Computer-assisted surgery in orthopedic oncology: Technique,indications, and a descriptive study of 130 cases

Background and purpose —

In orthopedic oncology, computer-assisted surgery (CAS) can be considered an alternative to fluoroscopy and direct measurement for orientation, planning, and margin control. However, only small case series reporting specific applications have been published. We therefore describe possible applications of CAS and report preliminary results in 130 procedures.

Patients and methods —

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all oncological CAS procedures in a single institution from November 2006 to March 2013. Mean follow-up time was 32 months. We categorized and analyzed 130 procedures for clinical parameters. The categories were image-based intralesional treatment, image-based resection, image-based resection and reconstruction, and imageless resection and reconstruction.

Results —

Application to intralesional treatment showed 1 inadequate curettage and 1 (other) recurrence in 63 cases. Image-based resections in 42 cases showed 40 R0 margins; 16 in 17 pelvic resections. Image-based reconstruction facilitated graft creation with a mean reconstruction accuracy of 0.9 mm in one case. Imageless CAS was helpful in resection planning and length- and joint line reconstruction for tumor prostheses.

Interpretation —

CAS is a promising new development. Preliminary results show a high number of R0 resections and low short-term recurrence rates for curettage.Oncological surgical treatment can be considered to be a trade-off between margins and function, with margins being the most important factor to consider. Accuracy is needed to achieve an efficient but oncologically safe result. To assist in this, most procedures in bone tumor surgery require intraoperative imaging with fluoroscopy and/or measurements with rulers for anatomical orientation and margin control. The best examples of this are pelvic resections. Cartiaux et al. (2008) demonstrated that 4 experienced surgeons could achieve a 10-mm resection margin, with 5-mm tolerance, on pelvic sawbones in only half of the resections. The supportive imaging and measuring modalities have, however, remained more or less unchanged for many years. In a 2-dimensional (2D) workflow such as fluoroscopy, there is still the requirement for an accurate frame of reference based on anatomical landmarks for adequate 3-dimensional (3D) margin control.In recent years, the use of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in orthopedic surgery has become more common as an alternative for intraoperative imaging and measurements, providing the necessary precision in bone tumor surgery. The technique that is mostly used in orthopedic oncology is image-based navigation. The patient’s own anatomy (MRI and/or CT) is entered into the system and used during surgery. This provides real-time, continuous, 3D imaging feedback and may lead to more precise margin control, better tissue preservation, and new approaches to reconstruction while remaining oncologically safe. Several publications have supported CAS as being a safe navigation platform for planning and performing resections (Wong et al. 2007, So et al. 2010, Cho et al. 2012). A recent publication describes lessons in the technological approach and offers comments on CAS workflow (Wong 2010). However, to date the largest case series have involved only 20 and 31 cases (Cheong and Letson 2011, Jeys et al. 2013). The reported use has mostly been limited to complex tumor resections (e.g. pelvic), and due to the novelty of the technique, applications, approaches, and set-up times differ greatly (Saidi 2012). Here we describe possible applications of CAS in bone tumor surgery (also outside of complex resections), consider their usefulness, and report preliminary results from 130 CAS procedures performed at a single institution.