strengthening of shoulder girdle, elbow and hand complex should be commenced. Additionally, postural correction must be included in the rehabilitation program.

Biological reconstructions
Wherever feasible, biological reconstructions are preferred over endoprosthetic implants in order to provide a stable and permanent solution for reconstruction of defects after tumor resection. However, rehabilitation following biological reconstructions needs careful considerations regarding weight bearing and joint mobilization. Utmost importance to surgical notes and communication with operative surgeon is of prime importance. Early joint mobilisation is the key to prevent joint stiffness and functional loss; nevertheless, often protective functional braces may be required to prevent damage. For example, curettage and bone grafting of the lower end of femur close to the joint demands hinge knee brace to avoid varus and valgus stress. Strengthening exercises also could be started early with functional knee brace (Fig. 4).
Patients are taught to walk non-weight bearing with brace generally from post operative day one with the help of axillary crutches up to 8 weeks. Once, osteosynthesis is confirmed through radiological evaluation, progressive weight bearing walking could be started. FWB walking and complete joint range and strength are expected to be achieved by the end of 3 months to 4 months.

conclusions

Although limb salvage surgery for primary malignant tumours have achieved commendable advancement in surgical techniques and endo-prosthetic design and manufacturing, without optimal and timely peri and post-operative physical rehabilitation, achieving the desired quality of life outcome may not be feasible. This paper has highlighted few important rehabilitation principles and we have summarised rehabilitation protocol for specific area. Most of the oncology resection and reconstruction vary from one individual to another even in one particular site and needs tailor made rehabilitation protocol; nevertheless, this summary will be a guide for necessary foundation to design individual rehabilitation program.

References

1. Chopra BK. Health related quality of life studies in Indian patients after limb salvage surgery: Need of the hour. Med J Armed Forces India. 2013 Jul;69(3):209–10.
2. Ottaviani G, Robert RS, Huh WW, Palla S, Jaffe N. Sociooccupational and physical outcomes more than 20 years after the diagnosis of osteosarcoma in children and adolescents. Cancer. 2013;119(20):3727–36.
3. Frieden RA, Ryniker D, Kenan S, Lewis MM. Assessment of patient function after limb-sparing surgery. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Jan;74(1):38–43 6p.
4. Oren R, Zagury A, Katzir O, Kollender Y, Meller I. Principles of rehabilitation after limb-sparing surgery for cancer. In: Musculoskeletal Cancer Surgery [Internet]. Springer; 2001 [cited 2014 Sep 3]. p. 583–93. Available from: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-306-48407-2_36
5. Bekkering WP, Vliet Vlieland TPM, Fiocco M, Koopman HM, Schoones JW, Nelissen RGHH, et al. Quality of life, functional ability and physical activity after different surgical interventions for bone cancer of the leg: A systematic review. SurgOncol. 2012 Jun;21(2):e39–47.
6. Mei J, Zhu X-Z, Wang Z-Y, Cai X-S. Functional outcomes and quality of life in patients with osteosarcoma treated with amputation versus limb-salvage surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Nov;134(11):1507–16.
7. Shehadeh A, Dahleh ME, Salem A, Sarhan Y, Sultan I, Henshaw RM, et al. Standardization of rehabilitation after limb salvage surgery for sarcomas improves patients’ outcome. HematolOncol Stem Cell Ther. 2013 Sep;6(3–4):105–11.
8. Schmitz KH, Courneya KS, Matthews C, Demark-Wahnefried W, Galvão DA, Pinto BM, et al. American College of Sports Medicine roundtable on exercise guidelines for cancer survivors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Jul;42(7):1409–26.
9. Singh F, Newton RU, Galvão DA, Spry N, Baker MK. A systematic review of pre-surgical exercise intervention studies with cancer patients. SurgOncol. 2013 Jun;22(2):92–104.
10. Silver JK. Cancer Prehabilitation and its Role in Improving Health Outcomes and Reducing Health Care Costs. SeminOncolNurs. 2015 Feb;31(1):13–30.
11. Silver JK. Cancer prehabilitation and its role in improving health outcomes and reducing health care costs. SeminOncolNurs. 2015 Feb;31(1):13–30.

How to Cite this article: Paramanandam VS, Daptardar AA, Gulia A. Rehabilitation Following Limb-Salvage Surgery In Sarcoma. Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors May- Aug 2016;2(2):20-24.

