Literature DB >> 30370032

Osteoid osteoma: Contemporary management.

Shahryar Noordin1, Salim Allana2, Kiran Hilal3, Naila Nadeem3, Riaz Lakdawala1, Anum Sadruddin4, Nasir Uddin5.   

Abstract

Osteoid osteoma is a benign bone-forming tumor with hallmark of tumor cells directly forming mature bone. Osteoid osteoma accounts for around 5% of all bone tumors and 11% of benign bone tumors with a male predilection. It occurs predominantly in long bones of the appendicular skeleton. According to Musculoskeletal Tumor Society staging system for benign tumors, osteoid osteoma is a stage-2 lesion. It is classified based on location as cortical, cancellous, or subperiosteal. Nocturnal pain is the most common symptom that usually responds to salicyclates and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications. CT is the modality of choice not only for diagnosis but also for specifying location of the lesion, i.e. cortical vs sub periosteal or medullary. Non-operative treatment can be considered as an option since the natural history of osteoid osteoma is that of spontaneous healing. Surgical treatment is an option for patients with severe pain and those not responding to NSAIDs. Available surgical procedures include radiofrequency (RF) ablation, CT-guided percutaneous excision and en bloc resection.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Osteoid osteoma; benign; imaging; management; pathogenesis; tumor

Year:  2018        PMID: 30370032      PMCID: PMC6187004          DOI: 10.4081/or.2018.7496

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)        ISSN: 2035-8164


Introduction

Osteoid osteoma is a benign bone-forming tumor with hallmark of tumor cells directly forming mature bone.[1] These are small, distinctive, nonprogressive, benign osteoblastic lesions. Bergstrand first described osteoid osteoma in 1930 and Jaffe in 1935 characterized it as a benign osteoblastic tumor.[2,3]

Epidemiology

Osteoid osteoma accounts for around 5% of all bone tumors and 11% of benign bone tumors.[4] Osteoid osteoma is the third most common biopsy analyzed benign bone tumor after osteochondroma and nonossifying fibroma. Two to 3% of excised primary bone tumors are osteoid osteomas.[5] Males are more commonly affected with an approximate male/female ratio of 2 to 1.[5] Adolescents and young adults are usually affected in the second decade of life, with most patients being under the age of 20 years. It is less likely to be seen in patients under 5 years of age or in adults greater than 40 years.[4]

Localisation

Osteoid osteoma occurs predominantly in the appendicular skeleton. Spine is involved in one tenth of the cases.[6] Flat bones with intramembraneous formation in the body and skull are rarely affected. The lower extremity is more commonly affected than the upper extremity as shown in Figure 1. Commonly long bones particularly the femur and tibia are involved, followed far behind by bones of the feet, with a predilection for the talar neck. Common sites of femoral involvement are the juxta- or intraarticular regions of the femoral neck. In the upper extremity, phalanges of the hand are commonly affected.[4]
Figure 1.

Pictorial representation of osteoid osteoma.

Classification

In long bones, osteoid osteoma is more often situated in the cortico-diaphyseal or metaphyseal regions, but other localizations such as intramedullary, subperiosteal, epiphyseal or apophyseal have also been noted.[6] It is very rare to have two osteoid osteomas in the same patient.[4] According to Musculoskeletal Tumor Society staging system for benign tumors, osteoid osteoma is a stage-2 lesion. It is classified as cortical, cancellous, or subperiosteal. Cortical lesions are most common.[4]

Clinical presentation

Pain is the most common symptom. Usually it is a dull ache, which is unremitting and starts off as mild and intermittent that gradually increases in intensity and persistence. The pain has a tendency to become increasingly severe at night and usually responds to salicyclates and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications. If osteoid osteoma involves a bone in a subcutaneous location, then the patient usually presents with swelling, erythema and tenderness. If the proximal femur or pelvis is involved, the patient can present with referred pain in the knee. Lesions that are within the joint or juxta-articular can present with synovitis. If this continues to progress, the patient can present with joint pain, flexion contracture, decreased range of motion, and a limp or antalgic gait. Sometimes in children, a limp may be the only presenting symptom. If the lesion involves the open physis, it can result in limb length discrepancy with potential coronal and/or sagittal malalignment. Referred pain and muscle atrophy can result in misdiagnosis of a neurological disorder commonly seen in axial skeleton involvement with postural scoliosis due to paravertebral muscle spasm, which is reversible after treatment.[7]

Pathogenesis

The exact pathogenesis of osteoid osteoma remains unknown. High levels of prostaglandin E2 and prostacyclin have been found within the nidus that is believed to cause local inflammation and vasodilatation. A study by Mungo et al.[8] revealed increased levels of cyclooxygenase-2 expression in nidus osteoblasts. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition is believed to be a mechanism by which NSAIDs provide symptomatic relief in osteoid osteomas. These inflammatory mediators may also contribute to perilesional sclerosis exhibited by most osteoid osteomas. In addition, high concentrations of intralesional unmyelinated nerve fibers have been implicated in the pathogenesis of the exquisite nocturnal pain. These processes probably function in parallel to produce the characteristic inflammatory symptoms.[9,10] Historically, there has been debate over the years about the precise nature of osteoid osteomas. Initially considered a neoplasm by Jaffe, other investigators proposed a reactive or reparative process citing its limited growth potential and its ability to spontaneously regress in some cases.[2] Currently, most pathologists agree about the neoplastic nature of osteoid osteomas. The tumour’s histological similarity to osteoblastoma supports the belief that it is a benign tumour derived from the osteoblasts. There have been few cytogenetic studies that reported clonal cytogenetic abnormalities, including alterations involving chromosome 22q, a region which contains genes involved in cell proliferation that is commonly affected in a variety of other neoplasms.[11]

