Modular endoprosthetics proximal tibia in case of giant cell tumor

Authors

  • Oleg Vyrva Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0597-4472
  • Ivan Skoryk Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-59872019172-77

Keywords:

giant cell tumor, modular endoprosthesis, proximal tibial

Abstract

Surgical treatment of a giant cell tumor (GCT) remains a complex and urgent problem. Its tactics depend on the size and location of GCT. Age of the patient, the presence of pathological fractures, invasion of blood vessels and nerves.

Objective: to study the results of modular Endoprosthetics of the proximal tibial (PT) in case of a GCT injury.

Methods: the study group included 16 patients (9 women, 7 men, age from 18 to 56 years) with GCT of PT (stage III according to the classification of Enneking). Patients were examined according to generally accepted methods, X-rays, CT scans (if angio CT was necessary), and Biopsy were performed. Surgical treatment: resection of PT with GCT «en block», modular endoprosthetics recostruction with the MUTARS Implant cast system (6 patients), CИMEКС (9) and GMRS Stryker (1), soft tissue reinsertion to the endoprosthesis body, knee-joint extension plastic. The capsule of the suspension and the patella bundles were fixed on an Attachment tube (СИМЕКС and MUTARS systems) or using a nylon ribbon (GMRS Stryker). For the evaluation used the scale MSTS and TESS.

Results: patients returned to normal life on average 2–2.5 months. The functional results on the MSTS scale were (72 ± 12) %, on the TESS scale — (74 ± 16) % and were classified as good. During the observation period of 6 months. up to 14 years not a single tumor recurrence was detected.

Results: 2 (12.5 %) — periprosthetic infection, 1 (6.2 %) — traumatic damage to the extensor apparatus.

Conclusions: resection of «en blok» in the case of Enneking stage III GCT made it possible to avoid oncological complications during the observation period up to 14 years. The use of modular endoprostheses, the reinstallation of soft tissues on the body of the endoprosthesis and the plastic of the extension apparatus of the knee joint, the early activation of the patient contributed to the achievement of a good functional result.

Author Biography

Oleg Vyrva, Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

MD, Prof. in Traumatology and Orthopаedics

References

  1. Picci, P., Manfrini, M., Fabbri, N., Gambarotti, M., & Vanel, D. (Eds.). (2014). Atlas of Musculoskeletal Tumors and Tumorlike Lesions: The Rizzoli Case Archive. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-01748-8
  2. Xing, R., Yang, J., Kong, Q., Tu, C., Zhou, Y., & Duan, H. (2013). Giant cell tumour of bone in the appendicular skeleton: an analysis of 276 cases. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica, 79 (6), 731–737.
  3. Eckerd, J. J., & Grogan, T. J. (1986). Giant cell tumor of bone. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 204, 45–58.
  4. Vyrva, O. Ye., Golovina, O., Malyk, R. (2015). Allograft-prosthesis composite for surgical treatment in patients with malignant tumors of the long bones (review). Orthopedics, traumatology and prosthetics, 2, 120–126. doi: 10.15674/0030-598720152120-125
  5. Vyrva, O. Ye. (2013). Modular individual endoprosthetics in the treatment of malignant tumors of long bones. (Doctor of medical sciences dissertation). Retrieved from Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv. (in Ukrainian)
  6. Vyrva, O. Ye. (2014). The current approach to treatment of malignant bone tumors (literature review) (part 2). Orthopedics, traumatology and prosthetics, 1, 117–126. doi: 10.15674/0030-598720141117-126 (in Ukrainian)
  7. Urakawa, H., Yonemoto, T., Matsumoto, S., Takagi, T., Asanuma, K., Watanuki, M., & Ozaki, T. (2018). Clinical outcome of primary giant cell tumor of bone after curettage with or without perioperative denosumab in Japan: from a questionnaire for JCOG 1610 study. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 16 (1). doi:10.1186/s12957-018-1459-6
  8. Mavrogenis, A. F., Pala, E., Angelini, A., Ferraro, A., & Ruggieri, P. (2012). Proximal tibial resections and reconstructions: Clinical outcome of 225 patients. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 107 (4), 335–342. doi:10.1002/jso.23216
  9. Bickels, J., Wittig, J. C., Kollender, Y., Neff, R. S., Kellar-Graney, K., Meller, I., & Malawer, M. M. (2001). Reconstruction of the extensor mechanism after proximal tibia endoprosthetic replacement. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 16(7), 856–862. doi:10.1054/arth.2001.25502
  10. Vyrva, O. Ye., & Baev, V. V. (2011). Modular endoprosthetics in surgical treatment of children with knee tumors (experimeter-clinical study). Bulletin of Orthopedics, Traumatology and Prosthetics, 1, 40–44.
  11. Enneking, W. F., Dunham, W., Gebhardt, M. C., Malawar, M., & Pritchard, D. J. (1993). A System for the Functional Evaluation of Reconstructive Procedures After Surgical Treatment of Tumors of the Musculoskeletal System. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, &NA;(286), 241–246. doi:10.1097/00003086-199301000-00035
  12. Davis, A. M., Wright, J. G., Williams, J. I., Bombardier, C., Griffin, A., & Bell, R. S. (1996). Development of a measure of physical function for patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Quality of Life Research, 5 (5), 508–516. doi:10.1007/bf00540024
  13. Henderson, E. R., O’Connor, M. I., Ruggieri, P., Windhager, R., Funovics, P. T., Gibbons, C. L., & Letson, G. D. (2014). Classification of failure of limb salvage after reconstructive surgery for bone tumours. The Bone & Joint Journal, 96-B (11), 1436–1440. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.96b11.34747
  14. Vyrva, O. Ye. (2008). Reconstruction of soft tissues with modular megaendoprosthesis in patients with malignant tumor of bones. Orthopedics, traumatology and prosthetics, 4, 54–61.
  15. Van der Heijden, L., Sander Dijkstra, P. D., Campanacci, D. A., Gibbons, C. L., & Van de Sande, M. A. (2013). Giant Cell Tumor With Pathologic Fracture: Should We Curette or Resect? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 471 (3), 820–829. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2546-6

Downloads

How to Cite

Vyrva, O., & Skoryk, I. (2023). Modular endoprosthetics proximal tibia in case of giant cell tumor. ORTHOPAEDICS TRAUMATOLOGY and PROSTHETICS, (1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-59872019172-77

Issue

No. 1 (2019)

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Oleg Vyrva, Ivan Skoryk

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The authors retain the right of authorship of their manuscript and pass the journal the right of the first publication of this article, which automatically become available from the date of publication under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to freely distribute the published manuscript with mandatory linking to authors of the original research and the first publication of this one in this journal.

Authors have the right to enter into a separate supplemental agreement on the additional non-exclusive distribution of manuscript in the form in which it was published by the journal (i.e. to put work in electronic storage of an institution or publish as a part of the book) while maintaining the reference to the first publication of the manuscript in this journal.

The editorial policy of the journal allows authors and encourages manuscript accommodation online (i.e. in storage of an institution or on the personal websites) as before submission of the manuscript to the editorial office, and during its editorial processing because it contributes to productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of the published manuscript citation (see The Effect of Open Access).