Dataset Information

Local Recurrence After Minimally Invasive Curettage For Primary Giant Cell Tumor of Bone With Perioperative Bisphosphonate Is Comparable to Open Curettage: Retrospective Comparison With 9-Year Follow-Up.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare the long-term oncological outcome of minimally invasive curettage (MIC) with conventional open curettage (OC).

Methods

We studied patients with primary giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) of extremities who underwent intralesional tumor curettage and cementation and perioperative bisphosphonates from February 2003 to June 2016. All cases were histology-confirmed diagnoses of GCTB. Recurrent GCTB, malignant GCTB, cases in the axial skeleton (pelvis and spine), or cases with bone grafting of the curetted cavity were excluded. The local recurrence-free (LR-free) estimates of the OC and MIC groups were compared. The hazard ratio of a local recurrence was calculated for the various factors of the patients, disease, and treatment.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 8.8 years, the overall LR rate was 24.2% (8 out of 33 patients). There was no statistical difference in LR in MIC and OC groups (27.8 % vs 20%; P = .6). The mean time to LR was 33.1 months (8 to 75). The operative time was comparable in both MIC and OC groups. None of the risk factors studied led to a significantly higher hazard of LR.

Conclusions

At a long-term follow-up of 9 years, MIC showed similar LR-free survival to OC. Combining bisphosphonates and MIC with a less invasive approach showed reasonable LR-free survival in long-term follow-up.

Level of evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

SUBMITTER: Lau HW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8689217 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe outcomes of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy have not been adequately compared with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of these two pancreaticoduodenectomy procedures specifically in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.MethodsBefore this study was initiated, a specific protocol was designed and has been registered in PROSEPRO (ID: CRD42020149438). Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1994 and October 2019. Overall survival, disease-free survival, and time to commencing adjuvant chemotherapy were the primary endpoint measurements, whereas perioperative and short-term outcomes were the secondary endpoints.ResultsThe final analysis included 9 retrospective cohorts comprising 11,242 patients (1377 who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy and 9865 who underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy). There were no significant differences in the patients' overall survival, operative time, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, rate of vein resection, number of harvested lymph nodes, or rate of positive lymph nodes between the two approaches. However, disease-free survival, time to starting adjuvant chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, and rate of negative margins in patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy showed improvements relative to those in patients who underwent open surgery.ConclusionsMinimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy provides similar or even improved perioperative, short-term, and long-term oncological outcomes when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence for benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open surgical repair for de novo infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in younger patients remains conflicting because of heterogeneous study populations and small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes for EVAR and open surgery in younger patients using a large national disease and procedure-specific data set.MethodsWe identified patients 65 years of age or younger undergoing first-time elective EVAR or open AAA repair from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2014). We excluded patients with pararenal or thoracoabdominal aneurysms, those medically unfit for open repair, and those undergoing EVAR for isolated iliac aneurysms. Clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. A supplemental analysis extended the study to those younger than 70 years.ResultsWe identified 2641 patients, 73% (n = 1928) EVAR and 27% (n = 713) open repair. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 59-64 years), and 13% were female. The median follow-up time was 401 days (interquartile range, 357-459 days). Unadjusted perioperative survival was 99.6% overall (open repair, 99.1%; EVAR, 99.8%; P < .001), with 97.4% 1-year survival overall (open repair, 97.3%; EVAR, 97.4%; P = .9). Unadjusted reintervention rates were five (open repair) and seven (EVAR) reinterventions per 100 person-years (P = .8). After propensity weighting, the absolute incidence of perioperative mortality was <1% in both groups (open repair, 0.9%, EVAR, 0.2%; P < .001), and complication rates were low. Propensity-weighted survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38; P = .6) and reintervention rates (open repair, 6; EVAR, 8; reinterventions per 100 person-years; P = .8) did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of those younger than 70 years showed similar results.ConclusionsIn this study of younger patients undergoing repair of infrarenal AAA, 30-day morbidity and mortality for both open surgery and EVAR are low, and the absolute mortality difference is small. The prior published perioperative mortality and 1-year survival benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair is not observed in younger patients. Further studies of long-term durability are needed to guide decision-making for open repair vs EVAR in this population.

Project description:ObjectiveThe wrist is the second most commonly involved location for GCTB, while distal ulna is a relatively rare location and limited evidence exists on which surgical approaches and reconstruction techniques are optimal. We carried out a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate the recurrence rate of distal ulna GCTB and the long-term functional outcomes of different surgery options.MethodsAll 28 patients received surgical treatment for distal ulna GCTB in one of three tertiary bone tumor centers between May 2007 and January 2021 with a minimum two-year follow-up. Surgical options included intralesional curettage or en bloc resection (one of 3 types). Functional outcomes were assessed by the MSTS score, the QuickDASH instrument, MWS, and MHQ according to the latest treatment.ResultsOverall recurrence rate was 14.2%. The curettage group (N = 7) had a significantly higher recurrence rate compared to en bloc resection (N = 21) (42.9% vs 4.8%) (mean follow-up: 88.8 mo). Seven patients received the Darrach procedure, 5 received the original Sauvé-Kapandji procedure, and 9 received the modified Sauvé-Kapandji procedure with extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU) tenodesis. Of the 4 patients having a recurrence, 1 received the Darrach EBR, 2 received the modified Sauvé-Kapandji procedure, and 1 received resection for soft tissue recurrence. Only MWS and esthetics in the MHQ scores were different (curettage, Darrach, Sauvé-Kapandji, and Sauvé-Kapandji with ECU tenodesis [MWS: 96.5 ± 1.3 vs 91.5 ± 4.7 vs 90.8 ± 2.8 vs 91.5 ± 3.6; esthetics in MHQ: 98.5 ± 3.1 vs 89.9 ± 4.7 vs 93.8 ± 4.4 vs 92.6 ± 3.8], respectively).ConclusionsEn bloc resection for distal ulna GCTB had a significantly lower recurrence rate compared with curettage and achieved favorable functional outcome scores. Given the higher recurrence rate after curettage, patients should be well informed of the potential benefits and risks of selecting the distal radioulnar joint-preserving procedure. Moreover, reconstructions after tumor resection of the ulna head do not appear to be necessary.