Introduction and Aims: The treatment of Giant Cell Tumor (GCT) of bone ranges from resection to intra-lesional excision. The latter procedure preserves the joint and function. The purpose of this paper is to review functional and oncological outcomes for GCT treated by intralesional excision.

Method: The medical records including radiology and pathology of 40 consecutive patients with GCT were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, complications, tumor local control were determined. Functional evaluation using the MSTS system was performed on 23 patients. The data was subject to statistical analysis.

Results: Forty patients (19M/21F). Mean age 28 years. Sites: femur 17, tibia 14, radius five, other four. Mean follow-up 90.3 months (26–178). Functional outcome: 93.2% (50–100). Complications: DJD two, fracture one. Recurrence: five (12.5%). Recurrence sites: Tibia two, femur one, radius one, and talus one. Recurrence treatment: 1/5 resection, 4/5 repeat intralesional excision. Recurrence outcome: 5/5 NED (mean 58.2 months).

Conclusion: GCT treated by intralesional excision had excellent functional and oncological outcomes. The joint was preserved in most patients (95%) except due to recurrence 1 and fracture 1. The recurrences were successfully treated by repeat excision in 4/5 patients. Intralesional excision should be considered the preferred treatment for most giant cell tumors.

In a single-blind, randomised series of knee replacements in 116 patients, we used radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to measure micromotion in three types of tibial implant fixation for two years after knee replacement. We compared hydroxyapatite-augmented porous coating, porous coating, and cemented fixation of the same design of tibial component.

At one to two years, porous-coated implants migrated at a statistically significantly higher rate than hydroxyapatite-augmented or cemented implants. There was no significant difference between hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented implants.

We conclude that hydroxyapatite augmentation may offer a clinically relevant advantage over a simple porous coating for tibial component fixation, but is no better than cemented fixation.