Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the degenerative changes in weight-bearing joints following cementing or grafting techniques in giant cell tumour patients: medium-term results

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare and assess the effect of bone grafting and cementing techniques – two common applications used in the treatment of subchondral giant cell tumours of bone (GCTs) – on the development of degenerative changes in the weight-bearing joints of the lower extremity. Eighty patients were included in this follow-up study, 44 of whom underwent curettage followed by bone grafting, and 36 who had curettage followed by cementation. At the 24-month post-operative examination, significantly less degenerative change was found in patients with bone cement than in those with bone grafting. At the 50-month and later (range: 50–148 months) post-operative examination, however, no significant differences were found between the two groups, indicating that there was a significant acceleration of degenerative changes in the cemented group after the 24-month follow-up.

Résumé

Le but de cette étude rétrospective sur 80 patients était d’apprécier l’effet des greffes osseuses et du cimentage - utilisés dans le traitement des tumeurs à cellules géantes sous chondrales - sur le développement des lésions dégénératives des articulations portantes du membre inférieur. Pour 44 patients le curetage était suivi d’une greffe osseuse et pour 36 d’un cimentage. A un recul de 24 mois il y avait moins de modifications dégénératives chez les patients avec cimentage que chez ceux avec greffe osseuse. A 50 mois et plus (de 50 à 148 mois) il n’y avait aucune différence entre les deux groupes. Cela signifie qu’il y a une accélération des modifications dégénératives dans le groupe cimenté après 24 mois.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bini SA, Gill K, Johnston JO (1995) Giant cell tumor of bone. Curettage and cement reconstruction. Clin Ortop 321:245–250

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blackley HR, Wunder JS, Davis AM, White LM, Kandel R, Bell RS (1999) Treatment of giant-cell tumors of long bones with curettage and bone-grafting. J Bone Jt Surg Am 81:811–820

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Campanacci M (1976) Giant cell tumor and chondrosarcoma. Grading, treatment and results. Cancer Res 54:257–261

    Google Scholar 

  4. Campanacci M, Giunti A, Olmi R (1975) Giant-cell tumours of bone. A study of 209 cases with long term follow-up. Ital J Orthop Traumatol 1:249–277

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chen TH, Su YP, Chen WM (2005) Giant cell tumors of the knee: subchondral bone integrity affects the outcome. Int Orthop 29:30–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dreinhofer KE, Rydholm A, Bauer HC, Kreicbergs A (1995) Giant-cell tumours with fractue at diagnosis. J Bone Jt Surg Br 77:189–193

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Enneking WF (1987) Modification of the system for functional evaluation of surgical management of musculoskeletal tumors. In: Enneking WF (eds) Limb salvage in musculoskeletal oncology. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 626–639

    Google Scholar 

  8. Frassica FJ, Gorski JP, Pritchard DJ, Sim FH, Chao EYS (1993) A comparative analysis of subchondral replacement with polymethylmethacrylate or autologous bone graft in dogs. Clin Orthop Rel Res 293: 339–378

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hisatome T, Yasunaga Y, Ikuta Y, Fujimoto Y (2002) Effects on articular cartilage of subchondral replacement with polymethylmethacrylate and calcium phosphate cement. J Biomed Mater Res 59:490–498

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hollinger JO, Battistone GC (1986) Biodegradable bone repair materials. Synthetic polymers and ceramics. Clin Ortop 207:290–305

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hopp SG, Dahners LE, Gilbert JA (1989) A study of the mechanical strength of long bone defects treated with various autograft substitutes. An experimental investigation in the rabbit. J Orthop Res 7:579–584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnston JO (1987) Treatment of a giant cell tumor by aggressive curettage and packing with bone cement. In: Enneking WF (eds) Limb salvage in musculoskeletal oncology. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 512–515

    Google Scholar 

  13. Labs K, Perka C, Schmidt RG (2001) Treatment of stages 2 and 3 giant-cell tumor. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 121:83–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu HS, Wang JW (1998) Treatment of giant cell tumor of bone: a comparison of local curettage and wide resection. Chang Keng I Hsuey 21:37–43

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Malawer M, Bickels J, Meller I, Buch RG, Henshaw RM, Kollender Y (1999) Cryosurgery in the treatment of giant cell tumor. Clin Ortop 359:176–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McGough RL, Rutledge J, Lewis V, Lin PP, Yasko AW (2005) Impact severity of local recurrence in giant cell tumor of bone. Clin Orthop Rel Res 438:116–122

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ozaki T, Hillmann A, Lindner N, Winkelmann W (1997) Cementation of primary aneurysmal bone cysts. Clin Orthop Rel Res 337:240–248

    Google Scholar 

  18. Radin EL, Martin RB, Burr DB, Caterson B, Boyd RD, Goodwin C (1984) Effects of mechanical loading on the tissues of the rabbit knee. J Orthop Res 2:221–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Radin EL, Rose RM (1986) Role of subchondral bone in the initiation and progression of cartilage damage. Clin Orthop 213:34–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Turcotte RE, Wunder JS, Isler MH, Bell RS, Schachar N, Masri BA, Moreau G, Davis AM (2002) Giant cell tumor of long bone: a Canadian Sarcoma Group study. Clin Orthop Rel Res 397:248–258

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). Med Care 30:473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Welch RD, Berry BH, Crawford K, Zhang H, Zobitz M, Bronson D, Krishnan S (2002) Subchondral defects in caprine femora augmented with in situ setting hydroxyapatite cement, polymethylmethacrylate, or autogenous bone graft: biomechanical and histomorhological analysis after two-years. J Orthop Res 20:464–472

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Clinic of Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary

    K. Szalay, I. Antal, J. Kiss & M. Szendroi

Authors
  1. K. Szalay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. Antal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Kiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Szendroi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Szalay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Szalay, K., Antal, I., Kiss, J. et al. Comparison of the degenerative changes in weight-bearing joints following cementing or grafting techniques in giant cell tumour patients: medium-term results. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 30, 505–509 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0190-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0190-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation