Volume 3 | Issue 1 | May- Aug 2017 | Page 17-21 | Y. J. Mahale, Shubham Mishra, Sagar Chinchole
Authors: Y. J. Mahale , Shubham Mishra , Sagar Chinchole .
Departmnet of Orthopedics, ACPM Medical College, Dhule, Maharashtra, India,
Address of Correspondence
Dr. Shubham Mishra,
ACPM medical college ,
Dept of orthopaedics, room no 604,
pg boys hostel ,saakri road dhule, 424001
Email : email@example.com
Purpose: The aim is to evaluate the functional outcomes inCampanacci Grade 3 giant cell tumor (GCT)of distal femur and proximal tibia treated with wide resection and arthrodesis with different implants used such as long intramedullary interlocking nail(n=11),long Kuntscher nail(n=2), and DCP plate(n=3) andto compare the outcomes and functional results of arthrodesis with arthroplasty which were done elsewere.GCTis a aggressive benign bone tumorseen in young patients with a normal life expectancy. Campanacci Grade 3 tumors and recurrent tumors require wide resection[1,2].Arthrodesis is an alternativeoptions for reconstruction in Campanacci Grade 3,though Arthroplasty is ideal option for campannci Grade 3 tumors.
Methods: Criteria included 16 patients of Campanacci Grade 3 GCT in which 14 male and 2 female around aged between 20and 60 years with a mean age of 30 years underwent resection and arthrodesis of the knee for GCTs of bone involving the distal femur(n=7) or proximal tibia(n= 9).After wide resection,2 struts were fashioned from the harvested fibula of thesame side and inserted into medullary canal at the resected ends of the tibia and femur.Cancellous bone grafts were taken from thesame side of theiliac crest.Hemicylindrical graft was taken from anteriorpart of either distal femur or proximal tibia. A long intramedullary interlocking nail was inserted inretrograde fashion through piriformis fossa to distal tibia.Cancellous bone grafts[2,3]were placed transversely along the struts and circumferentially over the host-graft junctions.For other patients, long Kuntscher nail and DCP plate with K-wirewere used.Results of arthrodesis were evaluated those in which long intramedullary interlocking nail(n=11), long Kuntscher nail(n=2),and DCP (n=3).Outcomes and complications were evaluated and compared with those of endoprosthetic arthroplasty reported elsewhere.
Results: Patients were followed up for a mean of 12 years. All patients were ofCampanacciGrade 3.The mean size of tumors was 12-10-7cm.All patients achieved arthrodesis with intramedullary interlocking nail, Kuntscher nail,and plating.A total number of patient (n=16).The mean bone union time was 12-14 weeks. There was no loss of alignment,loosening, and no implant breakage. The mean musculoskeletal tumor society score was 27(87%of full score). The complications were evaluated in which patients were having skin necrosis(n=3),skin infection (n=2),and peroneal nerve injury(n=1).
Conclusions: In aggressiveCampanacciGrade 3 GCT around theknee joint,arthrodesis [6,7]withlong intramedullary interlocking nail provides good results. Longintramedullary interlocking nailing in arthrodesisprovides high fusion rates, minimal shortening,and rotational stability as compared to plate fixation. Arthrodesis is acost-effective method as compared to arthroplasty in economically constrained population of developing nations and shows good functional outcomes with acceptable morbidity.
Keywords: Giant cell tumor, arthrodesis, intramedullary interlocking nail, hemicylindrical graft, fibula transposition, bone transplantation.
1. Dahlin DC, Cupps RE, Johnson EW. Giant-cell tumor: A study of 195 cases. Cancer 1970;25(5):1061-1070.
2. Sung HW, Kuo DP, Shu WP, Chai YB, Liu CC, Li SM. Giant-cell tumor of bone: Analysis of two hundred and eight cases in Chinese patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982;64(5):755-761.
3. Yip KM, Leung PC, Kumta SM. Giant cell tumor of bone. ClinOrthopRelat Res 1996;323:60-64.
4. Mendenhall WM, Zlotecki RA, Scarborough MT, Gibbs CP, Mendenhall NP. Giant cell tumor of bone. Am J ClinOncol 2006;29(1):96-99.
