| Autor: |
Jamshidi, Khodamorad, Bagherifard, Abolfazl, Mohaghegh, Mahmoud Reza, Mirzaei, Alireza |
| Zdroj: |
The Bone & Joint Journal; February 2022, Vol. 104 Issue: 2 p297-301, 5p |
| Abstrakt: |
AimsGiant 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsMean 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).ConclusionGiven 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 J2022;104-B(2):297–301. |
| Databáze: |
Supplemental Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
