| Literature DB >> 27020436 |
Bastiaan C J Majoor1, Marleen J M Peeters-Boef2, Michiel A J van de Sande2, Natasha M Appelman-Dijkstra3, Neveen A T Hamdy3, P D S Dijkstra2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fibrous dysplasia of the proximal femur is a progressive, often recurrent condition of bone that can cause skeletal deformity, fractures, and pain [corrected]. Allogeneic cortical strut grafting to minimize the risk of fracture or as part of fracture treatment is a promising treatment option, but evidence is scarce on the intermediate- to long-term results of this procedure and there are no data on factors associated with graft failure. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were (1) to evaluate the revision-free survivorship; (2) radiographic findings; (3) factors associated with failure; and (4) complications associated with cortical strut allograft to prevent or treat fractures of the proximal femur in patients with fibrous dysplasia.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 27020436 PMCID: PMC5289171 DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-4806-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res ISSN: 0009-921X Impact factor: 4.176
Patient characteristics
| Patient number | Gender | Type of FD | Age at surgery (years) | Prior surgery | Preoperative fracture | Type of graft | Curettage + cancellous graft | Number of struts | Proximal anchoring ratio | Failure mechanism | Reoperation | Followup (years) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | Polyostotic | 48 | CBG | No | Fibula | No | 1 | 13% | – | No | 19 |
| 2 | F | Monostotic | 31 | No | No | Fibula | No | 1 | 19% | – | No | 4 |
| 3 | F | Monostotic | 39 | No | No | Fibula | Yes | 1 | – | – | No | 20 |
| 4 | M | Polyostotic | 10 | No | No | Tibia | No | 2 | 3% | Resorption | Yes | 26 |
| 5 | M | Polyostotic | 12 | No | No | Fibula | No | 1 | 9% | – | No | 25 |
| 6 | M | Monostotic | 10 | No | Yes | Fibula | No | 1 | 3% | Fracture | Yes | 14 |
| 7 | F | Monostotic | 27 | CBG | Yes | Fibula | Yes | 2 | 3% | Resorption | Yes | 28 |
| 8 | M | Monostotic | 37 | No | No | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 10% | No | 7 | |
| 9 | M | Monostotic | 12 | No | Yes | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 7% | Resorption | Yes | 5 |
| 10 | F | Polyostotic | 17 | No | Yes | Fibula | Yes | 2 | 3% | Resorption | Yes | 12 |
| 11 | F | Polyostotic | 45 | No | No | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 8% | – | No | 7 |
| 12 | M | Polyostotic | 5 | No | Yes | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 3% | Fracture | Yes | 9 |
| 13 | F | Polyostotic | 22 | No | Yes | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 4% | Deformity | Yes | 25 |
| 14 | M | Monostotic | 24 | No | No | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 6% | – | No | 6 |
| 15 | F | Monostotic | 23 | CBG | Yes | Fibula | Yes | 2 | 3% | Fracture | Yes | 9 |
| 16 | F | Polyostotic | 27 | No | No | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 17% | – | No | 6 |
| 17 | F | Monostotic | 15 | No | No | Fibula | Yes | 2 | 20% | – | No | 6 |
| 18 | M | Monostotic | 8 | No | Yes | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 6% | – | No | 4 |
| 19 | M | Polyostotic | 27 | No | No | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 5% | Resorption | Yes | 25 |
| 20 | M | Monostotic | 9 | No | No | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 10% | – | No | 11 |
| 21 | F | Monostotic | 18 | No | No | Fibula | Yes | 2 | 6% | Fracture | Yes | 4 |
| 22 | M | Monostotic | 50 | No | No | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 8% | – | No | 11 |
| 23 | F | Monostotic | 21 | No | No | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 17% | – | No | 8 |
| 24 | M | Monostotic | 24 | No | No | Fibula | Yes | 2 | 4% | Resorption | Yes | 7 |
| 25 | F | MAS | 14 | Osteosynthesis | Yes | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 8% | – | No | 37 |
| 26 | F | Polyostotic | 44 | No | No | Fibula | No | 1 | 19% | – | No | 10 |
| 27 | F | Monostotic | 10 | No | Yes | Fibula | No | 1 | 5% | Resorption | Yes | 5 |
| 28 | M | Polyostotic | 25 | No | Yes | Fibula | Yes | 1 | 1% | Resorption | Yes | 13 |
FD = fibrous dysplasia; F = female; M = male; CBG = cancellous bone grafting; MAS = McCune-Albright syndrome.
