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. Results. The mean follow-up of patients was 60.3 months (SD 28.5). The mean elbow flexion-extension ROM was 95.8° (SD 21). The mean MSTS of the patients was 84.4 (SD 8.2), the mean TESS was 83.8 (SD 6.7), and the mean MEPS was 79.2 (SD 11.5). All the patients had radiological union at the osteotomy site. Symptomatic osteoarthritic change was observed in three patients (23%), one of whom ended up with elbow joint fusion. Two patients (15.4%) had recurrence during the follow-up period. Surgical complications included two allograft fractures, two plate fractures, three medial instabilities, and two infections. Conclusion. Osteoarticular ulna allograft reconstruction provides acceptable functional outcomes. Despite a high rate of complications, it is still a valuable reconstruction method, particularly in skeletally immature patients who need their distal humerus physis for the rest of hand growth. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):749–757

Aims

Tenosynovial giant cell tumour (TGCT) is one of the most common soft-tissue tumours of the foot and ankle and can behave in a locally aggressive manner. Tumour control can be difficult, despite the various methods of treatment available. Since treatment guidelines are lacking, the aim of this study was to review the multidisciplinary management by presenting the largest series of TGCT of the foot and ankle to date from two specialized sarcoma centres.

We investigated whether the presence of a pathological fracture increased the risk of local recurrence in patients with a giant cell tumour (GCT) of bone. We also assessed if curettage is still an appropriate form of treatment in the presence of a pathological fracture. We conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of papers which reported outcomes in patients with a GCT with and without a pathological fracture at presentation. We computed the odds ratio (OR) of local recurrence in those with and without a pathological fracture.

We selected 19 eligible papers for final analysis. This included 3215 patients, of whom 580 (18.0%) had a pathological fracture. The pooled OR for local recurrence between patients with and without a pathological fracture was 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.67, p = 0.854). Amongst the subgroup of patients who were treated with curettage, the pooled OR for local recurrence was 1.23 (95% CI 0.75 to 2.01, p = 0.417).

A post hoc sample size calculation showed adequate power for both comparisons.

There is no difference in local recurrence rates between patients who have a GCT of bone with and without a pathological fracture at the time of presentation. The presence of a pathological fracture should not preclude the decision to perform curettage as carefully selected patients who undergo curettage can have similar outcomes in terms of local recurrence to those without such a fracture.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1566–71.