Vanderschueren Geert M, Taminiau Antoni H M, Obermann Wim R, van den Berg-Huysmans Annette A, Bloem Johan L
Departments of Radiology and Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, PO Box 9600, NL-2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands.
Radiology. 2004 Dec;233(3):757-62. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2333031603. Epub 2004 Oct 21.
To retrospectively identify risk factors that may impede a favorable clinical outcome after thermocoagulation for osteoid osteoma.
Informed consent (permission for the procedure and permission to use patient data for analysis) was obtained from all patients who met study criteria, and institutional review board did not require approval. Analysis included age, sex, size and location of osteoid osteoma, presence of calcified nidus, number of needle positions used for coagulation, coagulation time, accuracy of needle position, learning curve of radiologist, and previous treatment in 95 consecutive patients with osteoid osteoma treated with thermocoagulation. With chi(2) analysis, Fisher exact test, or unpaired Student t test and logistic regression analysis, 23 unsuccessfully treated patients were compared with 72 successfully (pain-free) treated patients.
Parameters associated with decreased risk for treatment failure were advanced age (mean age, 24 years in treatment success group vs 20 years in treatment failure group) and increased number of needle positions during thermocoagulation. Estimated odds ratios were, respectively, 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.88, 0.99) and 0.10 (95% confidence interval: 0.02, 0.41). Patients with a lesion of 10 mm or larger seemed at risk for treatment failure (odds ratio = 2.68), but the 95% confidence interval of 0.84 to 8.52 included the 1.00 value. Needle position was inaccurate in nine of 23 patients with treatment failure; only one needle position was used in eight of these nine patients. Lesion location, calcification, sex, coagulation time, radiologist's learning curve, and previous treatment were not risk factors.
Multiple needle positions reduce the risk of treatment failure in all patients and should especially, but not exclusively, be used in large (> or =10-mm) lesions or lesions that are difficult to engage to reduce the risk for unsuccessful treatment.
回顾性确定可能妨碍骨样骨瘤热凝治疗后获得良好临床结果的危险因素。
从所有符合研究标准的患者处获得知情同意书(手术同意书及使用患者数据进行分析的同意书),机构审查委员会无需批准。分析包括95例连续接受热凝治疗的骨样骨瘤患者的年龄、性别、骨样骨瘤的大小和位置、钙化巢的存在情况、用于凝固的针位数量、凝固时间、针位准确性、放射科医生的学习曲线以及既往治疗情况。通过卡方分析、Fisher精确检验、非配对学生t检验和逻辑回归分析,将23例治疗失败的患者与72例成功(无痛)治疗的患者进行比较。
与治疗失败风险降低相关的参数为年龄较大(治疗成功组平均年龄24岁,治疗失败组平均年龄20岁)以及热凝过程中针位数量增加。估计优势比分别为0.93(95%置信区间:0.88,0.99)和0.10(95%置信区间:0.02,0.41)。病灶大小为10 mm或更大的患者似乎有治疗失败的风险(优势比 = 2.68),但其95%置信区间为0.84至8.52,包含1.00值。23例治疗失败的患者中有9例针位不准确;这9例患者中有8例仅使用了一个针位。病灶位置、钙化情况、性别、凝固时间、放射科医生的学习曲线以及既往治疗均不是危险因素。
多针位可降低所有患者治疗失败的风险,尤其(但不仅限于)应在较大(≥10 mm)病灶或难以处理的病灶中使用,以降低治疗失败的风险。