The iliac stemmed cup in reconstruction of the acetabular defects secondary to tumor resection: a systematic review of literature.

INTRODUCTION: Stemmed acetabular cups are suitable for reconstruction in case of important bone loss. Nevertheless, their use is not so common, because generally judged very invasive and technically difficult to implant. The aim of the present review is to verify the results of their use and to evaluate indications and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature research was performed in the main healthcare databases; indications, surgical technique, related complications, functional results and implant survival were valued and analyzed for every selected paper. RESULTS: 13 studies were selected, for a population of 424 patients and 428 hips. The main indication was reconstruction after tumor removal; the primary non-oncologic indication was revision for aseptic loosening. The most frequent complications were aseptic loosening and implant failure (16.2%), followed by deep infection (11.3%) and dislocation (9.8%). The average MSTS score was 65.9%; while data regarding functional results for degenerative cases are quite fragmented. The 5-years implant survival was 73.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Data regarding SAC prostheses are quite rare in the literature; no prospective studies with comparisons with other reconstruction techniques are available so their use is mainly based on the experience of single centers. While data for tumors are more consistent and supported by studies, information on revisions of hip prosthesis implanted for degenerative problems is quite scarce. Preliminary results on the SAC prosthesis as a valid alternative both for tumoral and degenerative revision cases are encouraging. Prospective randomized studies are advocated to value results compared to alternative techniques.

Quality of life and emotional distress in sarcoma patients diagnosed during COVID-19 pandemic: a supplementary analysis from the SarCorD study.

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak had a negative psychological impact on cancer patients. In this study, we analyzed emotional distress and quality of life in patients diagnosed with sarcoma during the first year of the pandemic compared to the previous year. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled patients with soft tissue, bone sarcoma, and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases diagnosed during the pandemic (COVID group) or the year before (control group) at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. Patients who had undergone a psychological assessment with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Distress Thermometer at diagnosis were included in the final analysis. We analyzed whether there is a difference in the various domains of quality of life between the two groups and whether there are changes over time in each group. Results: We enrolled 114 patients (72 control group; 42 COVID group), affected by soft tissue (64%), bone sarcoma (29%), and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases (7%). We did not observe significant differences in the health-related quality of life domains in the control and COVID groups, except for the financial domain (p = 0.039), with 9.7% vs. 23.8% of patients with a score > 0 in the control and COVID groups, respectively. We observed emotional distress at diagnosis in 48.6% of patients in the control group vs. 69.0% in the COVID group (p = 0.034). In the control group, we observed an improvement in physical function (p = 0.043) and in QoL (p = 0.022), while in the COVID group, we observed a deterioration in role function (p = 0.044) during follow-up. In the COVID group, 22.2% of patients were concerned about COVID-19, 61.1% by tumor, 91.1% stated that the pandemic worsened their subjective perception of cancer, and 19.4% perceived that their quality of care had worsened. Conclusion: We observed a higher level of distress among patients diagnosed during the pandemic compared to the year before, probably due to the increased concern for both infection and cancer, the worsened perception of health status, and the perception of a poorer quality of health care.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis and treatment of patients with soft tissue and bone sarcomas or aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases: A single-center retrospective study (SarCorD study).

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid reorganization of healthcare activities, leading to reduced access to clinics, interruption of screenings, and treatment schedule modifications in several cancer types. Few data are available on sarcomas. We analyzed COVID-19-related diagnostic delay in a sarcoma referral center in Italy. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled in this study patients with histological diagnosis of soft tissue or bone sarcoma and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases obtained during the first year of the pandemic (Covid group) or the year before (Control group) and followed at the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. The primary endpoint was the time from the first symptom to histological diagnosis. Results: We evaluated 372 patients, 185 of whom were eligible for primary endpoint analysis (92 patients in the Control group and 93 patients in the Covid group). The patients were affected by soft tissue sarcoma in most cases (63.0% and 66.7% in Covid and Control groups, respectively). We observed a diagnostic delay in the Covid group with a median time from the first symptom to the definitive histological diagnosis of 103.00 days (95% CI 92.77-113.23) vs. 90.00 days (95% CI 69.49-110.51) in the Control group (p = 0.024), but not a delay in treatment beginning (151 days, 95% CI 132.9-169.1 vs. 144 days, 95% CI 120.3-167.7, respectively, p = 0.208). No differences in stage at diagnosis were observed (12% vs. 16.5% of patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis in the Covid and Control groups, respectively, p = 0.380). Progression-free survival (p = 0.897) and overall survival (p = 0.725) were comparable in the subgroup of patients affected by soft tissue sarcoma. Conclusions: A delay in sarcoma diagnosis but not in starting treatment has been observed during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, no difference in stage at diagnosis or in terms of survival has been observed.