Gross features

When removed intact, osteoid osteomas are usually small, and round to oval in shape. The cut surface is red to pink when fresh, and brown to granular after formalin fixation. They are well demarcated from the surrounding white sclerotic cortical bone. The nidus color is related to vascularity of intertrabecular areas. As osteoid osteomas are now treated by radiofrequency ablation, such intact specimens as described above are rarely received for histopathology.[12]

Microscopic features

Histologically, the nidus is well circumscribed and composed of haphazardly interanastomosing trabeculae of variably mineralized woven bone. The trabeculae are usually thin and short, but can be sclerotic and broad and are rimmed by a single layer of osteoblasts. Scattered osteoclasts are also present on the surface of bony trabeculae (Figure 2). The osteoblasts are plump, uniform in size and shape and have eccentric nuclei with small nucleoli and open chromatin. Cytoplasm is usually amphophilic. No nuclear pleomorphism or increased mitotic activity is seen. The intertrabecular stroma is loose and fibrovascular (Figure 3). The reactive bone surrounding the nidus is dense cortical or trabecular bone and when the tumor grows closer to the bone surface, it becomes more pronounced. In medullary lesions, it is less pronounced.[13]
Figure 2.

Histology of osteoid osteoma. The nidus is composed of densely broad sclerotic bone trabecuale show osteoblastic rimming and fibrovascular connective tissue.

Figure 3.

The bony trabeculae can be thin as seen in this image.

The pathologic evaluation of osteoid osteoma has been affected by the increasing use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or other minimally invasive techniques. The techniques now used include core biopsy or biopsy obtained from a drill procedure. As compared to specimens received by traditional surgery, the yield of diagnostic tissue is lower and tissue findings are often obscured by heat or crushing artifacts. Consequently, pathologists may or may not be able to confirm the diagnosis on smaller, usually fragmented, and frequently distorted fragments of tissue.[14]

Immunohistochemical features

S100 and neurofilament show nerve fibers involving tumor.[15] Osteoid osteomas also show strong nuclear expression for Runx2 and Osterix, which are regulatory transcription factors. This suggests that osteoid osteomas share common genetic pathways with normal skeletal development.[16]

Differential diagnosis

Osteoid osteoma can be distinguished from other bone forming tumors based on the difference in size, location, pathology, and clinical symptoms.[17] A small Brodie abscess with a radiolucent center and surrounding reactive sclerosis can mimic osteoid osteoma. With intracortical Brodie abscess the sequestrum is irregular in shape and the inner margin of the lucency is not smooth, whereas in osteoid osteoma, the inner margins are usually smooth.[18,19] Tumors can also mimic osteoid osteomas. Chondroblastomas in epiphyseal locations of children with osteolytic lesions and extensive bone marrow edema and periosteal reaction can resemble osteoid osteoma. However the epiphyseal and intramedullary location is more characteristic for chondroblastomas, whereas osteoid osteomas are usually diaphyseal and intracortical. In the pediatric age group cortical lesions in the tibia caused by osteofibrous dysplasia, adamantinoma and stress fractures produce cortical thickening and proliferation that can be mistaken for osteoid osteomas. In stress fractures, the reactive woven bone network is well oriented around trabeculae of fractured bone. It is not haphazard and lacks the small irregular trabeculae seen in osteoid osteomas. Other lesions such as nonossifying fibromas, enchondromas, eosinophilic granulomas, Perthes disease, tuberculosis, neuromuscular conditions and malignant bone tumors can also be considered. In addition to clinical features, imaging techniques such as CT, bone and SPECT scans can assist in diagnosing the lesion.

Imaging findings

Plain radiography

Osteoid osteoma appears as an oval lytic lesion located within dense cortical bone in the diaphysis surrounded by fusiform cortical bone thickening and sclerosis. The cortical based lucency is less than 2 cm.[20] Underlying lytic nidus may not always be visualized due to significant sclerosis. The sclerotic reactive bone often is seen distant from the lesion, in extra capsular location. The tumor present at subperiosteal location is a rounded sclerotic focus that elevates the periosteum with limited sclerotic reaction. In intramedullary location, these tumors are well-circumscribed with a complete or partially calcified nidus. The surrounding reactive sclerosis can be minimal or absent (Figure 4A). In posterior elements of the spine, osteoid osteomas are difficult to localize. The nidus is not visualized on plain films but additional findings such as scoliosis with concavity at the side of the lesion is seen in these cases.[6,21]A study done by PARK et al showed 28.6% of osteoid osteoma cases in their study had no plain radiography abnormality despite very typical clinical presentations. Radionuclide imaging was used to diagnose these cases. Therefore in cases where plain radiographs are not conclusive but clinical suspicion is high, further imaging workup should be requested.[22]
Figure 4.

A 10 years old boy with humeral osteoid osteoma. A) AP radiograph shows radiolucent nidus arrow and surrounding sclerosis. B) Coronal STIR image shows hypointense lesion long arrow (nidus) and perilesional edema (small arrow). C) Axial T1-weighted and corresponding post contrast T1-weighted Fat sat images show hypointense nidus on pre contrast image with intense enhancement on pot contrast images (long arrow). D) Technetium-99 bone scan, AP projection shows focal region of radiotracer uptake, corresponding to tumor nidus (Arrow).

CT

CT is the modality of choice for diagnosis and specifying location of lesion, i.e. cortical vs sub periosteal or medullary. CT shows well-defined nidus as round or oval with low attenuation (Figure 5). Nidus can show mineralization which may be punctate, amorphous or ring like. Surrounding reactive sclerosis can vary from mild sclerosis to extensive periosteal reaction and new bone formation, which may obscure the nidus.[6]
Figure 5.

A 14 years old boy osteoid osteoma of right femur. A) axial and B) coronal CT images show hypoattenuating nidus with surrounding sclerosis.

