RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Customized cutting guides are technical aids that make primary pelvic bone tumor resection safer and more reliable. Although the effectiveness of such devices appears to be widely accepted, their conception and design remain varied. Two main designs have been reported: the heavier block-type customized cutting guides and the lighter patch-type customized cutting guides. As recent tools, there must be more evidence regarding the impact of design on their accuracy and ergonomics. Thus, an evaluation of their respective performances appears warranted. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a cadaver model, we assessed whether (1) a thinner, patch-type customized cutting guide design results in resections that are closer to the planned resections than the heavier block-type customized cutting guides, and (2) the patch-type customized cutting guide design is more ergonomic than the block-type customized cutting guide with improved usability in surgery (in terms of bulkiness, ease of placement, primary and secondary stability, and stability during cutting). METHODS: We conducted an experimental study involving five fresh whole-body anatomic specimens (three women and two men with a median age of 79 years and median weight of 66 kg) by simulating six virtual tumors in three areas according to the Enneking classification (Zones I: iliac wing, II: periacetabular area, and I and IV: sacroiliac joint area). We compared the impact of the customized cutting guide's design on performance in terms of the resection margin accuracy using CT scan analysis (deviation from the planned margin at the closest point and the maximum deviation from the planned margin) and the intraoperative ergonomic score under conditions simulating those of an oncologic resection of a bone tumor (with a range of 0 to 100, with 100 being best). RESULTS: The patch customized cutting guides performed slightly better than the block customized cutting guides regarding deviation from the planned margin at the closest point, with median values of 1 mm versus 2 mm (difference of medians 1 mm; p = 0.02) and maximum deviation from the planned margin of 3 versus 4 mm (difference of medians 1 mm; p = 0.002). In addition, the patch design was perceived to be slightly more ergonomic than the block design, with a 92% median score versus 84% for the block design (difference of medians 8%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: We observed an equivalence in performance regarding accuracy and ergonomics, with slight advantages for patch customized cutting guides, especially in complex zones (Zone I and IV). Owing to a small cohort in a cadaver study, these results need independent replication. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The patch-type customized cutting guide with thinner contact spots to the bone in specific areas and less soft tissue dissection might offer an advantage over a larger block design for achieving negative oncologic bony margins, but it does not address issues of soft tissue margins.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether concomitant left gastric vein embolization (LGVE) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for acute variceal hemorrhage could reduce the risk of bleeding recurrence. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A national multicenter observational study was conducted in 14 centers between January 2019 and December 2020. All cirrhotic patients who underwent TIPS placement for acute variceal bleeding were included. During TIPS procedure, size of left gastric vein (LGV), performance of LGVE, material used for LGVE and portosystemic pressure gradient (PPG) before and after TIPS placement were collected. A propensity score for the occurrence of LGVE was calculated to assess effect of LGVE on rebleeding recurrence at six weeks and one year. RESULTS: A total of 356 patients were included (mean age 57.3 ± 10.8 [standard deviation] years; 283/356 [79%] men). Median follow-up was 11.2 months [interquartile range: 1.2, 13.3]. The main indication for TIPS was pre-emptive TIPS (162/356; 46%), rebleeding despite secondary prophylaxis (105/356; 29%), and salvage TIPS (89/356; 25%). Overall, 128/356 (36%) patients underwent LGVE during TIPS procedure. At six weeks and one year, rebleeding-free survival did not differ significantly between patients who underwent LGVE and those who did not (6/128 [5%] vs. 15/228 [7%] at six weeks, and 11/128 [5%] vs. 22/228 [7%] at one year, P = 0.622 and P = 0.889 respectively). A total of 55 pairs of patients were retained after propensity score matching. In patients without LGVE, the rebleeding rate was not different from those with LGVE (3/55 [5%] vs. 4/55 [7%], P > 0.99, and 5/55 [9%] vs. 6/55[11%], P > 0.99, at six weeks and one year respectively). Multivariable analysis identified PPG after TIPS placement as the only predictor of bleeding recurrence (hazard ratio = 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.18; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In this multicenter national real-life study, we did not observe any benefit of concomitant LGVE during TIPS placement for acute variceal bleeding on bleeding recurrence rate.
