| Literature DB >> 29700587 |
Wangsiyuan Teng1, Peng Lin1, Yong Li1, Xiaobo Yan1, Hengyuan Li1, Binghao Li1, Zhan Wang1, Yan Wu1, Shengdong Wang1, Xingzhi Zhou1, Zenan Wang1, Zhaoming Ye2,3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of our study are (1) to explore the risk factors of mechanical failure (MF), (2) to figure out an index to evaluate this risk, and (3) to select an optimal reconstruction strategy to reduce this risk.Entities:
Keywords: Distal femur; Giant cell tumor; Proximal tibia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29700587 PMCID: PMC6399200 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-3939-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Orthop ISSN: 0341-2695 Impact factor: 3.075
Fig. 1Flow chart of the study
Radiographic evaluation scale of Albert J. Aboulafia
| Grade 0 | Anatomic articular contour without joint space narrowing |
| Grade 1 | Minimal irregularity of articular surface |
| Grade 2 | Moderate irregularity of articular surface with joint space narrowing < 2 mm or minimal (< 5°) varus/valgus deformity |
| Grade 3 | Deformity of articular surface with > 2 mm joint space narrowing or evidence of subluxation |
| Grade 4 | Collapse of articular surface with deformity (> 5°) varus/valgus, subluxation > 5 mm or loss of articular surface with resultant bone on the bone appearance |
Fig. 2Method used to measure the area of the subchondral bone affected by the giant cell tumour of the bone: 1. Width of cavity filled by cement in the anteroposterior plane (a) and the lateral plane (b). 2. Width of corresponding compartment (epicondyle to middle of joint) in the anteroposterior plane (A) and the lateral plane (B). Width of corresponding compartment in the anteroposterior plane would be replaced by width of whole articular surface when the lesion invaded almost the entire surface. 3. (a × b/A × B) × 100 = % of the subchondral bone area affected by tumour
Possible factors at multivariate analysis with the COX proportional hazard model
| B | SE | HR | 95.0% CI of HR | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| Gender (female = 0, male = 1) | Female | 58 | − 0.029 | 0.464 | 0.951 | 0.972 | 0.391 | 2.415 |
| Male | 46 | |||||||
| Age (≤ 30 = 0, > 30 = 1) | ≤ 30 years | 37 | 0.003 | 0.491 | 0.995 | 1.003 | 0.383 | 2.626 |
| > 30 years | 67 | |||||||
| Medial/lateral* | Lateral | 39 | − 0.237 | 0.402 | 0.556 | 0.789 | 0.359 | 1.735 |
| Medial | 54 | |||||||
| Femur/tibia (femur = 0, tibia = 1) | Femur | 63 | − 1.253 | 0.498 | 0.012 | 0.286 | 0.108 | 0.757 |
| Tibia | 41 | |||||||
| Post-subchondral bone thickness | − 2.605 | 0.949 | 0.006 | 0.074 | 0.012 | 0.474 | ||
| Area affected by tumor | 0.008 | 0.013 | 0.545 | 1.008 | 0.983 | 1.034 | ||
| Campanacci grading | 1 | 34 | 0.385 | 0.344 | 0.264 | 1.469 | 0.748 | 2.885 |
| 2 | 55 | |||||||
| 3 | 15 | |||||||
| Reconstruction types (cement + bone graft = 0, cement alone = 1) | Cement + bone graft | 47 | 1.335 | 0.483 | 0.006 | 3.799 | 1.475 | 9.787 |
| Cement alone | 57 | |||||||
*Eleven patients’ lesions invaded almost the whole articular surface
Fig. 3The ROC curve showing increased risk of mechanical failure in patient of the thin subchondral bony layer after the surgery (AUC = 0.722, its 95% CI is from 0.617 to 0.827)
Fig. 4Kaplan-Meier survival curve showing increased MF-free survival in patients after a cement + bone grafting surgery (HR, 3.799; p = 0.006)
Fig. 5a AP view of a 33-year-old male patient with GCT. b Extensive curettage, cement filling was performed. This AP showed the knee 2 days following the surgery. c A sclerotic rim occurred (green box), separating the cement from the surrounding bone and subchondral bone layer. The artificial surface collapsed