​

                                          (Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)

Biological Methods of Reconstruction After Excision of Extremity Osteosarcoma

Volume 2 | Issue 2 | May-Aug 2016 | Page 5-9 | Suman Byregowda, Ajay Puri, Ashish Gulia.

Authors: Suman Byregowda [1], Ajay Puri [1], Ashish Gulia [1].

1Orthopedic Oncology Services, Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Ashish Gulia
Associate Professor, Orthopedic oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai.
Email: aashishgulia@gmail.com

Abstract

The overall survival rates for non-metastatic osteosarcomas have dramatically improved from a mere 15-20% to 60-65% today. This was possible due a multifactorial improvement in all the disciplines and specifically the advent of multiagent chemotherapy. With an exponential increase in the survival as well as limb salvage procedures, it would be customary to invent cost effective, stable, durable reconstruction options. Various biological and non biological methods are available for reconstruction. In the era of metal and with the advent of growing artificial bones, non biological options appear to be an attractive and easily available option with excellent immediate results but their long term results and complications are debatable. On the other hand the less attractive biological methods are known to provide stable, durable, cost effective reconstruction options. In the present article we discuss various biological reconstruction methods available for extremity osteosarcoma patients, their advantages and disadvantages.
Keywords: Biological reconstruction , Osteogenic sarcoma

Introduction:

The era when osteosarcomas of the extremity were treated with only amputations is long past and the advent of multimodality management has completely changed the outcomes of these tumors. With newer chemotherapic agents, modern surgical techniques, better imaging techniques and affordable reconstructive options limb salvage has become the norm resulting in better functional and psychological outcomes The prerequisites for limb salvage include the ability to achieve an oncologically safe margin and ability to reconstruct the limb such that it provide better function compared to an amputation. Today this is possible in more than 95% of the patients [1]. Adequate oncologic clearance is paramount and the chosen method of reconstruction should never compromise the amount of resection required. The barriers to limb salvage are encasement of a major motor nerve, major vascular involvement, poorly placed biopsy incisions, uncontrolled infection, displaced pathological fractures and inadequate motors after resection of tumors. Besides fulfilling the basic pre requisites of limb salvage mentioned above the reconstructive modality chosen should permit an early return to daily activities and be aesthetically acceptable. . The reconstruction must be durable, economically feasible and should have minimum short term and long term complications. A number of reconstructions methods, both biological and non biological are available for the reconstruction of these skeletal defects after resection. The chosen method of reconstruction should be tailored for the individual based on the growth potential, site and amount of resection and functional requirements. This article discusses the biological techniques available for reconstruction of bone defects after resection of an extremity osteosarcoma.

