PMC4932486_01
Radiological images: AP x-ray view (A); CT scan views showing the intrapelvic prosthetic migration (A) and its relationship with vessels (B).
gr1.jpg
PMC4932486_01_gr1.jpg
fig0005
Proximity of prosthetic implants to the pelvic vessels was also seen by CT scan (Fig. 1B and C).
schematic representation of pelvic bone defect (A) and the position of the strut-plate constructs.
gr2.jpg
PMC4932486_01_gr2.jpg
fig0010
The other was fixed anteriorly to the inner surface of pubis and posteriorly near the sacroilliac joint following the inner pelvic ring (Figs. 2A and B, 3 video).
Intraoperative images of the plates set in place (extrapelvic (A) and intrapelvic (B) views) (Intrapelvic image taken with an arthroscopic cam).
gr3.jpg
PMC4932486_01_gr3.jpg
fig0015
The other was fixed anteriorly to the inner surface of pubis and posteriorly near the sacroilliac joint following the inner pelvic ring (Figs. 2A and B, 3 video).
Intraoperative images of reconstruction strategy and after cup cementation (A) trial augment components setting in place; (B) cemented constrained liner in the reconstructed hemispheric cavity.
gr4.jpg
PMC4932486_01_gr4.jpg
fig0020
A third buttress augment was placed in the superior zone to reconstruct the rim defect, and was fixed with screws (Fig. 4A). A cemented constrained liner (Tripolar cup, Stryker ) was employed to prevent dislocation (Fig. 4B).
Postoperative x-ray (25 days after surgery)(A) and one-year follow-up x-ray (B) (arrows show the image of strut allograft remodelling).
gr5.jpg
PMC4932486_01_gr5.jpg
fig0025
The tantalum augments and the prosthetic components had no mobilization with no images of loosening of screws (Fig. 5B).