Literature DB >> 11550867

Local progression after operative treatment of metastatic kidney cancer.

K A Les1, R W Nicholas, B Rougraff, D Wurtz, N J Vogelzang, M A Simon, T D Peabody.   

Abstract

The cases of 78 patients with osseous metastases from kidney cancer were reviewed to determine the rate of local progression after operative resection as compared with more traditional intralesional procedures. Group I consisted of 41 (53%) patients who were treated with intralesional procedures involving internal fixation with or without curettage or polymethylmethacrylate. Of the 41 patients, additional operations were recommended for 17 (41%) of the patients who had local osseous progression. Fourteen additional procedures including nine wide resections with reconstruction, three amputations, and two mass excisions were done. Group II consisted of 37 (47%) patients who were treated with marginal or wide resection with or without reconstruction. In this group, only one patient required additional operative intervention for local osseous progression. Median survival of patients in Group I was 20 months compared with 35 months for patients in Group IL This study shows that despite shorter average survival, patients who undergo intralesional surgery are at high risk of reoperation for local progression. Resectional surgery should be considered in patients with skeletal metastases from kidney cancer to lessen the risk of reoperation for local progression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11550867     DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200109000-00023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  8 in total

Review 1.  [Metastatic disease in long bones : Review of surgical treatment options].

Authors:  Franz Liska; Philipp Schmitz; Norbert Harrasser; Peter Prodinger; Hans Rechl; Rüdiger von Eisenhart-Rothe
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  What Factors Are Associated With Local Metastatic Lesion Progression After Intramedullary Nail Stabilization?

Authors:  Punthitra Arpornsuksant; Carol D Morris; Jonathan A Forsberg; Adam S Levin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-12-28       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Prophylactic stabilization for bone metastases, myeloma, or lymphoma: do we need to protect the entire bone?

Authors:  Hasham M Alvi; Timothy A Damron
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-10-27       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  The management of spinal metastases from renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  James Langdon; Adam Way; Samuel Heaton; Jason Bernard; Sean Molloy
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2009-08-14       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  Is a Cephalomedullary Nail Durable Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Peritrochanteric Disease?

Authors:  David H Chafey; Valerae O Lewis; Robert L Satcher; Bryan S Moon; Patrick P Lin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  En-Bloc Resection of Metastases of the Proximal Femur and Reconstruction by Modular Arthroplasty is Not Only Justified in Patients with a Curative Treatment Option-An Observational Study of a Consecutive Series of 45 Patients.

Authors:  Oliver E Bischel; Arnold J Suda; Paul M Böhm; Burkhard Lehner; Rudi G Bitsch; Jörn B Seeger
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 7.  Integrating metastasectomy and stereotactic radiosurgery in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Axel Bex
Journal:  EJC Suppl       Date:  2013-09

Review 8.  Multimodal Treatment of Bone Metastasis-A Surgical Perspective.

Authors:  Henry Soeharno; Lorenzo Povegliano; Peter F Choong
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 5.555

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.