What to choose in bone tumour resections? Patient specific instrumentation versus surgical navigation: a systematic review

Abstract

Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) and intraoperative surgical navigation (SN) can significantly help in achieving wide oncological margins while sparing bone stock in bone tumour resections. This is a systematic review aimed to compare the two techniques on oncological and functional results, preoperative time for surgical planning, surgical intraoperative time, intraoperative technical complications and learning curve. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42023422065). 1613 papers were identified and 81 matched criteria for PRISMA inclusion and eligibility. PSI and SN showed similar results in margins (0–19% positive margins rate), bone cut accuracy (0.3–4 mm of error from the planned), local recurrence and functional reconstruction scores (MSTS 81–97%) for both long bones and pelvis, achieving better results compared to free hand resections. A planned bone margin from tumour of at least 5 mm was safe for bone resections, but soft tissue margin couldn’t be planned when the tumour invaded soft tissues. Moreover, long osteotomies, homogenous bone topology and restricted working spaces reduced accuracy of both techniques, but SN can provide a second check. In urgent cases, SN is more indicated to avoid PSI planning and production time (2–4 weeks), while PSI has the advantage of less intraoperative using time (1–5 min vs 15–65 min). Finally, they deemed similar technical intraoperative complications rate and demanding learning curve. Overall, both techniques present advantages and drawbacks. They must be considered for the optimal choice based on the specific case. In the future, robotic-assisted resections and augmented reality might solve the downsides of PSI and SN becoming the main actors of bone tumour surgery.

Keywords

• 3D-Cutting guides
• Patient specific instrumentation
• Bone tumors
• Margins
• Surgical navigation
• Sarcoma