[The limits of saving the extremity--amputation versus resection]

On the basis of the extensive data contained in the Vienna Bone Tumor Register, i.e. 839 primary malignant bone tumors, as well as of 554 cases treated at the Orthopedic Department of the University of Vienna Medical School, a comparison between the methods of surgery applied at pelvis and extremities during the past two decades can be drawn. Resectional therapy had been performed in twice as much patients as amputation therapy, and barely 20%, mostly with multiple metastases, had been merely treated with palliative surgery or were just biopsied and underwent chemo- and radiotherapy. An analysis of amputations and resections, subdivided into pelvis and sacrum resections, resectional reconstructions and resectional reimplantations at the extremities, shows approximately the same low incidence of local recurrences in the groups amputation versus resection, but a significantly higher involvement of pelvis and sacrum resections as well as no local recurrences in the group of 48 resectional reimplantations. As regards the oncologic radicality of surgical margins, in cases of resections, as compared to amputations, about twice as much inadequate operations had to be accepted, though. The fact that the local recurrences did not increase to the same degree, but were approximately equilibrated, seems to be due to the new chemotherapeutic treatment which had been initiated at the same time as the frequent application of resectional therapy. The conservation of extremities contains twice as high a risk of inadequate operation, but it is, in cases of effective chemotherapy, comparable with the former results of amputations, as regards local recurrences.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)