For cases where nonoperative management is chosen as the treatment strategy, mineralization of the nidus is considered as a marker of age of the lesion. The mineralization ratio of osteoid osteoma increases significantly with pain duration. Touraine et al. showed that nidus mineralization ratio of osteoid osteoma is positively related to pain duration and may be a marker of tumor age (P=0.007, hazard ratio=0.193). They however reported no association of nidus size with pain duration (P=0.092). In their study, diaphyseal osteoid osteomas displayed a lower ratio of nidus mineralization as compared to those in epiphyseal and metaphyseal locations.[23] Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT helps in differentiating osteoid osteoma from bone cysts and chronic osteomyelitis, specifically Brodie abscess which are avascular. In these cases the tumor nidus shows rapid early arterial enhancement and appears hypervascular. [24-26] Spinal osteoid osteoma is better characterized by CT. The nidus is visible as lowdensity area in posterior elements. Surrounding sclerosis of the ipsilateral pedicle, lamina, or transverse process may be present.

Bone scintigraphy

Technetium-99-labeled bone scintigraphy has high sensitivity for confirming diagnosis of osteoid osteoma. The sensitivity of skeletal scintigraphy for detection is 100%.[27] On bone scan characteristic feature is very intense, round activity at nidus surrounded by less intensity of reactive bone. This is known as double density sign.[28] The increased intensity of nidus is because of increased bone turn over. The less intense peripheral radiotracer uptake, represents the host bone tumor response (Figure 4) The sign is infrequently seen with spinal osteoid osteoma because of less peripheral sclerosis in vertebral bodies.[29] A study done by PARK et al found out that all the patients in their study with or without conclusive appearance on plain radiography, were correctly identified on bone scintigraphy. They recommended that if the radionuclide imaging is positive, CT scans should be next imaging modality for further evaluation but in cases where radionuclide imaging is negative, MRI should be done for the diagnosis of other underlying bone pathologies.[22]

PET

PET may have role in initial diagnosis and post treatment follow-up. A study previously reported that tumor nidus exhibits 18FFDG-avid glucose metabolism, whereas the surrounding sclerosis does not. In follow up cases of radiofrequency ablation (RFA), hypermetabolic activity is absent. Some authors suggested role of PET specifically in cases of spinal osteoid osteoma. But this modality requires more research work to be done to prove its utility in diagnosis and follow up.[30-33] In addition to FDGPET/CT, 68Ga- PSMA PET/CT, which is used in prostate cancer staging and restaging, has been used to detecta case of osteoid osteoma. This uptake was likely because of osteoblastic activity in osteoid osteoma but needs further evaluation to investigate its specific role and accuracy in diagnosis of osteoid osteoma.[34,35]

MRI

MRI is more sensitive than CT scan for detection of reactive changes in soft tissue. MRI is a reliable method of visualizing the nidus. The MRI appearance of nidus depends on its location in the cortex. The closer the lesion is to the medullary zone, the greater the role of MRI in recognizing the nidus compared to CT scan. However, compared to MRI, CT scan is more specific for identifying a nidus.[36,37] The appearance of nidus on MRI is variable depending on mineralization and its vascularity. Nidus on MR T1 weighted sequence appears as round lesion, slightly hyper intense to intermediate signals to adjacent muscle and hyper intense to heterogeneous signals on T2 weighted and STIR sequences (Figure 4B and C). Nidus can be hypointense in all sequences, depending on vascularity and mineralization. Tumor enhancement is variable, can be diffuse or heterogeneous (Figure 4C). The surrounding osteosclerosis appears as low signal on both T1- and T2- weighted sequences.[38,39] There is high potential of misdiagnosing osteoid osteoma as neoplastic lesion or oversight it when other modalities are not used for diagnosis. Small lesions may be hard to isolate on MRI as nidus signal is frequently similar to that of surrounding cortex.[38] Although CT is the modality of choice in diagnosis of osteoid osteoma, but in patients with atypical clinical presentations, in whom the pain does not respond to NSAIDs and where no obvious abnormality on plain roentgenograms is reported, MRI is done to investigate the underlying cause. MRI is more sensitive than CT scan for detection of reactive changes in soft tissue and surrounding bone edema. Klontzas et al. reported that the half-moon sign of bone marrow edema was associated with the presence of osteoid osteoma in femoral neck. The half-moon sign is highly specific and sensitive for presence of osteoid osteoma in the femoral neck with 94.7% specificity and 100% sensitivity and positive and negative predictive values of 91.7% and 100%, respectively (D). But some authors have questioned this high specificity as the half-moon sign of bone marrow edema in femoral neck can be seen in intermediate-grade stress fractures of the femoral neck on MRI. It has therefore been recommended that if clinical features are suggestive of osteoid osteoma, then CT should be performed to determine the presence of a potentially occult nidus on MRI.[35]

Pitfall of imaging

The diagnosis of osteoid osteoma on imaging can be challenging in cases where there are severe associated inflammatory changes such as a prominent periosteal reaction, exaggerated synovial hypertrophy, joint effusion, extensive bone marrow and soft tissue edema. In cases of significant associated periosteal reaction and soft tissue edema in a young patient, the differential diagnoses of osteomyelitis or malignant bone tumor, such as Ewing sarcoma have to be considered. A small nidus obscured by extensive bone marrow and soft-tissue edema needs to be differentiated from traumatic injury or infection. For accurate and correct radiological diagnosis it is mandatory to identify the nidus.

Treatment

Non-operative

Non-operative treatment can be considered as an option since the natural history of osteoid osteoma is that of spontaneous healing. [40] Moberg[40] and Golding[41] reported resolution of symptoms with conservative management in osteoid osteoma within 6 to 15 years. Use of aspirin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) decreases this time to 2 to 3 years.[42,43] Use of this nonoperative treatment option risks the potential side effects of protracted NSAID treatment. In anatomical areas where osteoid osteoma is not easily accessible surgically, this may be a viable treatment option. However caution should be exercised with this option, as there are some reports that these tumors progress to osteoblastoma with prolonged NSAID treatment.[44]

Surgical management

Surgical treatment is an option for patients with severe pain and those not responding to NSAIDs. This option should also be considered for those patients not willing to tolerate pain and those at particular risk of long-term renal and gastrointestinal complications of NSAIDs. Moreover in children with open physes, continued presence of these tumors can lead to growth disturbances like limb length discrepancies, scoliosis and osteoarthritis.[45] Available procedures include CT-guided radiofrequency (RF) ablation, en bloc resection, and CTguided percutaneous excision.

