Zylberberg Alejandro, Bayley Gillian, Gala Luca, Kim Paul R
Division of Orthopedics, Hospital del Trabajador, Ramón Carnicer 185, Providencia Parada de MetroParque Bustamante, Santiago 7501239, Chile.
Division of Orthopedics, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 8L6.
Case Rep Orthop. 2015;2015:283294. doi: 10.1155/2015/283294. Epub 2015 Apr 7.
We present a case of knee reconstruction 20 years after treatment of a giant cell tumor (GCT) with curettage and cementation. There is currently an ongoing debate whether cement or allograft bone is the preferred material for filling the void after GCT curettage. In this case we were able to readily implant a primary total knee replacement without disturbing the existing well-interdigitated large cement bolus and did not require any stems or augments for the reconstruction. Given the ease of TKR implantation in this patient, we feel that the use of cement following curettage of a GCT lesion is a better choice than allograft bone which may not provide enough structural support for the knee reconstruction and lead to a much more extensive procedure.
我们报告一例在采用刮除术和骨水泥填充治疗骨巨细胞瘤(GCT)20年后进行膝关节重建的病例。目前,关于骨水泥或同种异体骨是GCT刮除术后填充骨缺损的首选材料存在争议。在本病例中,我们能够顺利植入初次全膝关节置换假体,而不干扰现有的相互交错良好的大骨水泥团块,并且重建过程中不需要任何柄或增强物。鉴于该患者全膝关节置换术植入过程的顺利,我们认为GCT病灶刮除术后使用骨水泥比同种异体骨是更好的选择,因为同种异体骨可能无法为膝关节重建提供足够的结构支撑,并且会导致手术范围更广。