Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 2 | Pages 297 - 301
1 Feb 2022
Jamshidi K Bagherifard A Mohaghegh MR Mirzaei A

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. Mean follow-up was 116 months (SD 59.2; 48 to 240) for the fibular strut allograft group and 113 months (SD 43.7; 60 to 192) for the bone cement group (p = 0.391). The rate of recurrence was not significantly different between the two groups (25% vs 21.4%). The rate of nononcological complications was 16.7% in the strut allograft group and 42.8% in the bone cement group. Degenerative joint disease was the most frequent nononcological complication in the cement group. The mean MSTS score of the patients was 92.4% (SD 11.5%; 73.3% to 100.0%) in the fibular strut allograft group and 74.2% (SD 10.5%; 66.7% to 96.7%) in the bone cement group (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Given the similar rate of recurrence and a lower rate of nononcological complications, fibular strut grafting could be recommended as a method of reconstructing the bone defect left by curettage of a GCT of the proximal femur. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):297–301


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 9 | Pages 749 - 757
12 Sep 2024
Hajialiloo Sami S Kargar Shooroki K Ammar W Nahvizadeh S Mohammadi M Dehghani R Toloue B

Aims

The ulna is an extremely rare location for primary bone tumours of the elbow in paediatrics. Although several reconstruction options are available, the optimal reconstruction method is still unknown due to the rarity of proximal ulna tumours. In this study, we report the outcomes of osteoarticular ulna allograft for the reconstruction of proximal ulna tumours.

Methods

Medical profiles of 13 patients, who between March 2004 and November 2021 underwent osteoarticular ulna allograft reconstruction after the resection of the proximal ulna tumour, were retrospectively reviewed. The outcomes were measured clinically by the assessment of elbow range of motion (ROM), stability, and function, and radiologically by the assessment of allograft-host junction union, recurrence, and joint degeneration. The elbow function was assessed objectively by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score and subjectively by the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) questionnaire.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1174 - 1179
1 Oct 2022
Jamshidi K Bagherifard A Mirzaei A

Aims

Osteoarticular reconstruction of the distal femur in childhood has the advantage of preserving the tibial physis. However, due to the small size of the distal femur, matching the host bone with an osteoarticular allograft is challenging. In this study, we compared the outcomes and complications of a resurfaced allograft-prosthesis composite (rAPC) with those of an osteoarticular allograft to reconstruct the distal femur in children.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 33 skeletally immature children with a malignant tumour of the distal femur, who underwent resection and reconstruction with a rAPC (n = 15) or osteoarticular allograft (n = 18), was conducted. The median age of the patients was ten years (interquartile range (IQR) 9 to 11) in the osteoarticular allograft group and nine years (IQR 8 to 10) in the rAPC group (p = 0.781). The median follow-up of the patients was seven years (IQR 4 to 8) in the osteoarticular allograft group and six years (IQR 3 to 7) in the rAPC group (p = 0.483). Limb function was evaluated using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 89-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1352 - 1355
1 Oct 2007
Jeys LM Luscombe JS Grimer RJ Abudu A Tillman RM Carter SR

Between 1966 and 2001, 1254 patients underwent excision of a bone tumour with endoprosthetic replacement. All patients who had radiotherapy were identified. Their clinical details were retrieved from their records.

A total of 63 patients (5%) had received adjunctive radiotherapy, 29 pre-operatively and 34 post-operatively. The mean post-operative Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores of irradiated patients were significantly lower (log-rank test, p = 0.009). The infection rate in the group who had not been irradiated was 9.8% (117 of 1191), compared with 20.7% (6 of 29) in those who had pre-operative radiotherapy and 35.3% (12 of 34) in those who radiotherapy post-operatively. The infection-free survival rate at ten years was 85.5% for patients without radiotherapy, 74.1% for those who had pre-operative radiotherapy and 44.8% for those who had post-operative radiotherapy (log-rank test, p < 0.001). The ten-year limb salvage rate was 89% for those who did not have radiotherapy and 76% for those who did (log-rank test, p = 0.02).

Radiotherapy increased the risk of revision (log-rank test, p = 0.015). A total of ten amputations were necessary to control infection, of which nine were successful. Radiotherapy may be necessary for the treatment of a bone sarcoma but increases the risk of deep infection for which amputation may be the only solution.