Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 2 | Pages 177 - 185
1 Feb 2020
Lim CY Liu X He F Liang H Yang Y Ji T Yang R Guo W

Aims. To investigate the benefits of denosumab in combination with nerve-sparing surgery for treatment of sacral giant cell tumours (GCTs). Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with GCT who presented between January 2011 and July 2017. Intralesional curettage was performed and patients treated from 2015 to 2017 also received denosumab therapy. The patients were divided into three groups: Cohort 1: control group (n = 36); cohort 2: adjuvant denosumab group (n = 9); and cohort 3: neo- and adjuvant-denosumab group (n = 17). Results. There were 68 patients within the study period. Six patients were lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up was 47.7 months (SD 23.2). Preoperative denosumab was found to reduce intraoperative haemorrhage and was associated with shorter operating time for tumour volume > 200 cm. 3. A total of 17 patients (27.4%) developed local recurrence. The locoregional control rate was 77.8% (7/9) and 87.5% (14/16) respectively for cohorts 2 and 3, in comparison to 66.7% (24/36) of the control group. The recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate was significantly higher for adjuvant denosumab group versus those without adjuvant denosumab during the first two years: 100% vs 83.8% at one year and 95.0% vs 70.3% at two years. No significant difference was found for the three-year RFS rate. Conclusion. Preoperative denosumab therapy was found to reduce intraoperative haemorrhage and was associated with shorter operating times. Adjuvant denosumab was useful to prevent early recurrence during the first two years after surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):177–185


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 87-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1653 - 1657
1 Dec 2005
Wedin R Bauer HCF

We report positive and negative factors associated with the most commonly-used methods of reconstruction after pathological fracture of the proximal femur. The study was based on 142 patients treated surgically for 146 metastatic lesions between 1996 and 2003. The local rate of failure was 10.3% (15 of 146). Of 37 operations involving osteosynthetic devices, six failed (16.2%) compared with nine (8.3%) in 109 operations involving endoprostheses. Of nine cases of prosthetic failure, four were due to periprosthetic fractures and three to recurrent dislocation. In the osteosynthesis group, three (13.6%) of 22 reconstruction nails failed. The two-year risk of re-operation after any type of osteosynthesis was 0.35 compared with 0.18 after any type of endoprosthetic reconstruction (p = 0.07). Endoprosthetic reconstructions are preferable to the use of reconstruction nails and other osteosynthetic devices for the treatment of metastatic lesions in the proximal third of the femur.