En bloc resection

For symptomatic relief, the entire nidus has to be excised. Complete removal of the sclerotic reactive bone however, is not required. Preoperative roentgenograms and CT scans delineate the location of the nidus. This resection has the drawback of an open surgical approach with excision of sclerotic bone leaving behind a bone defect which may require bone grafting and internal fixation with consequent restrictions on postoperative activities and weight bearing. With this approach, intraoperative localization of the tumor may be challenging leading to partial removal and potential recurrence. For structurally critical anatomical sites like the femoral neck, one can consider deroofing and curettage. For intra-articular locations of the tumor, arthroscopic excision is a possible option.[46]

CT guided percutaneous techniques

Over the years, to reduce the surgical morbidity of open procedures, several percutaneous techniques using CT guidance have been used. These include trephine excision, cryoablation, radiofrequency ablation and laser thermocoagulation.[47-51] Fine drills, bone trephine, Tru-Cut needles, and cannulated curettes have been used with percutaneous CT guided techniques performed in the outpatient setting. Using percutaneous CT guided resection, Sans and colleagues[52] showed a cure rate of 84% at 3.7 years with two complications of femoral fractures at 2 months. For osteoid osteomas of the hip Muscolo and colleagues[53] showed superior results of percutaneous resection guided by CT. Roqueplan and colleagues[54] reported percutaneous CT guided trephine resection success rate of 95% at 2 years. Two patients got skin burns and one had meralgia. The same authors reported 94% success rate with interstitial laser ablation at 2 years and complications of infection, tendonitis, hematoma, and common peroneal nerve injury. Percutaneous thermocoagulation of osteoid osteoma was reported by de Berg and colleagues[55] successfully in 17 patients. Hoffman et al.[56] reported 5-year results of radiofrequency ablation with confirmed cure in 38 of 39 patients. Complications in this series included one broken drill and one case of infection. Papathanassiou et al.[57] in their series of 21 patients over 5 years reported a primary cure rate of 89.6% that increased to 93% if a second treatment was required. Rosenthal and colleagues[58] reported their results of CT guided RF ablation in 263 patients. A total of 271 procedures were performed of which 249 were for initial tumor treatment, 14 for recurrence after open excision, and 8 for recurrence after prior RF ablation. They reported 2 minor complications and recommended RF ablation as the treatment of choice with 91% clinical success, brief recovery and low complication rate. It is important to note that irrespective of the technique used, a biopsy is required to confirm the diagnosis. In order to evaluate complete removal of the nidus, several techniques have been used which include roentgenograms, CT scans, and microradiography of specimens. Table l[59-118] is a synopsis of the published literature referencing all case series with more than 15 patients listing the treatment and outcomes.

Conclusions

Osteoid osteoma is a distinct benign bone-producing tumor. Nonoperative treatment with NSAIDs is an appropriate option for pain control. Surgical options should be considered when conservative treatment fails or is not indicated for or not opted for by the patient. Minimally invasive methods including CT-guided excision and RF ablation have shown promise with highly successful outcomes.
Table 1.

Synopsis of the published literature.

