↓ Skip to main content

What Are the Functional Outcomes After Total Sacrectomy Without Spinopelvic Reconstruction?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
What Are the Functional Outcomes After Total Sacrectomy Without Spinopelvic Reconstruction?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4729-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Piya Kiatisevi, Chaiwat Piyaskulkaew, Sombat Kunakornsawat, Bhasanan Sukunthanak

Abstract

After total sacrectomy, many types of spinopelvic reconstruction have been described with good functional results. However, complications associated with reconstruction are not uncommon and usually result in further surgical interventions. Moreover, less is known about patient function after total sacrectomy without spinopelvic reconstruction, which may be indicated when malignant or aggressive benign bone and soft tissue tumors involved the entire sacrum. (1) What is the functional outcome and ambulatory status of patients after total sacrectomy without spinopelvic reconstruction? (2) What is the walking ability and ambulatory status of patients when categorized by the location of the iliosacral resection relative to the sacroiliac joint? (3) What complications and reoperations occur after this procedure? Between 2008 and 2014, we performed 16 total sacrectomies without spinopelvic reconstructions for nonmetastatic oncologic indications. All surviving patients had followup of at least 12 months, although two were lost to followup after that point (mean, 43 months; range, 12-66 months, among surviving patients). During this time period, we performed total sacrectomy without reconstruction for all patients with primary bone and soft tissue tumors (benign and malignant) involving the entire sacrum with no initial metastasis. The level of resection was the L5-S1 disc in 14 patients and L4-L5 disc in two patients. We classified the resection into two types based on the location of the iliosacral resection. Type I resections went medial to or through or lateral but close to the sacroiliac joint. Type II resections were far lateral (more than 3 cm from the posterior iliac spine) to the sacroiliac joint. Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores, physical function assessments, and complications were gleaned from chart review performed by the treating surgeons (PK, BS). Video documentation of patients walking was obtained at followup in eight patients. The mean overall MSTS scores was 17 (range, 5-27). Thirteen patients were able to walk, five without walking aids, two with a cane and sometimes without a walking aid, three with a cane, and three with a walker. Thirteen of 14 patients who had bilateral Type I resections or a Type I resection on one side and Type II on the contralateral side were able to walk, five without a walking aid, and had a mean MSTS score of 19 (range, 13-27). Two patients with bilateral Type II resection were only able to sit. Complications included wound dehiscences in 13 patients (which were treated with reoperation for drainage), sciatic nerve injury in seven patients, a torn ureter in one patient, and a rectal tear in one patient. Without spinopelvic reconstruction, most patients in this series who underwent total sacrectomy were able to walk. Good MSTS scores could be expected in patients with bilateral Type I resections and patients with a Type I on one side and a Type II on the contralateral side. Total sacrectomy without spinopelvic reconstruction should be considered as a useful alternative to reconstructive surgery in patients who undergo Type I iliosacral resection on one or both sides. Level IV, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Master 9 11%
Unspecified 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 23 28%
Unknown 17 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 43%
Unspecified 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Psychology 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 22 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,733,311
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1,790
of 7,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,223
of 316,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#37
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.