Biological methods available for reconstructions are
A) Allografts
B) Autografts – vascularised and non vascularised
C) Patient’s own sterilized tumor bone
D) Combination of allografts/ sterilized tumor bone and vascularised autografts
E) Distraction osteogenesis with Ilizarov technique
F) Rotationplasty
G) Masquelet technique
Depending on the extent of the resection, the surgical resections can be categorised as Osteo-articular resections and Intercalary resections. Reconstruction after osteoarticular resections is mainly done by megaprosthesis (non biological). If you want to retain joint mobility the biological options available are limited to osteoarticular allografts. Though these maintain bone stock and provide a better attachment for surrounding soft tissue resulting in increased stability of the construct the long term results with osteoarticular allografts are disappointing .Fracture, arthritis, non unions, infections and repeated surgery are not uncommon. Studies have reported 60-70 % adverse events, overall 5 year survival of 69 % and 79 % for allograft and articulate surface respectively[2,3]. A composite of allograft and prosthesis has been widely used, where allograft helps to maintain the stock and prosthesis provides the articular surface (Fig. 1).   The functional outcomes with composite reconstruction are comparable with prosthetic reconstruction alone but associated with higher complication like nonunion and fracture. This method can have limited use in selected young patients with expected long term survival and require good bone stock for revision surgeries [4,5,6]. Allografts require sophisticated bone banks for procurement and storage and these are not available in most of the developing countries. Bone donations are not as frequent as other organ donations making procuring of size matched allografts even more challenging. Allografts may also be associated with risk of transmission of disease. Though strut allografts alone can be used for the reconstruction of intercalary defects and knee arthrodesis but studies have shown higher rate of complication like fracture, non union and resorption of grafts. Study by Bus MP et al has demonstrated a complication rate of 76 % and 70 % chance for reoperation due to graft failure. Thus strut allografts alone have limited use and are generally preferred for the upper limb or small defects (< 15cms). To overcome the above complication strut allograft may be combined with vascular fibular grafts [7,8]. Fibula is the most widely used autograft for reconstruction. It can be used as a vascularised or non vascularised graft. Proximal fibular head (with articular surface) has been used to reconstruct the articular surface of proximal humerus and distal radius. While isolated vascularized fibula may be adequate for reconstruction of upper limb defects where weight bearing is not an issue, lower limb reconstructions involving femur or the knee generally require a combination of vascularised fibula with strut allografts (Fig 2). Isolated use of fibula autograft or strut allografts have higher failure rates in large lower limb bone defects [9,10,11]. Small osteoarticular defects (up to 5 cm) like after the resection of distal radius lesions can also be reconstructed with iliac crest autograft. Certain anatomical sites have an inherent advantage and ease for reconstruction. Use of the neighbouring bone in forearm and leg provides a vascularised graft after resection of the radius and tibia. This serves as an easy and effective method of reconstruction. Shifting the distal ulna after an osteotomy at an appropriate level into the defect along with its soft tissue attachment and stabilizing it to the radius proximally and carpal bone distally (wrist arthordesis) provides an excellent method of reconstructing the bone defects after resection of distal radius tumors (Fig. 3). This method provides a stable wrist while maintaining forearm rotations (pronation- supination)[12]. Similarly in tibial lesions the fibula is mobilized medially into tibial defect and stabilized. This can be done both, for intercalary resections of the tibia where fibula is shifted after a double osteotomy and distal intrarticular resections where the transposed fibula is stabilized to talus to create an ankle arthrodesis This procedures avoids the requirement of a complex micro vascular procedure, reduces the operative time and also facilitates ease of soft tissue closure as transportation of fellow bone in to the defect will result in volume reduction of the tissues [13]. Reimplanting sterilized tumor host bone is widely used after intercalary resections. Patients own resected bone is sterilized and used to fill the defect. The resected tumor grafts can be sterilized by various methods like radiotherapy (extra-corporeal radiotherapy), pasteurization, autoclaving, liquid nitrogen and microwave. This technique has various advantages over the use of allograft. It does not require a bone bank, provides size matched graft (as it has been taken from the same defect) and has no risk of transmitted disease. After resection of the tumor the tumor bearing bone is taken on a separate table and soft tissues are removed under aseptic precautions. Certain soft tissues like ligaments may be retained on the bone graft in order to facilitate reconstruction. Sterilized bones are implanted back in the defect and stabilized with intramedullary nails or plates (Fig. 4).  