s#Reference/ yearNo. of patientsAge of patients (years)GenderSitesTreatmentDuration of follow upOutcome
1.Bousson et al.[59] 201823Range 8-44 Mean age 23.8M 15 F8Cervical spine 5, Sacrum 3, Thoracic spine, Femoral neck, Femoral condyle and Tibia 2 cases in each. Lumbar spine, Coccyx Humerus, Iliac bone, Acetabulum, Fibula, neck, and Talus lin each caseBisphcsphonate therapyRange 20-48 months (mean 36)Recurrence of pain in 6 cases
2.Santiago et at.[60] 201821Range 17-54 Mean age 29.9M 12 F9Femur 8, spine 5, talus 2, cuboid 2, humerus, tibia, fibula, and patella 1 case eachPercutaneous cryoablationRange 6-40 (mean 21 months)Recurrence in 1 case
3.Nijland et el.[61] 201786Mean age 26.1 (±10.7)M59 F27Femur 31, Tibia 29, Fibula 9, others 17CT-guided radio frequency ablationMean 54.1 (±30.6)Clinical success rate 81.4%
4.Wu et al.[62] 201772**Range 3-16 (average, 10.5±4.6)M22 F14Proximal femur 2D, Tibia 6, Ilium 2, 1 case each in calcaneus and ischiaCT-guided radio frequency ablation12 monthsRecurrence in 1 case
5.Shields et al.[63] 201742Mean age 21.1M 14 F 28Femur 8, Tibia/Fibula 21, humerus and forearm 2 cases in each, Wrist/Hand, Foot and Spine/Pelvis 3 cases in eachRadiofrequency ablationRange 21 to 137 months (mean 72.3 months)Recurrence in 7 cases
6.Quraishi et al.[64] 201784Range 6.7-52.4 (mean 21.8±9.0)M65 F19Thoracic spine 31, Cervical and lumbar spine 25 cases each, sacrum 3Surgical resectionRange 13 days-14.5 (mean 2.7 years)Recurrence in 6 patients
7.Erol et al.[65] 201747Range 4-19 years (mean 10.5 years)M29 F18Femur 21, Tibia 7, Humerus 10, Tibia 7, Radius 2, ulna 1, Proximal phalanx 3, distal phalanx 1, talus 1, metatarsal 1Minimal invasive intralesional extended curettageRange 12-136 months (59 months)No local recurrence was observed after a minimum follow-up of 12 months
8.Garge et at.[66] 201730Range 4-20 years (mean 13.16 years)M25 F5Femur 21, tibia 4, 4 near articular surface (one each at glenoid fossa of right scapula, head of right radius, talocalcalcaneal joint of right calcaneum, and left femoral head) aud 1 in left sacrumCT-guided percutaneous RFAAverage follow up 6 monthsRecurrence in 1 patient
9.Karagöz etal.[67] 201618Range 10-27 years (mean 17.4 years)M12 F6Femur 8, tibia 7, ulna 1, foot 1, sacrum 1CT-guided radiofrequency ablationAverage 26,5 monthsRecurrence in 1 patient
10.Miyaraki et el.[68] 201621Range 10-39 years (median 22 years)M 17 F4Femur 17, Tibia 2, Humerus 1, Rib 1Percutaneous radiofrequency ablationRange 3-35 months (mean 15.1 months)No recurrence
11.Masciocchi et al.[69] 201630Range 19.3-30; median 23 (MRgFUS group) Range 25-31; median 28 (RFA group)M 18 F 12Femur 15, Tibia 5, Talus 5, Humerus 4, Hip 1Magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA)Average follow up 12 weeksNo recurrence in RFA group Recurrence in 1 patient in the MRgFUS group
12.Wallace et al.[70] 201618Range 5.5-58.2 years (mean 24.1±14.9 years)M 13 F5Femur 9, tibia 4, cervical spine 2, calcaneus 1, iliac bone 1, fibula 1Navigational bipolar radiofrequency ablationRange 34-91 days (median 56 days)No recurrence
13.Outani et al.[71] 201632Range 10 to 39 years (median 20 years)M 25 F 7Femur 18, tibia 7, humerus 2, 1 each in fibula, scapula, patella, Lumbar vertebra, and acetabulaRadiofrequency ablatiouRange 1 to 65 months (median 18 months)Recurrence in 1 patient
14.Etemadifar et al.72: 201519Range 8-38 years (mean age of 19.8M 11 F8Lumbar spine 7, thoracic spine 6, cervical spine 5, sacrum 1Surgical intra-lesional curettageRange 9-115 months (average 44.5 months)No recurrence
15.Petrilli et al.[73] 201518Range 10 to 34 years (mean 18 years)M 15 F 3Femur 7, tibia 6, humerus, ulna, cuneiform, calcaneus and fibula in 1 each.CT-guided percutaneous trephine resectionRange 6-60 months (median 29 months)Recurrence in 1 patient
16.Knudsen et al.[74] 201552Range 6-42 years (mean 18.2 years)M34 D 18Femur 28, Tibia 18, Humerus, ischium, fibula, calcaneous, cuboid, cuneiform 1 case eachCT-guided radio frequency ablation (RFA)NARecurrence in 1 patient
17.Ilamdi el al.[75] 201517Range 17-76 years (average 29 years)M 7 F 10Proximal phalanx 10, middle phalanx 4, metacarpal bone 3Surgical resection and autogenous bone grafting6 months-9 years (average 4 years and 2 months)No recurrence
IE.Sharma et al.[76] 201431Range: 5-59 (mean 20.6±13.2 years)M 25 F 6Femur 12, tibia 11, calcaneus 1, humerus 1. Vertebrae (lumbar 1, cervical 1). No bony lesion could be identified on SPECT/CT in 4 patientsNARange 6-36 monthsNA
19.Bourgauli etal.[11] 201487Range 5-19 (mean 23)M 63 F 24Femur 27, tibia in 18, femoral neck 18, and ta lus in 6 cases. Greater trochanter 3, elbow, knee, humerus and scapula in 2 patients each; spine, fibula, Lateral cuneiform, metatarsal, cuboid, calcaneus and pelvis in one patient eachPercutaneous CT guided radiofrequency thermocoagulationRange 6-96 (mean 34 months)Recurrence in 9 patients
20.Raux et al.[78] 201444Range 4-34 (average age 12.7 years)M 24 F 20Femoral neck 26, Lesser trochanter 18CT-guided percutaneous bone resection and drilling (PBRD)Range 12-56 (mean 12 months)Recurrence in 7 out of 42 cases with follow up
