Giant cell tumor of bone.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] 11. Acta Ortop Bras. 2014;22(6):308-11. doi: 10.1590/1413-78522014220600973. GCT: What happened after 10 years of curettage and cement? Retrospective study of 46 cases. Baptista AM(1), Camargo AF(1), Caiero MT(1), Rebolledo DC(1), Correia LF(1), de Camargo OP(1). Author information: (1)Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil, Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology of Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo. São Paulo, SP, Brasil. OBJECTIVE: To compare the functional outcome of patients with and without arthrosis, and to determine whether the development of arthrosis is related to the distance of the tumor from the subchondral bone. METHODS: Forty six patients treated for Giant-cell tumor (GCT) between 1975 and 1999 met inclusion criteria. GCT was diagnosed by percutaneous biopsy and confirmed after resection, in all cases. Campanacci's and Kellgren's classification, the distance of the cement to the articular surface and MSTS score were obtained throughout the sample. RESULTS: The distance of the cement to the subchondral bone was associated with greater risk of developing arthrosis, but there was no difference in MSTS scores between patients with or without arthrosis. CONCLUSION: We found that the distance from the cement to the subchondral bone has a prognostic value regarding future arthrosis, but it does not impact on the functional outcome. Level of Evidence IV, Therapeutic Study. DOI: 10.1590/1413-78522014220600973 PMCID: PMC4273955