Literature DB >> 26425070

Long-Term Outcome of Endoprosthetic Replacement for Proximal Femur Giant Cell Tumor.

Gurinder Singh Gosal1, Avneet Boparai2, Gurpreet Singh Makkar1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Giant cell tumor (GCT) of bone is locally aggressive benign tumor involving the epiphysis of long bones in young adults. Various treatment options include intralesional curettage, extended curettage, wide resection, resection and reconstruction and amputation. The main variables to be considered for planning treatment include the site of involvement and Campanacci stage of the tumor. Functional and oncological outcomes of these treatment options vary widely, the predominant detrimental factor being tumor recurrence rate. AIM: A study was conducted to evaluate the long-term oncological and functional outcome of patients with GCT of the proximal femur that underwent tumor resection and endoprosthetic replacement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven patients with Campanacci stage-III GCT of proximal femur who underwent wide excision of tumor and endoprosthesis replacement with a mean follow-up the duration of 10.6 years were assessed using standard proforma. The treatment outcome was evaluated using the Revised Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Rating Scale for the lower extremity.
RESULTS: At mean follow-up the duration of 10.6 years, none of the cases had tumor recurrence, infection, prosthesis loosening or dislocation. All the patients were community ambulators among whom eight patients were walking without support while three patients were using a cane for support. The mean total Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score was 26.8 out of 30 indicating the good outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors recommend that wide resection and endoprosthetic replacement should be considered as a preferred treatment option for proximal femur GCT as the functional, and oncological outcome is satisfactory with this modality of treatment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endoprosthesis megaprosthesis; giant cell tumor of bone; proximal femur

Year:  2015        PMID: 26425070      PMCID: PMC4566322          DOI: 10.4103/1117-6806.162583

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Niger J Surg        ISSN: 1117-6806


INTRODUCTION

Giant cell tumor (GCT) represents 5% of neoplasms of bone. It is a benign locally aggressive tumor usually involving the distal end of the femur, proximal tibia and distal radius in young adults.[123] The main variables to be considered for planning treatment include the site of involvement and Campanacci stage of the tumor.[4] The proximal femur is a relatively rare site for primary GCT. Different treatment options are available which include intralesional curettage, extended curettage, wide resection and reconstruction.[5678] Functional and oncological outcome of these treatment options varies widely, the predominant detrimental factor being tumor recurrence rate. The tumor recurrence is least with wide resection of the tumor with clear margins. Reconstruction of endoprosthesis after wide excision of the tumor offers good short-term and mid-term functional and oncological outcomes as established by previous studies.[259] This study was conducted to evaluate the long-term outcome of 11 patients with GCT who underwent wide excision and customized endoprosthetic replacement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 11 patients (eight men and three women) aged 24–48 (mean 32) years with primary GCT of proximal femur Campanacci stage-III who were available for mean follow-up duration of 10.6 (range 10.2–14) years. All these patients were evaluated with standard preoperative work up. The definite diagnosis was established on histopathological confirmation with incisional biopsy. Computed tomography scan of chest and bone scan were done to rule out metastasis. None of the patients had pulmonary metastasis, and all the 11 patients had a solitary lesion in the proximal femur. These patients underwent wide resection of the tumor using postero-lateral approach to the proximal femur. Intraoperative frozen section and histopathological evaluation confirmed the clear tumor free margins. The proximal femur was reconstructed using a customized, titanium, cemented endoprosthesis [Figure 1]. Hip abductors, short external rotators and iliopsoas tendon were secured onto the prosthesis and hip capsule repair was performed. Postoperative rehabilitation protocol included nonweight bearing and abduction splinting of the limb for 6 weeks followed by nonweight bearing crutch walking for another 6 weeks. Once the hip abductors and quadriceps strength was regained weight bearing was allowed. Patients were serially followed up at 6 monthly intervals. Long-term functional outcome was evaluated at minimum 10 years duration using Revised Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Rating scale.[10]
Figure 1

(a) Radiogragh showing giant cell tumor of proximal femur in a 34-year-old man. (b) Magnetic resonance imaging showing giant cell tumor of proximal femur with soft tissue extension. (c) Endoprosthetic replacement of proximal femur

(a) Radiogragh showing giant cell tumor of proximal femur in a 34-year-old man. (b) Magnetic resonance imaging showing giant cell tumor of proximal femur with soft tissue extension. (c) Endoprosthetic replacement of proximal femur

RESULTS

None of the patients had tumor recurrence or deep infection. There were no instances of prosthesis related complications like aseptic loosening or dislocation. At the end of mean 10.6 years, eight patients had no pain whereas three had some occasional intermediate pain. Six patients had good hip function without any restrictions, four patients had intermediate functional restriction whereas one had the recreational restriction of function. Nine patients enthusiastically accepted the outcome of the procedure whereas two patients had satisfactory emotional acceptance. Eight patients were walking without any support with unlimited walking abilities whereas three patients were using a cane for support while walking. None of the patients had any major gait abnormalities. The mean is Revised Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score was 26.8 out of 30 [Table 1].
Table 1

