Giant cell tumours (GCTs) of the proximal femur are rare, and there is no consensus about the best method of filling the defect left by curettage. In this study, we compared the outcome of using a fibular strut allograft and bone cement to reconstruct the bone defect after extended curettage of a GCT of the proximal femur. In a retrospective study, we reviewed 26 patients with a GCT of the proximal femur in whom the bone defect had been filled with either a fibular strut allograft (n = 12) or bone cement (n = 14). Their demographic details and oncological and nononcological complications were retrieved from their medical records. Limb function was assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score.Aims
Methods
There is a lack of evidence about the risk factors for local recurrence of a giant cell tumour (GCT) of the sacrum treated with nerve-sparing surgery, probably because of the rarity of the disease. This study aimed to answer two questions: first, what is the rate of local recurrence of sacral GCT treated with nerve-sparing surgery and second, what are the risk factors for its local recurrence? A total of 114 patients with a sacral GCT who underwent nerve-sparing surgery at our hospital between July 2005 and August 2017 were reviewed. The rate of local recurrence was determined, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis carried out to evaluate the mean recurrence-free survival. Possible risks factors including demographics, tumour characteristics, adjuvant therapy, operation, and laboratory indices were analyzed using univariate analysis. Variables with p < 0.100 in the univariate analysis were further considered in a multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify the risk factors.Aims
Methods
We reviewed nine patients at a mean period of 11 years (6 to 16) after curettage and cementing of a giant-cell tumour around the knee to determine if there were any long-term adverse effects on the cartilage. Plain radiography, MRI, delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the cartilage and measurement of the serum level of cartilage oligomeric matrix protein were carried out. The functional outcome was evaluated using the Lysholm knee score. Each patient was physically active and had returned to their previous occupation. Most participated in recreational sports or exercise. The mean Lysholm knee score was 92 (83 to 100). Only one patient was found to have cartilage damage adjacent to the cement. This patient had a history of intra-articular fracture and local recurrence, leading to degenerative changes. Interpretation of the data obtained from delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the cartilage was difficult, with variation in the T1 values which did not correlate with the clinical or radiological findings. We did not find it helpful in the early diagnosis of degeneration of cartilage. We also found no obvious correlation between the serum cartilage oligomeric matrix protein level and the radiological and MR findings, function, time after surgery and the age of the patient. In summary, we found no evidence that the long-term presence of cement close to the knee joint was associated with the development of degenerative osteoarthritis.
We retrospectively studied local recurrence of giant cell tumour in long bones following treatment with curettage and cementing in 137 patients. The median follow-up time was 60 months (3 to 166). A total of 19 patients (14%) had at least one local recurrence, the first was diagnosed at a median of 17 months (3 to 29) after treatment of the primary tumour. There were 13 patients with a total of 15 local recurrences who were successfully treated by further curettage and cementing. Two patients with a second local recurrence were consequently treated twice. At the last follow-up, at a median of 53 months (3 to 128) after the most recent operation, all patients were free from disease and had good function. We concluded that local recurrence of giant cell tumour after curettage and cementing in long bones can generally be successfully treated with further curettage and cementing, with only a minor risk of increased morbidity. This suggests that more extensive surgery for the primary tumour in an attempt to obtain wide margins is not the method of choice, since it leaves the patient with higher morbidity with no significant gain with respect to cure of the disease.
