Search

Background: Giant cell tumors (GCTs) are treated with resection curettage and adjuvants followed by stabilization. Complications include recurrence, fracture, and joint degeneration. Studies have shown treatment with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) may increase the risk of joint degeneration and fracture. Other studies have suggested that subchondral bone grafting may reduce these risks., Questions/purposes: Following standard intralesional resection-curettage and adjuvant treatment, is the use of bone graft, with or without supplemental PMMA, (1) associated with fewer nononcologic complications; (2) associated with differences in tumor recurrence between patients treated with versus those treated without bone grafting for GCT; and (3) associated with differences in Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores?, Methods: Between 1996 and 2014, 49 patients presented with GCT in the epiphysis of a long bone. Six patients were excluded, four who were lost to followup before 12 months and two because they presented with displaced, comminuted, intraarticular pathologic fractures with a nonreconstructable joint surface. The remaining 43 patients were included in our study at a mean followup of 59 months (range, 12-234 months). After resection-curettage, 21 patients were reconstructed using femoral head allograft with or without PMMA (JB) and 22 patients were reconstructed using PMMA alone (FRP, KSB); each surgeon used the same approach (that is, bone graft or no bone graft) throughout the period of study. The primary study comparison was between patients treated with bone graft (with or without PMMA) and those treated without bone graft., Results: Nononcologic complications occurred less frequently in patients treated with bone graft than those treated without (10% [two of 21] versus 55% [12 of 22]; odds ratio, 0.088; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.47; p = 0.002). Patients with bone graft had increased nononcologic complication-free survival (hazard ratio, 4.59; 95% CI, 1.39-15.12; p = 0.012). With the numbers available, there was no difference in tumor recurrence between patients treated with bone graft versus without (29% [six of 21] versus 32% [seven of 22]; odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.1936-2.531; p = 0.586) or in recurrence-free survival among patients with bone graft versus without (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.30-2.98; p = 0.920). With the numbers available, there was no difference in mean MSTS scores between patients treated with bone graft versus without (92% ± 2% versus 93% ± 1.4%; mean difference 1.0%; 95% CI, -3.9% to 6.0%; p = 0.675)., Conclusions: Compared with PMMA alone, the use of periarticular bone graft constructs reduces postoperative complications apparently without increasing the likelihood of tumor recurrence., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Background: Aggressive bone neoplasms, such as giant cell tumors, often affect the proximal tibia warranting bony resection via curettage leaving behind massive defects that require extensive reconstruction. Reconstruction is usually accomplished with poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) packing supplemented with an internal fixation construct. The purpose of this study is to compare Steinmann pin augmentation to locking plate constructs to determine which offers the stiffer reconstruction option., Materials and Methods: Large defects were created below the lateral condyle of fresh frozen tibias. The defects extended for an average of 35 mm beneath the lateral plateau in the frontal plane, and from the anterior to posterior cortex in the sagittal plane. Distally the defect extended for an average of 35 mm to the metadiaphyseal junction. In the Pin group, the tibias were reconstructed with three 4-mm diameter Steinmann pins placed in the medullary canal and PMMA packing. In the Plate group, the tibias were reconstructed with a 6-hole 3.5-mm LCP Proximal locking plate fixed to the proximal-lateral tibia utilizing seven 3.5-mm screws and PMMA packing. The tibias were tested for stiffness on a MTS machine by applying up to 400 N to the tibial plateau in force control at 5 N/s. Fatigue properties were tested by applying a haversine loading waveform between 200 N and 1,200 N at 3 Hz simulating walking upstairs/downstairs., Results: Locking plate constructs (801.8 ± 78 N/mm) had greater (p = 0.041) stiffness than tibial constructs fixed with Steinmann pins (646.5 ± 206.3 N/mm)., Conclusions: Permanent deformation was similar between the Pin and Plate group; however, two tibia from the Pin group exhibited displacements >5 mm which we considered failure., Level of Evidence: n/a., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethical standards This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Funding The study was funded by Synthes Inc. (Paoli, Pennsylvania). Index#107235.

Defects from curettage for giant cell tumors of bone frequently have been reconstructed with bone cement with or without reinforcement pins. The biomechanical basis for the addition of reinforcement pins was examined using a model of a contained defect in the proximal tibia. Fifty-four cadaveric proximal tibia in matched pairs were divided into five test groups: intact tibia, medial metaphyseal contained defect, defect reconstructed with cement alone, defect reconstructed with cement and pins inserted within the medullary canal, and defect reconstructed with cement and pins inserted through the cortex. Specimens were tested to failure during one cycle of compressive loading. Defect specimens were significantly weaker and less stiff than intact specimens, establishing the validity of the model-contained defects. For the reconstructions, there was no statistically significant difference in load to failure, stiffness, energy to failure, or displacement for the polymethylmethacrylate treatment alone when compared with matched specimen receiving polymethylmethacrylate and pins treatment. Similarly, there was no statistical difference in biomechanical properties in comparing matched specimens treated with polymethylmethacrylate alone or polymethylmethacrylate/pins (cortex). For contained defects of the proximal tibia that are typical after curettage for giant cell tumor, there appears to be no biomechanical advantage to use of reinforcement pins in the cement.