J. I. Albergo, G. L Farfalli, A Cabas-Geat, P. Roitman, M. A. Ayerza, L. A. Aponte-Tinao, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Nov;478(11):2562-2570. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001337.
En bloc resection of benign tumors is only indicated in aggressive lesions with substantial destruction of the affected bone. Few reports have evaluated the long-term outcome of Grade 3 giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB; defined as severe bone destruction and soft tissue extension) treated with en bloc resection and reconstruction with a massive allograft. We recently reported that patients with benign tumors achieved better allograft reconstruction survivorship compared with those treated for a malignant bone tumor. In light of that finding, we wondered whether osteoarticular allografts would be a viable long-term alternative for Grade 3 GCTB, which could be important in some countries because of greater availability and lower costs compared with endoprostheses.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We analyzed a group of patients with Grade 3 GCTBs treated with en bloc resection and osteoarticular allograft reconstruction in terms of (1) survivorship free from allograft removal at 10 years; (2) survivorship free from reoperation for any reason at 10 years, (3) functional results as measured by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, (4) assessment of arthrosis at the knee.
We retrospectively analyzed all patients with a Grade 3 GCTB treated between 1980 and 2007. Only patients treated with en bloc resection and reconstruction with massive osteoarticular allografts were included in the analysis. The indication for osteoarticular reconstruction during that time included severe bone destruction with intraarticular compromise of the tumor, intraarticular fracture because of tumor growth, the presence of inadequate remaining subchondral bone to resist normal loading (for the distal femur or proximal tibia), and the preservation of a soft-tissue component (ligaments or meniscus) for articular stability. During the period, 75 patients were treated with en bloc resection. Patients treated with intralesional curettage (n = 7), reconstruction with an endoprosthesis (n = 2), intercalary arthrodesis (n = 13), or unicondylar reconstruction (n = 14) were excluded. Of the original 75 treated with en bloc resection, 52% (39) were treated with osteoarticular allograft reconstruction, and no patient was lost to follow-up before 2 years or had substantial missing data. However, of the 39 patients, another 21% (8) have not been seen in the last 5 years, but these were included here because they reached the 10-year minimum surveillance period before being lost. Twenty-three of those 39 patients were previously reported by our group and 16 new patients (treated between 1980-1985) were included in this series (eight distal radius, six distal femur, two proximal tibias), extending the follow-up period and including more patients for analysis. The median (range) follow-up duration was 26 years (10 to 34). We assessed survivorship using a Kaplan-Meier analysis, we drew MSTS scores retrospectively from patients´ medical records, and we graded arthrosis using the Ahlbäck scale for the knee (which was by far the most common joint involved, n = 31, and so it was the joint we assessed for the presence of arthrosis).
The survivorship free from allograft removal was 85% at 10 years (95% CI 74 to 96). The allograft survivorship free from reoperation for any reason at 10 years was 72% (95% CI 59 to 87). The median (range) MSTS score was 28 points (19 to 30). The grade of arthrosis in the knee at last follow-up was analyzed in 20 patients and classified in nine as Ahlbäck Type 4, in six as Type 3, in three as Type 2 and in two as Type 5.
Osteoarticular allograft reconstruction after a Grade 3 GCTB en bloc resection showed excellent long-term survivorship. We believe these results compare favorably with other studies on endoprosthetic reconstruction and head-to-head studies of these approaches should be performed; these would need to be multicenter trials. In the meantime, in locations where endoprostheses are unavailable or too expensive, we believe our results support the use of osteoarticular allografts.
Level IV, therapeutic study.
整块切除术仅适用于侵袭性病变且对受累骨有实质性破坏的良性肿瘤。少数文献报道了 3 级骨巨细胞瘤(GCTB;定义为严重的骨质破坏和软组织延伸)整块切除和大段异体骨重建的长期结果。我们最近报道,良性肿瘤患者异体骨重建的存活率优于恶性骨肿瘤患者。鉴于这一发现,我们想知道关节同种异体移植是否可以成为 3 级 GCTB 的可行长期替代方案,因为在某些国家,与假体相比,同种异体移植的可用性更高,成本更低。
问题/目的:我们分析了一组 3 级 GCTB 患者,这些患者采用整块切除术和关节同种异体骨重建,评估内容包括:(1)10 年时异体骨无移除的存活率;(2)10 年时因任何原因再次手术的无存活率;(3)采用肌肉骨骼肿瘤学会(MSTS)评分评估的功能结果;(4)评估膝关节的关节炎。
我们回顾性分析了 1980 年至 2007 年间所有诊断为 3 级 GCTB 的患者。仅包括接受整块切除术和大段关节同种异体骨重建的患者。在那个时期,关节同种异体骨重建的适应证包括肿瘤关节内严重骨质破坏、肿瘤生长导致的关节内骨折、软骨下骨剩余不足无法承受正常负荷(用于股骨远端或胫骨近端),以及保留用于关节稳定性的软组织成分(韧带或半月板)。在这段时间里,有 75 名患者接受了整块切除术。我们排除了接受肿瘤内刮除术(n=7)、假体重建(n=2)、间插性关节融合术(n=13)或单髁关节重建术(n=14)的患者。在最初接受整块切除术的 75 名患者中,52%(39 名)接受了关节同种异体骨重建,在随访 2 年之前没有患者失访或有大量缺失数据。然而,在这 39 名患者中,还有另外 21%(8 名)在过去 5 年中没有就诊,但由于他们在失访前达到了 10 年的最低随访时间,所以我们也将他们纳入分析。其中 23 名患者之前已由我们的研究小组报道,16 名新患者(1980-1985 年治疗)纳入本系列研究(8 例桡骨远端、6 例股骨远端、2 例胫骨近端),延长了随访时间并纳入了更多患者进行分析。中位(范围)随访时间为 26 年(10-34 年)。我们使用 Kaplan-Meier 分析评估存活率,从患者的病历中回顾性提取 MSTS 评分,并使用 Ahlbäck 分级系统评估膝关节的关节炎(膝关节是最常见的受累关节,n=31,因此是评估关节炎存在的关节)。
10 年时异体骨无移除的存活率为 85%(95%CI 74-96)。10 年时因任何原因再次手术的异体骨存活率为 72%(95%CI 59-87)。中位(范围)MSTS 评分为 28 分(19-30 分)。最后一次随访时,20 名患者的膝关节关节炎分级,9 名患者为 Ahlbäck 4 级,6 名患者为 3 级,3 名患者为 2 级,2 名患者为 5 级。
3 级 GCTB 整块切除后行关节同种异体骨重建显示出优异的长期存活率。我们认为这些结果与假体重建的其他研究结果相当,应该进行假体与同种异体骨重建的头对头研究;这些研究需要是多中心试验。在此期间,在假体不可用或价格过高的地方,我们认为我们的结果支持使用关节同种异体骨。
4 级,治疗性研究。