Skip to main content
Log in

Biopsie und Zugangswege bei Knochentumoren

Wo und wie viel ist genug?

Biopsy and approach routes for bone tumors

Where and how much is sufficient?

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Unfallchirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Obwohl die Biopsie den „Schlüsselschritt“ in der Diagnose von Knochentumoren darstellt, wird sie nach wie vor als „kleiner Eingriff“ aufgefasst, der von jedem chirurgisch Tätigen ambulant oder „einmal schnell“ als dazwischen geschobener Operationspunkt „abgearbeitet“ werden kann. Nicht selten wird die Biopsie als sog. „Anfängereingriff“ deklariert und auf „Zuruf“ assistiert. Auch wenn der Eingriff selbst technisch einfach erscheinen mag, so erfordert bereits die Biopsie in Kenntnis der erforderlichen definitiven operativen Versorgung eine vorgezogene Planung des adäquaten Zugangsweges. Eine unsachgemäß durchgeführte Biopsie liefert günstigenfalls nicht repräsentatives Gewebe („sampling error“), kann jedoch die onkologische Resektabilität beeinträchtigen bis hin zur Erfordernis einer Amputation und letztendlich eine Verschlechterung der Heilungschancen des Patienten bedeuten. Im Nachfolgenden werden die Prinzipien der Zugangsplanung und Techniken einer angemessenen und sicheren Biopsie bei primären Knochentumoren verschiedener anatomischer Lokalisationen dargestellt.

Abstract

Although biopsies are a key step in the diagnosis of bone tumors, they are often still referred to as a minor intervention which can be carried out by any surgeon as an outpatient procedure or quickly carried out between other more important tasks. A biopsy should, however, be regarded as the final part of the diagnostic procedure preceded by careful evaluation of the clinical course and analysis of the required imaging studies. Although the biopsy procedure seems technically simple to perform, an incorrectly performed biopsy can become an obstacle to correct tissue analysis (sampling error) and adequate tumor resection and may reduce the patient’s chances of survival. The principles by which an adequate and safe biopsy of bone tumors should be planned and executed are reviewed and the surgical approaches to different anatomical locations are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7
Abb. 8
Abb. 9
Abb. 10
Abb. 11
Abb. 12

Literatur

  1. Anderson MW, Temple HT, Dussault RG et al (1999) Compartmental anatomy: relevance to staging and biopsy of musculoskeletal tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173:1663–1671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Andreou D, Bielack SS, Carrle D et al (2011) The influence of tumor- and treatment-related factors on the development of local recurrence in osteosarcoma after adequate surgery. An analysis of 1355 patients treated on neoadjuvant Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group protocols. Ann Oncol 22:1228–1235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Arora RS, Alston RD, Eden TO et al (2012) The contrasting age-incidence patterns of bone tumours in teenagers and young adults: implications for aetiology. Int J Cancer 131:1678–1685

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Biau DJ, Weiss KR, Bhumbra RS et al (2013) Using the CUSUM test to control the proportion of inadequate open biopsies of musculoskeletal tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:905–914

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Clark CR, Morgan C, Sonstegard DA et al (1977) The effect of biopsy-hole shape and size on bone strength. J Bone Joint Surg Am 59:213–217

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA (1980) Current concepts review. The surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62:1027–1030

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Erlemann R, Edel G, Roessner A et al (1994) Determination of the growth rate of tumor-like space-occupying lesions of the bones. A study of 1154 lesions of the long tubular bones. Radiologe 34:53–58

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Freyschmidt J (1998) Standards and diagnostic strategies in diagnosis of bone tumors and tumor-simulating lesions. Radiologe 38:287–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Freyschmidt J, Wiers J (1998) The staging of malignant bone tumors. Radiologe 38:483–491

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Golfieri R, Baddeley H, Pringle JS et al (1991) MRI in primary bone tumors: therapeutic implications. Eur J Radiol 12:201–207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Golfieri R, Baddeley H, Pringle JS et al (1991) Primary bone tumors. MR morphologic appearance correlated with pathologic examinations. Acta Radiol 32:290–298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grimer R, Athanasou N, Gerrand C et al (2010) UK guidelines for the management of bone sarcomas. Sarcoma 2010:317462

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Holzapfel BM, Ludemann M, Holzapfel DE et al (2012) Open biopsy of bone and soft tissue tumors: guidelines for precise surgical procedures. Oper Orthop Traumatol 24:403–416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kiatisevi P, Thanakit V, Sukunthanak B et al (2013) Computed tomography-guided core needle biopsy versus incisional biopsy in diagnosing musculoskeletal lesions. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 21:204–208

    Google Scholar 

  15. Li Y, Du Y, Luo TY et al (2014) Factors influencing diagnostic yield of CT-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy for bone lesions. Clin Radiol 69:43–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lodwick GS, Wilson AJ, Farrell C et al (1980) Determining growth rates of focal lesions of bone from radiographs. Radiology 134:577–583

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Logan PM, Connell DG, O’connell JX et al (1996) Image-guided percutaneous biopsy of musculoskeletal tumors: an algorithm for selection of specific biopsy techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:137–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mankin HJ, Mankin CJ, Simon MA (1996) The hazards of the biopsy, revisited. Members of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:656–663

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Marina N, Bielack S, Whelan J et al (2009) International collaboration is feasible in trials for rare conditions: the EURAMOS experience. Cancer Treat Res 152:339–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nouh MR, Abu Shady HM (2014) Initial CT-guided needle biopsy of extremity skeletal lesions: diagnostic performance and experience of a tertiary musculoskeletal center. Eur J Radiol 83:360–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pan KL, Chan WH, Chia YY (2010) Initial symptoms and delayed diagnosis of osteosarcoma around the knee joint. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 18:55–57

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. M. Panzica, U. Lüke, P. Mommsen und C. Krettek geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Panzica.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Panzica, M., Lüke, U., Mommsen, P. et al. Biopsie und Zugangswege bei Knochentumoren. Unfallchirurg 117, 501–509 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-013-2471-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-013-2471-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation