| Literature DB >> 28008377 |
Hiroyuki Inatani1, Norio Yamamoto2, Katsuhiro Hayashi1, Hiroaki Kimura1, Akihiko Takeuchi2, Shinji Miwa2, Takashi Higuchi2, Kensaku Abe2, Yuta Taniguchi2, Satoshi Yamada3, Hideki Okamoto3, Takanobu Otsuka3, Hiroyuki Tsuchiya2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Aggressive benign or malignant tumors in the proximal fibula may require en bloc resection of the fibular head, including the peroneal nerve and lateral collateral ligament. Here, we report the treatment outcomes of 12 patients with aggressive benign or malignant proximal fibula tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four patients with osteosarcoma and 1 patient with Ewing's sarcoma were treated with intentional marginal resections after effective chemotherapy, and 4 patients underwent fibular head resections without ligamentous reconstruction. Clinical outcomes were investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Fibular head resection; Proximal fibular tumor; Reconstruction
Year: 2016 PMID: 28008377 PMCID: PMC5154704 DOI: 10.1016/j.jbo.2016.06.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Bone Oncol ISSN: 2212-1366 Impact factor: 4.072
Fig. 1Surgical methods. (A) Marginal excision and reconstruction. (B) Wide excision.
Summary of patient demographics, diagnosis, treatment, complication, oncologic and functional outcome.
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15 | M | FS | 13.4 | CDF | 100 | Intentional Marginal | + | − | − | − | Suture anchor |
| 2 | 17 | M | OS | 10.2 | CDF | 100 | Intentional Marginal | + | − | − | − | Spike washer |
| 3 | 11 | M | OS | 9.9 | CDF | 100 | Intentional Marginal | + | − | − | − | Suture |
| 4 | 14 | F | OS | 5.3 | DOD | 100 | Intentional Marginal | + | − | − | − | Spike washer |
| 5 | 49 | M | CS | 3.7 | CDF | 93 | Marginal | + | − | − | − | Spike washer |
| 6 | 21 | M | GCT | 3.7 | NED | 93 | Marginal | + | − | − | − | Spike washer |
| 7 | 30 | F | GCT | 5.1 | NED | 100 | Marginal | + | + | − | − | – |
| 8 | 49 | F | MFH | 5.4 | CDF | 70 | Wide | − | − | 40 | Peroneal nerve palsy | – |
| 9 | 58 | F | GCT | 2.8 | CDF | 70 | Currettage | + | + | − | Peroneal nerve palsy and DVT | Intact |
| 10 | 24 | M | GCT | 4.7 | CDF | 100 | Currettage | + | + | − | Wound infection | Intact |
| 11 | 13 | M | EWS | 10.1 | CDF | 100 | Intentional Marginal | + | − | 30 | − | – |
| 12 | 71 | F | MFH | 2.7 | AWD | 60 | Wide | − | − | 40 | Peroneal nerve palsy and wound dehiscence | – |
A – Patient
B – Age
C – Sex
D – Diagnosis. FS: Fibrosarcoma, OS: Osteosarcoma, CS: Chondrosarcoma (low-grade),
GCT: Giant cell tumor, MFH: Malignant fibrous histiocytoma, EWS: Ewing's sarcoma
E – Follow up period (years)
F – Outcome. CDF: continuous disease free, NED: no evidence of disease, AWD: alive with disease
G – MSTS Score (%)
H – Operative method
I – Attempt to preserve peroneal nerve
J – Intra-operative adjuvant treatment: A; burring, liquid nitrogen spray, alchohol
K – Postoperative radiotherapy (Gy)
L – Complication. DVT: deep venous thrombosis
M – Reconstruction of Lateral Collateral Ligament.
Fig. 2X-ray film of the varus stress test at the last follow-up in 1 fibular head tumor patient who was treated by fibular head resection without reconstruction. Varus instability was detected in the right knee (side on which the operation was performed) in comparison with the healthy side.