Mean Revised Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Scores

Mean Revised Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Scores

DISCUSSION

Traditional treatment of GCT has been a difficult problem in orthopaedic oncology owing to high recurrence rates following conventional treatment with curettage or extended curettage.[4678] Ideally treatment should ensure local control and maintain function. Currently with improvement in reconstructive surgical techniques and availability of high quality biomechanically designed megaprosthesis, wide resection of tumor with proximal femur endoprosthesis replacement is being considered as a treatment option for Campanacci stage-III lesions in proximal femur with extensive osteolysis and soft tissue extension.[259] It offers good local control of s with least recurrence rate and favorable functional outcome. However, the longevity of the prosthesis has been the main concern. The previous studies have shown satisfactory short- and mid-term functional and oncological outcomes.[29] This study shows good long-term functional, and oncological outcomes of the procedure and hence the authors recommended as an endoprosthetic replacement for advanced GCT of the proximal femur. Furthermore, randomized control trials are required to established this modality as a standard treatment.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.
  9 in total

1.  Endoprosthetic replacement for primary malignant tumors of the proximal femur.

Authors:  Y Kabukcuoglu; R J Grimer; R M Tillman; S R Carter
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Giant-cell tumor of bone. An analysis of two hundred and eighteen cases.

Authors:  R R Goldenberg; C J Campbell; M Bonfiglio
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1970-06       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Local recurrence of giant cell tumor of bone after intralesional treatment with and without adjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Wolfgang T Becker; Jörn Dohle; Ludger Bernd; Arnim Braun; Miklos Cserhati; Alfred Enderle; Louis Hovy; Zdenek Matejovsky; Miklos Szendroi; Klemens Trieb; Per-Ulf Tunn
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Giant cell tumor of bone: oncological and functional results of long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Y Oda; H Miura; M Tsuneyoshi; Y Iwamoto
Journal:  Jpn J Clin Oncol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  Endoprosthetic replacement for giant cell tumour of the proximal femur.

Authors:  Shah Alam Khan; Ashok Kumar; Prashanth Inna; Sameer Bakhshi; Shishir Rastogi
Journal:  J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.118

Review 6.  Recurrence of giant-cell tumors of the long bones after curettage and packing with cement.

Authors:  R J O'Donnell; D S Springfield; H K Motwani; J E Ready; M C Gebhardt; H J Mankin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system.

Authors:  W F Enneking; W Dunham; M C Gebhardt; M Malawar; D J Pritchard
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Proximal femoral reconstruction with custom mega prosthesis.

Authors:  M Natarajan; J C Bose; G Rajkumar
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2003-03-26       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Giant cell tumor of bone: treatment and outcome of 214 cases.

Authors:  Maurice Balke; Laura Schremper; Carsten Gebert; Helmut Ahrens; Arne Streitbuerger; Gabriele Koehler; Jendrik Hardes; Georg Gosheger
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-03-06       Impact factor: 4.553

  9 in total
  5 in total

Review 1.  Megaprosthesis versus Allograft Prosthesis Composite for massive skeletal defects.

Authors:  Deepak Gautam; Rajesh Malhotra
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-09-25

2.  Nickel-titanium shape memory alloy embracing fixator benefits the determination of the implantation angle of prosthesis stem in tumor-type artificial joint replacement.

Authors:  Yang Wang; Hongrui Wang; Hongyue Zhang; Wei Miao; Jilu Liu; Shuogui Xu
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 3.940

3.  Survival and outcomes of modular endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur for primary and non-primary bone tumors: Single institutional results.

Authors:  Charles A Gusho; Bishir Clayton; Nabil Mehta; Matthew W Colman; Steven Gitelis; Alan T Blank
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-05-07

4.  Feasibility of Implanting a Foot-Ankle Endoprosthesis within Skin in a Rabbit Model of Transtibial Amputation.

Authors:  Dustin L Crouch; Patrick T Hall; Caleb Stubbs; Caroline Billings; Alisha P Pedersen; Bryce Burton; Cheryl B Greenacre; Stacy M Stephenson; David E Anderson
Journal:  Bioengineering (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-27

5.  Surgery methods and soft tissue extension are the potential risk factors of local recurrence in giant cell tumor of bone.

Authors:  Dongqi Li; Jinlei Zhang; Yi Li; Junfeng Xia; Yihao Yang; Mingyan Ren; Yedan Liao; Shunling Yu; Xiaojuan Li; Yan Shen; Ya Zhang; Zuozhang Yang
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 2.754

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.