Reimplanted bone acts a scaffold for creeping substitution and incorporation. To enhance incorporation and the union at osteotomy sites they can be combined with a vasclarised fibula ( Capanna technique). Puri et al documented a mean union time of 7 months for osteotomy sites and an excellent MSTS score of 29 with extracorporeal radiotherapy [14,15]. To overcome the adverse events like nonunion, fracture and collapse with the use of liquid nitrogen to sterlise tumor bone (fresh frozen autograft), pedical autograft technique was developed. In this technique an osteotomy is done at one end or joint disarticulation done and the whole specimen is treated with liquid nitrogen with other end in continuity with the main bone. It is then stabilized back with internal fixation or athroplasty. As bony continuity is maintained at one end, it is presumed to have early blood flow recovery and faster union and less complication compared with frozen autograft [16,17]. The main drawback of sterilized bones are inadequate mechanical strength resulting in graft fracture and implant failure. To enhance incorporation and to overcome inadequate mechanical strength they can be combined with a vasclarised fibula ( Capanna technique). For surface lesions like periosteal, parosteal and high grade surface osteosarcomas where medullary canal is not involved, bone preserving hemicortical excision may be considered. Meticulous planning with MRI and CT scans are required to obtain adequate margins and preserve good native bone. Computer assisted navigation surgery is advantageous while performing such technically demanding bone preserving surgeries. Various options are available to fill the bone defect after hemicortical excision (sterlised resected bone, strut allografts or small defects can be filled with autografts) [18,19]. Rotationplasty involves converting ankle joint to knee joint by segmental resection and rotating the foot externally to 180 degrees. This is an alternative method for reconstruction especially in children with growth potential where cost constraints may preclude the use of expensive growing prosthesis. This worthies also useful in converting hind quarter or above knee amputations to a functional below knee like amputation in adult patients where conventional resection and reconstructions are not possible due to large or previously inappropriately treated lesions In distal femur and proximal tibia lesions, a segment of involved bone along with knee joint and involved soft tissues is removed only sparing the neurovascular bundle. Here the two segments are connected only with neurovascular bundle. The distal fragment is externally rotated 180 degrees and distal part of femur is stabilized to proximal tibia with appropriate implants, in such a way that the ankle comes to the level of opposite knee joint. In the cases with involvement of whole femur, proximal tibia is articulated with the hip joint with or without use of prosthesis after external 180 dgree rotation. Adequate soft tissue reconstructions and an intense rehabilitation protocol ensures an excellent functional outcome in these cases where the ankle will act like knee joint, dorsiflexion of ankle acts as flexion and plantar flexion acts as extension of knee joint (Fig. 5).  This procedure can also be used as salvage surgery following infected and failed limb salvage reconstruction. Studies have shown excellent oncological and functional outcome with this procedure. Rotationplasty offers a durable reconstruction option. It is not associated with phantom limb pain or sensations which are common following amputations. The main drawback of the procedure is the cosmetic deformity due to posterior rotated foot [20,21]. Distraction osteogensis using ilizarov method has been used for bone defects in tumor resection. It can be combined with live fibula grafts. The disadvantages are prolonged duration of treatment, high incidence of pin tract infections due to immune compromised state of patient receiving chemotherapeutic agents [22,23]. Due to these complications it is not a popular method and is used rarely. Masquelet technique is a two stage procedure for reconstruction of bone defects. In the first stage the defect is filled with bone cement and stabilized. This leads to the formation of a biological membrane over the cement spacer. In second stage procedure the biological membrane is opened, cement spacer removed, filled with cortico-cancellous bone graft and biological membrane sutured to create close content. The procedure was described in children. The ideal time for stage two is between 6 to 8 weeks, though in oncology we wait for completion of adjuvant treatment. Advantage is it makes primary surgery short and rapid uptake of graft due to biological membrane after the second procedure. The disadvantage with procedure is requirement of two surgical interventions [24].