21.Rehnitz el al.[79] 201372Range 3-68 (median [18])M 47 F 25Femur 26, Tibia 24, Humerus 7, Spine 4, Hip 3, Radius, fibula, calcaneus 2 cases each, Scapula and talus 1 case eachCT-guided RFARange 3-109 months (mean, 51.2±31.2 months)Recurrence in 1 patient
22.Etienne et al.[80] 2013353 to 69 years (mean: 21.7 years)M 27 F 8Femur 19, tibia 7, patella 2, ulna, iliac bone, sacrum, calcaneus, neck of the talus, humerus and lateral cuneiform bone 1 case eachInterstitial laser photocoagulationRange 3-122 months (mean 40 months)Recurrence in 2 patients
23.Jafari et al.[81] 20132516 to 46 years (average 25.2±7.6 years)M 21 F 4Proximal phalanx 10, distal phalanx 5, metacarpal 4, scaphoid and capitate 2 in each, styloid of radius and trapezium 1 case eachSurgical excision 21, curettage and bone grafting 4Range 3 months to 8 years (mean 36.6±46.9 months)Recurrence in 5 patients
24.Farzan et al.[82] 201325Range 12 to 48 years (mean 27.5±8.6)M 12 F 13Phalanx 16, metacarpal 4, carpal 4, distal radius 1Surgical excision and currettageMean 98 monthsRecurrence in 3 patients
25.Reverie-Vinaixa el al.[83] 201354Range 10-47 years (mean 22.7 years)M 46 F 8Femur 28, tibia 15, humerus 5, fibula 2, talus 2, and ulnar 2Percutaneous CT-guided resectionRange 6-2S months (mean 22 months)Recurrence in 4 patients
26.Earhart et al.[84] 201321Range 2.5-28.6 years (mean 11.4 years)M 16 F 6Proximal femur 10, tibial shaft 3, Femoral shaft 2, distal femur 2, distal tibia 2, distal humerus 1, calcaneus 1Percutaneous radiofrequency ablationRange 0.5-86.1 months (average 17.0 months)No recurrence in 17 patients with follow up
27.Villani et al.[85] 201353Mean age 7.2 yearsM 40 F 13Tibia 22, femur 14, pelvis 5, talus 3, humerus 2, sacrum 2, heel 1, radius 2, patella l, rib 1Radiofrequency ablationFollow up at 6, 18 and 24 monthsRecurrence in 1 patient
28.Rehnitz el al.[87] 201277*Range 3-68 (mean 17)M 52 F 25Femur 27, Tibia 25, Humerus 8, Spine 6, Hip 3, Radius, Scapula, and Fibula 2 in each case; Calcaneus and Talus 1 in each caseCT-guided radiofrequency ablationRange 3-92 months (mean 38.5 months)Primary success rate was 74/77 (96.1%) of all patients. Retreatment with RFA in 3 patients
29.Neumann et at.[87] 201233Range 5-50 years (mean 20 years)M 22 F 11NACT-guided percutaneous radiofrequency thermoablationRange, 60-121 months (mean 92 months)Recurrence in 1 patient
30.Marić el al.[88] 201119All younger tha 18 years. AverageM 13 F 6Femur 10, Tibia 7, Fibula 1, Metatarsal 1Fluoroscopic guided percutaneous excision 14NANA
age 12.36=3.64Excision by resection 5
31.Mahnken et el.[89] 201117Range 9-49 years (mean 24.8 years)M 12 F 5Femur 11, tibia 4, fibula 1, cuboid bone 1CT-guided radio frequency ablationRange 4 to 47 months (mean 29.9±14.8)Recurrence in 3 patients
32.Mylona et al.[90] 201023Range 15 to 38 years (mean age 28.04±6.72 years)M 19 F 4Femoral diaphysis 5, Tibial diaphysis 4, Inferior articular surface of femur 2, Superior articular surface of tibia 1, Inferior articular surface of tibia 3, Anterior column of acetabulum 1, Sacrum 2, Vertebral arc 1, Transverse process 1, Great trochanter 2CT-guided laser interstitial thermal therapyLast follow up 12 mouthsRecurrence in 2 patients
33.Akhlaghpoor et al.[91] 201021Range 10-30 years (mean 19 years)M 17 F 4Talus 8, Humerus 3, Acetabulum 3, Scapula (acromion) 1, Scapula (neck) 1, Ulna (radioulnar joint) 1, Third proximal phalanx 1, cuneiform 1, vertebra 2Radiofrequency ablationRange 12-37 months (mean 27.8 months)No recurrence
34.von Kalle et al.[92] 200954Range 1.4-38.8 years (median 10.3 years)M 35 F 19Femur 28, tibia 15, pedicles of the thoracolumbar spine 5, calcaneus 3, humerus 2, acetabulum 1en bloc resection, open drill excision or curettageNANA
35.Sung et at.[93] 200928Range 7-55 years (24.5 years)M 21 F 7Femur 18, Tibia 6, pelvic bone 2, 1 each in the humerus and the fibulaCT-guided percutaneous radiofrequency thermoablation (PRT)Range 24-66 months (meau 41.1 months)Recurrence in 5 patients
36.Peyser et al.[94] 200922Range 3.6 to 18 years (mean 13.6 months)M 15 F 7Femur 15, Tibia 2, Humerus, talus, calcaneus, second metatarsus, and sacrum 1 case eachCT-Quided RFA utilizing a water-cooled tipRange 16-66 months (average 38.5 months)Recurrence in 1 patient
37.Blaskiewicz el at.[95] 200920Range 6-18 years (mean 13 years).M 8 F 12Cervical spine 7, thoracic spine 7, lumbar spine 5, sacrum 1Intraoperative bone scans (IOBSs) assisted resectionRange of 8-156 mouths (average 156 months)Recurrence in 1 patient
38.Zampa et al.[96] 200919Range 13-7 years (meau 29.8=12.2 Years)M 14 F 5Femur 9, Tibia 3, Vertebra 3, Calcaneum 2, Acetabulum 1, Ilium 1NANANA
39.Aschero et al.[97] 200925Range 4 to 17 years (average 11.5 years)M 15 F 10Femur 12,tibia 9, acetabulum2, ilium 1, talus 1CT-guided laser thermocoagulationRange 3 to 61 months (mean 26 months).Recurrence in 1 patient
40.Vanderschueren et al.[98] 200924Range 7-55 years (mean 23 years)M 16 F 8Thoracic spine 10, Lumbar spine 7, Cervical spine 3, sacrum 4Radiofrequency ablationRange 9-142 mouths (mean 72 months)Recurrence in 5 patients
41.Lee et al.[99] 200716Range 13-51 years (meau age 23.2 years)M 1l F 5Femur 12, pelvis 2, tibia 1,humerus 1Percutaneous radiofrequency ablationRange 2-17 months (mean 5.3 months)Recurrence in 1 patient