5. Blackley HR, Wunder JS, Davis AM, White LM, Kandel R, Bell RS. Treatment of giant-cell tumors of long bones with curettage and bone-grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81(6):811-820.
6. Lim YW, Tan MH. Treatment of benign giant cell tumours of bone in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2005;34(3):235-237.
7. Wang HC, Chien SH, Lin GT. Management of grade III giant cell tumors of bones. J SurgOncol 2005;92(1):46-51.
8. Malawer M. Proximal tibia resection with endoprosthetic reconstruction. In: Makawer MM, Sugarbaker PH, editors. Musculoskeletal Cancer Surgery. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001. p. 485-505.
9. Turcotte RE. Giant cell tumor of bone. OrthopClin North Am 2006;37(1):35-51.
10. Khalil el SA, Younis A, Aziz SA, El Shahawy M. Surgical management for giant cell tumor of bones. J Egypt NatlCancInst 2004;16(3):145-152.
11. Myers GJ, Abudu AT, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Grimer RJ. Endoprosthetic replacement of the distal femur for bone tumours: Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89(4):521-526.
12. Maruthainar K, Dunstan ER, Hamilton PD, Unwin P, Cannon SR, Briggs TW. Massive endoprostheses for giant cell tumours of the distal femur: A 12-year follow-up. Knee 2006;13(5):378-381.
13. Bhangu AA, Kramer MJ, Grimer RJ, O’Donnell RJ. Early distal femoral endoprosthetic survival: Cemented stems versus the Compress implant. IntOrthop 2006;30(6):465-472.
14. Biau D, Faure F, Katsahian S, Jeanrot C, Tomeno B, Anract P. Survival of total knee replacement with a megaprosthesis after bone tumor resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88(6):1285-1293.
15. Sharma S, Turcotte RE, Isler MH, Wong C. Cemented rotating hinge endoprosthesis for limb salvage of distal femur tumors. ClinOrthopRelat Res 2006;450:28-32.
16. Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR, Kermani C, Gotha H. Survivorship and clinical outcome of modular endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplastic disease of the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88(6):790-795.
17. Langlais F, Belot N, Ropars M, Lambotte JC, Thomazeau H. The long-term results of press-fit cemented stems in total knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88(8):1022-1026.
18. Morgan HD, Cizik AM, Leopold SS, Hawkins DS, Conrad EU. Survival of tumormegaprostheses replacements about the knee. ClinOrthopRelat Res 2006;450:39-45.
19. D’Aubigne RM, Dejouany JP. Diaphyseo-epiphyseal resection for bone tumour at the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1959;40:385-395.
20. Enneking WF, Eady JL, Burchardt H. Autogenous cortical bone grafts in the reconstruction of segmental skeletal defects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980;62(7):1039-1058.
21. Enneking WF, Shirley PD. Resection-arthrodesis for malignant and potentially malignant lesions about the knee using an intramedullary rod and local bone grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977;59(2):223-236.
22. Enneking WF, Eady JL, Burchardt H. Autogenous cortical bone grafts in the reconstruction of segmental skeletal defects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980;62(7):1039-1058.
23. Enneking WF, Shirley PD. Resection-arthrodesis for malignant and potentially malignant lesions about the knee using an intramedullary rod and local bone grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977;59(2):223-236.
24. Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. ClinOrthopRelat Res 1993;286:241-246.
25. Vidyadhara S, Rao SK. A novel approach to juxta-articular aggressive and recurrent giant cell tumours: Resection arthrodesis using bone transport over an intramedullary nail. IntOrthop 2007;31(2):179-184.
26. Wada T, Usui M, Nagoya S, Isu K, Yamawaki S, Ishii S. Resection arthrodesis of the knee with a vascularised fibular graft. Medium-to long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000;82(4):489-493.
|How to Cite this article: Mahale Y. J, Mishra S, Sagar Chinchole S. Resection and Arthrodesis of the Knee Joint by Different Modalities for Aggressive Giant Cell Tumors of Bone. Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Jan-Apr 2016;2(1): 17-21.|