Conclusions

Reconstruction following tumor resection is a challenging task. Different biological and non biological methods are available. Selection of a reconstruction procedure should be tailored to the individual patient based on the bone affected, amount of resection, requirement of patient and expertise and infrastructure available at treating centre. Biological methods are more cost effective and provide durable reconstruction options in properly selected extremity osteosarcoma patients.

References

1. Ghert M, Deheshi B, Holt G, Randall RL, Ferguson P, Wunder J et al.Prophylactic antibiotic regimensin tumour surgery (PARITY): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlledstudy. BMJ Open. 2012 Nov 28;2(6).
2. Muscolo DL, Ayerza MA, Farfalli G, Aponte-Tinao LA. Proximal tibia osteoarticular allografts in tumor limb salvage surgery. Clin OrthopRelat Res. 2010 May;468(5):1396-404.
3. Toy PC, White JR, Scarborough MT, Enneking WF, Gibbs CP. Distal femoral osteoarticular allografts: long-term survival, but frequent complications. Clin OrthopRelat Res. 2010 Nov;468(11):2914-23.
4. Donati D, Colangeli M, Colangeli S, Di Bella C, Mercuri M. Allograft-prosthetic composite in the proximal tibia after bone tumor resection. Clin OrthopRelat Res. 2008;466:459–65.
5. Van de Sande MA, Dijkstra PD, Taminiau AH. Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection:Biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction. IntOrthop. 2011;35:1375–80.
6. Campanacci L, Manfrini M, Colangeli M, Alí N, Mercuri M. Long-term results in children with massive bone osteoarticular allografts of the knee for high-grade osteosarcoma. J PediatrOrthop. 2010 Dec;30(8):919-27.
7. Bus MP, Dijkstra PD, van de Sande MA, Taminiau AH, Schreuder HW, Jutte PC, van der Geest IC et al. Intercalary allograft reconstructions following resection of primary bone tumors: a nationwide multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Feb 19;96(4):e26.
8. Aponte-Tinao LA, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL, Farfalli GL. Allograft reconstruction for the treatment of musculoskeletal tumors of the upper extremity. Sarcoma.2013;2013:925413.
9. Scaglioni MF, Chang EI, Gur E, Barnea Y, Meller I, Kollander Y, Bickels J, Dadia S, Zaretski A. The role of the fibula head flap for joint reconstruction after osteoarticular resections. J PlastReconstrAesthet Surg. 2014 May;67(5):617-23.
10. Campanacci DA, Puccini S, Caff G, Beltrami G, Piccioli A, Innocenti M, Capanna R. Vascularised fibular grafts as a salvage procedure in failed intercalary reconstructions after bone tumour resection of the femur. Injury. 2014 Feb;45(2):399-404.
11. Hilven PH, Bayliss L, Cosker T, Dijkstra PD, Jutte PC, Lahoda LU, Schaap GR, Bramer JA, van Drunen GK, Strackee SD, van Vooren J, Gibbons M, Giele H, van de Sande MA. The vascularised fibular graft for limb salvage after bone tumour surgery: a multicentre study. Bone Joint J. 2015 Jun;97-B(6):853-61.
12. Puri A, Gulia A, Agarwal MG, Reddy K. Ulnar translocation after excision of a Campanacci grade-3 giant-cell tumour of the distal radius: an effective method of reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Jun;92(6):875-9.
13. Puri A, Subin BS, Agarwal MG. Fibular centralisation for the reconstruction of defects of the tibial diaphysis and distal metaphysis after excision of bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Feb;91(2):234-9.
14. Mottard S, Grimer RJ, Abudu A, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Jeys L, Spooner D. Biological reconstruction after excision, irradiation and reimplantation of diaphyseal tibial tumours using an ipsilateralvascularised fibular graft. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Sep;94(9):1282-7.
15. Puri A, Gulia A, Jambhekar N, Laskar S. The outcome of the treatment of diaphyseal primary bone sarcoma by resection, irradiation and re-implantation of the host bone: extracorporeal irradiation as an option for reconstruction in diaphyseal bone sarcomas. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Jul;94(7):982-8.
16. Igarashi K, Yamamoto N, Shirai T, Hayashi K, Nishida H, Kimura H, Takeuchi A, Tsuchiya H. The long-term outcome following the use of frozen autograft treated with liquid nitrogen in the management of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas. Bone Joint J. 2014 Apr;96-B(4):555-61.
17. Shimozaki S, Yamamoto N, Shirai T, Nishida H, Hayashi K, Tanzawa Y, Kimura H, Takeuchi A, Igarashi K, Inatani H, Kato T, Tsuchiya H. Pedicle versus free frozen autograft for reconstruction in malignant bone and soft tissue tumors of the lower extremities. J Orthop Sci. 2014 Jan;19(1):156-63.
18. Deijkers RL, Bloem RM, Hogendoorn PC, Verlaan JJ, Kroon HM, TaminiauAH.Hemicortical allograft reconstruction after resection of low-grade malignant bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 Sep;84(7):1009-14.
19. Agarwal M, Puri A, Anchan C, Shah M, Jambhekar N. Hemicortical excision for low-grade selected surface sarcomas of bone. Clin OrthopRelat Res. 2007 Jun;459:161-6.
20. Agarwal M, Puri A, Anchan C, Shah M, Jambhekar N. Rotationplasty for bone tumors: is there still a role? Clin OrthopRelat Res. 2007 Jun;459:76-81.
21. Gradl G, Postl LK, Lenze U, Stolberg-Stolberg J, Pohlig F, Rechl H, Schmitt-Sody M, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Kirchhoff C. Long-term functional outcome and quality of life following rotationplasty for treatment of malignant tumors. BMC MusculoskeletDisord. 2015 Sep 24;16:262.
22. Demiralp B, Ege T, Kose O, Yurttas Y, Basbozkurt M. Reconstruction of intercalary bone defects following bone tumor resection with segmental bone transport using an Ilizarov circular external fixator. J Orthop Sci. 2014 Nov;19(6):1004-11.
23. Khira YM, Badawy HA. Pedicled vascularized fibular graft with Ilizarov external fixator for reconstructing a large bone defect of the tibia after tumor resection. J OrthopTraumatol. 2013 Jun;14(2):91-100.
24. Chotel F, Nguiabanda L, Braillon P, Kohler R, Bérard J, Abelin-Genevois K. Induced membrane technique for reconstruction after bone tumor resection in children: a preliminary study. OrthopTraumatolSurg Res. 2012 May;98(3):301-8.