42.Akhlaghpoor et al.[100] 200754Range 3 to 26 years (mean 15.4±5.6 years)M 43 F llFemoral shaft 25, femoral neck 17, tibia 10, fibula 1, L3 vertebra 1 body 1Combination of radiofrequency ablation and alcohol ablationRange 13 to 48 months (28.2±7.4 months)Recurrence in 2 patients
43.Yang et al.[101] 200723Range 6 to 39 years (meau 13.8 years)M 11 F 9Proximal femur 11, Femoral diaphysis 3, Distal femur 1, Proximal tibia 2, Tibial diaphysis 1, Distal tibia 1, Talar neck 1, Proximal humerus, distal radius and capitate 1 case eachConventional open excision 20 patients CT-guided mini-incision surgery 6 patientsRange 3 weeks to 142 months (mean 42.7 months)Recurrence rate for conventional surgery 23%; CT-guided mini-incision surgery 0%
44.Vanderschueren et al.[102] 200797NANAFemur 42, Tibia 14, Pelvis 8, Talus 5, Humerus 4, Ulna 4, Carpus 4, Metacarpal 3, Lumbar spine 3, Tarsal 3, Fibula 2, Cervical spine 2, Thoracic spine, Radius and Phalanx 1 case eachThermocoagulationRange 5-81 months (mean 41 months)Unsuccessful treatment iu 23 patients
45.Gangi et al.[103] 2007114Range 5-56 years (meau 22.3 years)M 69 F 45Femur 48, tibia 19, humerus 8, fibula 2, spine 12, acetabulum 5, talus 4, calcaneus 3, ilium, navicular bone and metacarpal bone 2 cases each, ulna, coracoid process of scapula, acromion, lunate bone, hamate bone, cuneiform bone, and posterior sixth rib 1 case eachPercutaneous interstitial Laser ablationRange 13-130 months (mean 58.5 months)Recurrence in 6 patients
46.Peyser etal.[104] 200751Range 3.5-57 years (mean 20 years)M 36 F 15Femur (29), tibia (10), calcaneus (2), talus (2), metatarsus (2),hu|nerus (1), sacrum (1), scapula (1), olecranon (1), patella (1) and thoracic vertebra (1)CT-guided RFA using the water-cooled probeRange 9-51 months (mean 2 years)Recurrence in 1 patient
47.Fenichel et al.[105] 200618Range 11 to 35 years (mean 18 years)M 4 F 14Proximal femur 7, femoral shaft 3, tibia 5, Iliac bone 1, sacrum 1, acetabular roof 1Percutaneous CT-guided curettageRange 12 to 42 months (average 29 months)Recurrence in 2 patients
48.Sierre et al.[106] 200618Range 6-17 years (mean 11.6 years)M 11 F 7Femur 10, tibia 5, humerus 2, vertebral body 1CT-guided drilling resectionRange 2-60 months (mean 19.4 months)Recurrence in 1 patient
49.Kjar et al.[107] 200624Range 10-51 years (median 20 years)M 18 F 6Femur 12, tibia 10, 1 each in the humerus and fibulaPercutaneous radiofrequency ablationRange 2-56 months (median 26 months)Recurrence in 1 patient
50.Cribb et al.[108] 200545Average age 21 yearsM 32 F 13Femoral neck 12, femoral diaphysis 8, proximal femur 4, tibial diapbysis 11, distal tibia 1, proximal humerus 1, ulna diaphysis 2, index finger proximal phalanx diapbysis 1, talus 2, calcaneum 1, acetabulum l,one in S1CT-guided percutaneous radiofrequency thermocoagulationRange 12-48 months (mean 26 months)Recurrence in 7 patients
51.Martel et al.[109] 200541Range 5-43 years (mean 18.7 years)M 27 F 14Femur 14, tibia 5, foot 5, spine 5, fibula 3, acetabulum 2, humerus 2, clavicle, hand, astragalus, iliacus and scapula 1 in eachCT-guided percutaneous RFA 38 patients Surgery 3 patientsRange 3 months to 2 yearsRecurrence in 4 patients
52.Rimondi et al.[110] 200597Range 4-47 years (mean 20 years)M 61 F 36Femur 44, Tibia 21, Humerus 3, Acetabulum 5, Ulna 4, Radius 3, Fibula 2, Ankle 1, Patella 1, Ischium 1, Cuneiforms 1, Tarsal scafoid 1Radiofrequency thermoablation1 year for 74 patients, 6 months for 16 patients, and 3 months for 7 patientsRecurrence in 15 patients
53.Cioni et al.[111] 200438Range 4-46 years (mean 23±1 1.9 years)M 31 F 7Femur head 4, Femur neck 9, Trochanter minor 6, Femur diaphysis 6, Tibia 7, Radius 3, Fibula 1, Calcaneus 2, Ilium bone 1CT-guided percutaneous RFARange 12-66 months (mean 35.5±7.5 months)Recurrence in 8 patients
54.Bisbinas et al.[112] 200438Range 19-30 years (mean 21.5 years)All malesLower limb bone 32, upper limb 2, spinal 4Open wide excisionRange 1-5.5 years (mean 2.2 years)Recurrence in 1 patient
55.Albisinni et al.[113] 2004183NANANARadiofrequency thermal ablationRange 1-40 monthsRecurrence in 2 patients
56.Woertler et al.[114] 200147Range 8-41 years (mean 19.6 years)M 34 F 13Femur 25, tibia 15, pelvis 2, humerus 1, ulna 1, talus 1, calcaneus 5, vertebral body 5CT-guided radiofrequency ablationRange S-39 months (mean 22 months)Recurrence in 3 patients
57.Sans et al.[115] 199938Range 5-64 years (mean 23.4 years)M 29 F 9Femur 17, tibia 12, fibula, acetabulum, talus, patella, iliac wing 1 case each, spine 2, ulna 1, radius 1CT-guided percutaneous resectionMean follow up 17 yearsRecurrence in 6 patients
58.Rosenthal et al.[117] 1998125Average age 22 and 23 years for operative and ablation group respectivelyM 83 F 37NARadiofrequency Coagulation 38 Operative excision 87NARecurrence in 11 patients overall
59.Nogués ei al. [117] 199828Range 7-39 years (mean 19.4 years)M 19 F9Femur 12, tibia 6, fibula, talus, humerus 2 cases each, 1 case in the patella, sacrum, a dorsal vertebra, andtarsal scaphoidNANANA
60.Loizaga et al.[118] 199373Range 2 to 51 years (mean 12 years)M 46 F 27Long bones of lower extremities 51.5%, Foot 15,6%, Eland 17%, Upper extremities 6.33%, Vertebral column 6.25%, Thorax 3,2%, Lower extremities 68.51%, Foot and hand 32.62%, Four extremities 93%NANANA
  114 in total