Fig. 1The protocol for surgical treatment of fibrous dysplasia of the proximal femur in our center is shown.
Fig. 2Assessment of the anchoring ratio of the graft in vital bone. The proximal anchoring (Pa) and distal anchoring (Da) parts of the graft were measured and divided by the length of the femoral collum (LFC) to obtain the ratio. In case two grafts were used, we chose the measurement with the deepest anchoring. LFC was defined by as the length between the lateral cortex and femoral head in alignment with the graft.
Fig. 3A–C The Kaplan-Meier curve for revision-free survival (A) indicates that most failures occur in the first 5 years after surgery. The Kaplan-Meier curves (B–C) illustrate the role of a preoperative fracture and insufficient proximal anchoring on revision-free survival.
Fig. 4A–C The radiograph (A) is made postoperatively and shows two fibular strut grafts that cross the dysplastic lesion but have minimal contact with vital bone proximally. After 1 year, resorption of the graft gradually increased (B) and finally the strut graft is resorbed over the full length of the diameter (C), losing its stabilizing function.
Fig. 5A–C The radiograph of Patient 17 shows an expansive lesion in the proximal femur with a ground glass aspect and cortical thinning (A). The diagnosis of fibrous dysplasia was histologically confirmed and the patient was treated with implantation of two fibular strut grafts (B). The strut grafts gradually incorporated in vital bone and the radiograph showed a stable situation 7 years after surgery. (C) The patient could be discharged from further controls with good function and no pain.
Risk factors for failure of ACSG surgery (univariate Cox regression analysis)
| Risk factor | Hazard ratio | 95% confidence interval | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monostotic fibrous dysplasia | 0.50 | 0.2–1.6 | 0.230 |
| Previous surgery | 0.79 | 0.2–3.6 | 0.756 |
| Additional curettage + CBG | 1.34 | 0.4–4.9 | 0.657 |
| Distal anchoring ratio ≤ 5% | 1.40 | 0.5–4.2 | 0.543 |
| Gender (male) | 1.40 | 0.5–4.2 | 0.543 |
| Preoperative fracture | 4.50 | 1.2–17.2 | 0.028 |
| Proximal anchoring ratio ≤ 5% | 6.02 | 1.3–27.0 | 0.020 |
| Age at surgery | 1.05/year | 1.0–1.1 | 0.087 |
ACSG = allogeneic cortical strut graft; CBG = cancellous bone grafting.
Previous studies into surgical treatment of fibrous dysplasia of the femoral neck
| Study | Number | Type of graft | Mean followup | Failure graft | Clinical outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harris et al. (1962) [ | 10 | Cancellous autograft | Unknown | 5/10 | Five of 10 had a poor outcome |
| Nakashima et al. (1984) [ | 8 | Autograft | Unknown | 2/8 | 25% had a poor outcome |
| Enneking and Gearen (1986) [ | 15 | Cortical autograft | 6 years | 2/15 | Two of 15 had a poor outcome (reoperation) |
| Stephenson et al. (1987) [ | 18 | Cancellous autograft | 10.4 years | 25/31 | 81% had a poor outcome |
| Guille et al. (1998) [ | 22 | Cancellous autograft | 15 years | 22/22 | 100% had resorption |
| Ippolito et al. (2003) [ | 5 | Cancellous autograft | Unknown | 3/5 | Three of 5 patients had a poor outcome (reoperation) |
| George et al. (2008) [ | 8 | Cortical autografts | 4.1 years | 1/8 | One patient had a poor outcome (recurrence). |
| Tong et al. (2013) [ | 15 | Cancellous autograft with internal fixation | 12–32 months | 0/15 | No patients needed a reoperation |
| Nishida et al. (2015) [ | 8 | Cortical autograft with internal fixation | 75 months | 0/8 | No patient had a poor outcome |