How to Cite this article: Byregowda S, Puri A, Gulia A. Biological Methods of Reconstruction After Excision of Extremity Osteosarco. Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors May- Aug 2016;2(2):5-9 .

​

 

                                                     (Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)

Tata Memorial Centre – The Journey so Far!!!

Volume 2 | Issue 2 |May- Aug 2016 | Page 3-4 |  Ashish Gulia, Ajay Puri, Rajendra.A. Badwe

Authors:  Ashish Gulia [1], Ajay Puri [1], Rajendra.A. Badwe [1].

[1]Orthopedic Oncology Services, Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Ashish Gulia
Associate Professor, Orthopedic oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai.
Email: aashishgulia@gmail.com

Tata Memorial centre, considered as “Mecca” of Oncology care in the country and sub continent, stands today at its Dodranscentennial Anniversary. Institution started as Tata Memorial Hospital, which was inaugurated on 28th February 1941 by His Excellency Sir Roger Lumley, then Governor of Mumbai. Declaring the centre open, he estimated with extraordinary prescience “…the hospital will become the spearhead of attack on cancer in this country, providing not only a center where specialized treatment can be given, but also one from which knowledge of new methods of treatment and diagnosis will go out to doctors and hospitals throughout the country…”The past 75 years stand as glowing testimony to Sir Lumley’s prophecy. A recent peer group review of the hospital has accredited it as the premier comprehensive center in India, in addition recognized it as potentially and prominently featuring in the top five cancer centers globally. The advent of TMH in chapters of the history of medicine in India can best be defined as a quantum leap. It owed its genesis to the philanthropic sentiments of the illustrious Tata family. Later on, in 1961 was passed under the guardianship of Department of Atomic Energy which remarkably aided and upheld the meteoric rise of the sterling institution. In the year 1966 Tata Memorial Hospital merged with Cancer Research Institute (the pioneer research institute), the conjoined institutes were collectively called Tata Memorial Centre (TMC). TMC exemplifies private philanthropy boosted by Government support with a mandate for Service, Education & Research in Cancer. Commencing its journey as a torchbearer, the first dedicated cancer specialty hospital in Asia, TMC today continues to maintain its excellence of being the largest cancer institute in Asia. A fledgling 80 bedded hospital spread over 15,000 sq meters with an annual budget of half a million (INR), has escalated to a lofty institution with 700+ beds, covering over 75,000 sq meters, utilizing an annual budget of 23,00 million (INR). TMC indomitably bears the responsibility of cancer care burden not only of the large Indian populace but also several parts of Asia, Middle East and Africa, catering to an annual footfall of 65,000 new cases and 450,000 follow up cases.[1] Research and education have unarguably been the essential arms of a comprehensive cancer care centre. TMC since origin has embraced the holistic model of delivering cancer care by augmenting and developing its research and education facilities as it sought to provide treatment which was affordable, innovative and particularly relevant to the needs of the country. The research wing of TMC originally established in 1952 as CRI (Cancer Research Institute) was subsequently revamped as ACTREC (Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer) in 2002. ACTREC is a state of art research and training centre which has over the years focussed on the integration of basic and clinical research including evolving inspiring pathways for translational research. The academic unit of TMC imparts training in specialty and super specialty courses in oncology and is affiliated to the acclaimed Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai.[1]
The noble mission of the institute was to provide comprehensive cancer care to one and all. A practice which has been resolutely followed since its inception is, that every patient who walks in is attended to and treated irrespective of their ability to pay. Over 60% of TMC’s patients receive free or highly subsidized treatment. The essence of the center however, lies in its undeviating constancy towards extending compassionate care and assuaging suffering in times of extreme distress. Patients and caregivers often refer to the hospital as a temple which bespeaks diligence and dedication of the individuals who work there. As millions stream in seeking hope, this Mecca continually labors to ensure means of cure, care and cope. Seventy five glorious years of Tata Memorial Centre have borne witness to its commitment to excellence, expertise and eminence in cancer treatment, care, research, education and awareness. As a tribute to this iconic institution we mark a yearlong celebration of its Platinum Jubilee (Dodranscentennial Anniversary) 2016.[1] The appointment of a full time orthopaedic surgeon on the staff of Tata Memorial Centre in 1999 resulted in the establishment of a specialist orthopaedic oncology service [2]. Over the years this service has now grown to be recognised as one of the leading musculoskeletal oncology units globally. Like all other services at the centre this too functions as a “Disease Management Group”, where specialists from all disciplines involved in sarcoma care (radiology, pathology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, etc.) come together to provide multidisciplinary integrated care under one umbrella. Today the orthopaedic oncology service caters to about 2500 new musculoskeletal oncology cases per year while performing about 700 major and 1200 minor surgical procedures each year. The service has collaborated with industry to develop cost effective mechanical reconstructive options suited to the local socio economic milieu. The development of an indigenous prosthesis (TMH – NICE / RESTOR) which was recognised by the Golden Peacock award for health innovation is a proud feather in the cap of the institute. Innovative biological reconstruction techniques published in reputed peer reviewed journals are now practised in other centres globally too. Both clinical and basic research also plays a part in the units’ contribution to furthering insights in sarcoma care. The service has to its credit the only randomised trial ever conducted for surveillance in sarcomas and is part of a global consortium that has published one of the largest series of patients detailing the genomic profile of sarcomas. [3,4] Imparting training and sharing of knowledge and information has always been part of the culture of this institute and a host of young orthopaedic oncologists practising all across the country are a proud testimony in keeping with this tradition. There is a constant stream of international trainees and visitors and the service has helped in initiating and developing the limb salvage program in many resource challenged areas like Nepal, Myanmar, Palestine and Nigeria. [5] The TMC “Evidence Based Guidelines” for the management of bone and soft tissue sarcomas is a useful handbook that helps disseminate the concept of scientific and rational treatment for these challenging tumors. TMC staff and alumni have been at the forefront in establishing the Indian Musculo Skeletal Oncology Society (IMSOS), an organisation that seeks to provide a common forum for interaction and mutual collaboration between different specialists and institutes involved in the treatment of sarcomas. As the institute seeks to expand its footprint over the next decade by adding infrastructure and staff, both in Mumbai and centres across the country the orthopaedic oncology service too will need to evolve. Challenges of adopting new technology will have to be met. Yet, offering the right balance between these enhanced options while maintaining the principles of rational , cost effective medical care will necessitate “the wisdom of Solomon”.
Just as it has for the past 75 years, the institute and every individual connected with it will always strive with utmost passion to fulfil its motto of “Service – Education – Research” in a ceaseless endeavour to offer the best possible care to the patients that repose their trust in this institute.

