↓ Skip to main content

Is It Possible and Safe to Perform Acetabular-preserving Resections for Malignant Neoplasms of the Periacetabular Region?

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Is It Possible and Safe to Perform Acetabular-preserving Resections for Malignant Neoplasms of the Periacetabular Region?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4792-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ying-lee Lam, Raymond Yau, Kenneth W. Y. Ho, Ka-lok Mak, Sin-tak Fong, Timothy Y. C. So

Abstract

Primary malignant tumors located near the acetabulum are usually managed by resection of the tumor with wide margins that include the acetabulum. These resections are deemed P2 resections by the Enneking and Dunham classification. There are various methods to perform the subsequent hip reconstruction. Unfortunately, there is no consensus as to the best management. In general, patients undergoing resection at this level will have substantial levels of pain and disability as measured by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system. We believe there is a subset of patients whose tumors in this location can be resected while preserving all or most of the weightbearing acetabulum using navigation and careful surgical planning. (1) What complications were associated with this resection; (2) what oncological outcomes (histological margins and local recurrence) were achieved; and (3) what is the function achieved by these patients? This was a retrospective study of patients with periacetabular primary malignancy. From 2008 to 2014, we treated 12 patients who had periacetabular primary malignant tumors and in five, we performed resection with the weightbearing portion spared. During this period, our general indications to perform a resection that spared the acetabulum were the tumor with its resection margin not involving the weightbearing portion of the acetabulum. However, we did not perform this procedure in patients who had more cranial lesion involving the weightbearing portion or whose hip stability might be in question after the tumor excision. Three patients were women and the other two were men. Four were chondrosarcomas, whereas the other one was synovial sarcoma. Ages ranged from 46 to 60 years (average, 53 years). Minimum followup was 14 months (median, 37 months; range, 14-88 months); no patients were lost to followup before a 1-year minimum was achieved, and all patients have been seen within the last 9 months. There were no intraoperative or early postoperative complications. None of the five patients had a positive margin by histological assessment. No local recurrences were detected. The median functional score by MSTS was 28 out of 30 (range, 27-30). The roof of the acetabulum is the weightbearing portion of the acetabulum. It also maintains the stability of the hip. With precise preoperative planning of the resection and accurate execution of the procedure, the hip-sparing approach through partial acetabular resection can be performed in selected patients with malignant periacetabular neoplasms. Navigation makes it possible to minimize the amount of bone resection. In this preliminary report of a small number of patients, we had adequate short-term local tumor control. We believe the function is good, but we do not have a comparison group of patients to document improved function. Level IV, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 48%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 24 October 2023.
All research outputs
#3,107,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#562
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,103
of 315,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#18
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 315,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.