| Literature DB >> 28884107 |
Ana Valeria Rigollino1,2, Thiago Santos Fernando1, Marcos Hajime Tanaka2, Marcello Martins Souza2.
Abstract
Giant cell tumor (GCT) is a benign bone tumor with aggressive characteristics. They are more prevalent in the third decade of life and demonstrate a preference for locating in the epiphyseal region of long bones. They have a high local recurrence rate, which depends on the type of treatment and initial tumor presentation. The risk of lung metastases is around 3%. Between October 2010 and August 2014, nine patients diagnosed with locally advanced GCT or with pathological fracture to the knee level underwent surgical treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of the treatment, particularly with regard to relapse, and to conduct a literature review. There was a predominance of males (77.7%). The most common location was the distal femur. Four patients (44%) developed local recurrence in the first year after surgery, three in distal femur and one in proximal tibia. Of the two patients with pathologic fracture at diagnosis, one of them presented recurrence after five months. The treatment of GCT is still a challenge. The authors believe that the best treatment method is wide resection and reconstruction of bone defects with non-conventional endoprostheses. Patients should be aware and well informed about the possible complications and functional losses that may occur as a result of the surgical treatment chosen and the need for further surgery in the medium and long term.Entities:
Keywords: Bone neoplasms; Giant cell tumors; Knee joint
Year: 2017 PMID: 28884107 PMCID: PMC5582821 DOI: 10.1016/j.rboe.2017.06.009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Bras Ortop ISSN: 2255-4971
Fig. 1Campanacci classification.
I, quiescent, intraosseous lesions; II, active, with intact periosteum; III, aggressive, with invasion of soft tissues.
Data of the patients selected for the study.
| Sex | Age | Location | Fracture | Treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | Male | 36 | Distal femur | No | Curettage + cement |
| Patient 2 | Male | 39 | Distal femur | No | Curettage + cement |
| Patient 3 | Male | 29 | Distal femur | Yes | Curettage + cement |
| Patient 4 | Male | 32 | Distal femur | Yes | Curettage + cement |
| Patient 5 | Male | 35 | Distal femur | No | Resection + endoprosthesis |
| Patient 6 | Male | 26 | Proximal tibia | No | Curettage + cement |
| Patient 7 | Female | 41 | Distal femur | No | Curettage + cement |
| Patient 8 | Male | 34 | Distal femur | No | Curettage + cement |
| Patient 9 | Female | 32 | Proximal tibia | Yes | Resection + endoprosthesis |
Fig. 2Percentage of patients according to gender.
Fig. 3Percentage of recurrences found in the study after one year.
Fig. 4Location of the tumor and number of recurrences.
Fig. 5Patient 1 in the immediate post-operative period and in the relapse at 11 months.
Data of patients who presented recurrence.
| Location | Age | Sex | Months until relapse | Treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | Distal femur | 36 | Male | 11 | Endoprosthesis |
| Patient 2 | Distal femur | 39 | Male | 9 | Endoprosthesis |
| Patient 3 | Distal femur | 29 | Male | 6 | New curettage |
| Patient 4 | Proximal tibia | 26 | Male | 8 | Endoprosthesis |
Percentage of recurrence in the studies analyzed by Zehn.
| Author | Number of patients | Recurrence (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Dahlin, Crupps, and Johnson | 37 | 41 |
| Goldenberg, Campbell, and Bonfiglio | 136 | 54 |
| Larsson, Lorentzon, and Boquist | 30 | 47 |
| Marcove et al. | 52 | 23 |
| Sung et al. | 34 | 41 |
| McDonald et al. | 85 | 34 |
| Jacobs and Clemency | 12 | 17 |
| Campanacci et al. | 151 | 27 |
| Waldram and Sneath | 19 | 37 |
| O’Donnell et al. | 60 | 25 |
| Blackley et al. | 59 | 12 |