References

1. Tata Memorial Centre. 2016. Tata Memorial Centre Platinum Jubilee – Celebrating 75 Glorious Years. Available at: http://tmcplatinumjubilee.org/tmc-platinum-jubilee.php
2. Puri A – The “ODYSSEY”: “Orthopaedic Oncology” – My journey thus far! Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors May-Aug 2015; 1(1):4-6
3. Puri A, Gulia A, Hawaldar R, Ranganathan P, Badwe RA. Does Intensity of Surveillance Affect Survival After Surgery for Sarcomas? Results of a Randomized Noninferiority Trial. ClinOrthopRelat Res. 2014 May;472(5):1568-75.
4. Ballinger ML, Goode DL, Ray-Coquard I, James PA, Mitchell G, Niedermayr E, Puri A, Schiffman JD, Dite GS, Cipponi A, Maki RG, Brohl AS, MyklebostO,Stratford EW, Lorenz S, Ahn SM, Ahn JH, Kim JE, Shanley S, Beshay V, Randall RL, Judson I, Seddon B, Campbell IG, Young MA, Sarin R, Blay JY, O’DonoghueSI,Thomas DM; International Sarcoma Kindred Study. Monogenic and polygenic determinants of sarcoma risk: an international genetic study. Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug 4.
5. Gulia A, Wilding C, Suman MB, Puri A. OrthOncoCon-2014: Continuing education in musculoskeletal oncology. Indian J Cancer. 2015 Apr-Jun;52(2):184-5.

How to Cite this article:  Gulia A, Puri A, Badve, RA. Tata Memorial Centre – The Journey so Far!!!. Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors May- Aug 2016;2(2):3-4 .
 

(Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)