1.  Osteoid osteoma of the phalanx and metacarpal bone: report of 17 cases.

Authors:  M F Hamdi; L Tarhouni; M Daghfous; N Bergaoui; S Baccari
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2014-08-18

Review 2.  Osteoid osteoma.

Authors:  Petros J Boscainos; Gerard R Cousins; Rajiv Kulshreshtha; T Barry Oliver; Panayiotis J Papagelopoulos
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 1.390

3.  Radiofrequency thermoablation of primary non-spinal osteoid osteoma: optimization of the procedure.

Authors:  E Rimondi; Giuseppe Bianchi; M C Malaguti; R Ciminari; A Del Baldo; M Mercuri; U Albisinni
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Osteoid osteoma of the hip. Percutaneous resection guided by computed tomography.

Authors:  D L Muscolo; O Velan; G Pineda Acero; M A Ayerza; M E Calabrese; E Santini Araujo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Osteoblastoma and osteoid osteoma: morphofunctional characterization by MRI and dynamic F-18 FDG PET/CT before and after radiofrequency ablation.

Authors:  Alessio Imperiale; Thomas Moser; Dorra Ben-Sellem; Luc Mertz; Afshin Gangi; André Constantinesco
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 7.794

6.  Surgical treatment for osteoid osteoma --- experience in both conventional open excision and CT-guided mini-incision surgery.

Authors:  Wen-Ta Yang; Wei-Ming Chen; Nai-Hwei Wang; Tain-Hsiung Chen
Journal:  J Chin Med Assoc       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.743

7.  Osteoid osteoma treated with percutaneous radiofrequency ablation: MR imaging follow-up.

Authors:  Min Hee Lee; Joong Mo Ahn; Hye Won Chung; Hyo K Lim; Jae Gon Suh; Hyon Joo Kwag; Hyun Pyo Hong; Byung Moon Kim
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2007-08-06       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  Treatment of Osteoid Osteomas Using a Navigational Bipolar Radiofrequency Ablation System.

Authors:  Adam N Wallace; Anderanik Tomasian; Randy O Chang; Jack W Jennings
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 2.740

9.  Clinical Findings and Results of Surgical Resection in 19 Cases of Spinal Osteoid Osteoma.

Authors:  Mohammad Reza Etemadifar; Abdollah Hadi
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2015-06-08

10.  Evaluation of minimally invasive laser ablation in children with osteoid osteoma.

Authors:  Hao Wu; Cheng Lu; Ming Chen
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-11-22       Impact factor: 2.967

View more
  20 in total

1.  Localized Chronic Form of Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis in the Femur of a 16-Year-Old Male Successfully Treated with Radiofrequency Ablation.

Authors:  Kyriakos Papavasiliou; Antonia Bintoudi; Apostolos Vlahodimos; Eleftherios Tsiridis; Prodromos Hytiroglou; Ioannis Tsitouridis; Fares Sayegh
Journal:  Case Rep Oncol Med       Date:  2020-06-16

2.  Cryotherapy of acetabular osteoid osteoma under fluoroscopic guidance using the XperGuide System.

Authors:  Roberto Fiori; Marco Forcina; Carlo Di Donna; Adolfo D'Onofrio; Luigi Spiritigliozzi; Armando Ugo Cavallo; Roberto Floris
Journal:  Radiol Case Rep       Date:  2019-06-06

3.  Resection of a Rare Metacarpal Distal Condyle Osteoid Osteoma.

Authors:  Bachar El Fatayri; Az-Eddine Djebara; Alex Fourdrain; Yassine Bulaid; Mario Sanguina
Journal:  Case Rep Orthop       Date:  2019-05-26

4.  Excision of Intramedullary Osteoid Osteomas in the Posterior Tibial Area via Medulloscopy: A Case Report.

Authors:  Jong Hoon Park; Hae Woon Jung; Woo Young Jang
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 2.430

5.  Limb Length Discrepancy and Angular Deformity due to Benign Bone Tumors and Tumor-like Lesions.

Authors:  Taylor J Reif; Julia Matthias; Austin T Fragomen; S Robert Rozbruch
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2021-03-10

6.  Bone Tumours of the Talus: 18-Year Cohort of Patients With Rare Osteoid Lesions.

Authors:  Luke F Western; Rohit Dhawan; Gillian Cribb; Karen Shepherd; Paul Cool
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-02-26

7.  Osteoid osteoma of the rib with strong F-18 fluoro-deoxyglucose uptake mimicking osteoblastoma: a case report with literature review.

Authors:  Yuka Ishikura; Rika Yoshida; Takeshi Yoshizako; Kouji Kishimoto; Noriyoshi Ishikawa; Riruke Maruyama; Hajime Kitagaki
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2021-06-04

8.  Primary tuberculosis of the fibular diaphysis: A rare case report.

Authors:  Sudhir Kumar Garg; Akash Singhal; Anubhav Malhotra
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2020-08-19

9.  Post-traumatic Bone Granuloma Caused by Retained Foreign Bodies.

Authors:  Riccardo De Angelis; Ruth Duttmann; Paolo Simoni
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2020-02-11

Review 10.  Diagnosis and treatment of intramedullary osteosclerosis: a report of three cases and literature review.

Authors:  Kensaku Abe; Norio Yamamoto; Katsuhiro Hayashi; Akihiko Takeuchi; Shinji Miwa; Kentaro Igarashi; Takashi Higuchi; Yuta Taniguchi; Hirotaka Yonezawa; Yoshihiro Araki; Sei Morinaga; Yohei Asano; Hiroyuki Tsuchiya
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.