Objective To analyze the clinical features, treatment methods, and recurrence factors of giant cell tumor of the bone and to investigate the surgical therapy choice for the tumor around the knees. Methods Thirty-eight patients (13 males and 25 females; average age 31.1 years, range 14-59 years) withgiant cell tumor of the bone were treated and followed up from January 1993 to January 2005. The patients’ diagnoses were established by biopsies of the specimens from the preoperative punctures or operations. The clinical features and the radiological and laboratory data from the 38 patients were reviewed. By the Campanicci’s radiological grading system, 5 patients were in Grade Ⅰ, 22 in GradeⅡ, and 11 in Grade Ⅲ. By the Enneking classification, 9 patients were in Grade Ⅰ, 21 in Grade Ⅱ, and 8 in Grade Ⅲ. By the Jaffe’s classification, 7 patients were in Grade Ⅰ, 24 in Grade Ⅱ, and 7 in Grade Ⅲ. The intralesional excision (curettage) with the bone grafting was performed on 4 patients; the curettagewith some adjuvant treatments (highspeed burring, phenol, alcohol, cement, hydrogen peroxide, 50％ ZnCl2, 3% iodine tincture, or bone cement) was used in 26 patients; and resection of the whole tumor was performed on 8 patients. Results The follow-up of the 38 patients for 12-144 months (average, 67 months) revealedthat giant cell tumor of the bone was found around the knees in 29 of the 38 patients (13 at the distal femur, 16 at the proximal tibia), at the proximal femurin 2, at the proximal ulna in 2, at the distal radius in 2, at the sacroiliac area in 2, and at lumbar spine in 1. Of the 38 patients, 4 had a recurrence after simple curettage, 8 had no recurrence after resection of the whole tumor, and 8 of the remaining 26 patients had a recurrence after curettage with some adjutant treatments. Five patients in Grade Ⅰ (Campanicci’s radiological grading) hadno recurrence, 6 of the 11 patients in Grade Ⅱ had a recurrence, and 6 of the 11 patients in Grade Ⅲ had a recurrence. Two of the 9 patients in Grade Ⅰ (Enneking grading) had a recurrence, 6 of the 21 patients in Grade Ⅱ had a recurrence, and 4 of the patients in Grade Ⅲ had a recurrence; all the recurrent lesions were around the knee, with a duration of the recurrence ranging from 2 months to 36 months (average,14.3 months). Of the patients with the recurrence, 12 underwent reoperations (8 by the total resection of the recurrent tumor, 4 by the curettage with adjuvant treatments), and there was no recurrence after the reoperation. Conclusion Giant cell tumor of the bone usually recurs around the knee joint, especially at the proximal tibia, usually graded as Grade Ⅱ or Ⅲ bythe Campanicci’s radiological grading system. Simple curettage has a higher recurrence rate; therefore, extensive curettage and resection of the lesions combined with some adjuvant treatments after the correct diagnosis can beused to reduce the high recurrence rate of giant cell tumor of the bone.
Objective Degenerative lumbar scol iosis and spinal stenosis are more common in elderly patients. Because of many factors, treatment choices are more complex. To investigate the step treatment strategy of degenerative lumbarscol iosis and spinal stenosis. Methods Between January 2005 and December 2009, 117 patients with degenerative lumbar scol iosis and spinal stenosis were treated with step treatment methods, including conservative therapy (43 cases), posterior decompression alone (18 cases), posterior short segment fusion (1-2 segments, 41 cases), and posterior long segment fusion ( ≥ 3 segments, 15 cases). Step treatment options were made according to patient’s will, the medical compl ications, the degree of the symptoms of low back and lower extremity pain, the size of three-dimensional lumbar scol iosis kyphosis rotating deformity, lumbar spine stabil ity (lateral sl ip, degenerative spondylolysis), and the overall balance of the spine. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back and lower extremity pain, Oswestry disabil ity index (ODI), lumbar lordosis angle, and scol iosis Cobb angle were measured and compared before and after treatments. Results Seventy-two cases were followed up more than 12 months, and there was no death or internal fixation failure in all patients. Of them, 19 patients underwent conservative treatment; the mean follow-up period was 19.3 months (range, 1-5 years); no symptom deterioration was observed; VAS score of low back and lower extremity and ODI were significantly decreased at last follow-up (P lt; 0.05); and lordosis angle was decreased and scol iosis Cobb angle was increased, but there was no significant difference (P gt; 0.05). Twelve cases underwentposterior decompression alone; the average follow-up was 36 months (range, 1-5 years); VAS score of lower extremity and ODI were significantly decreased at last follow-up (P lt; 0.05); and scol iosis Cobb angle was increased and lordosis angle was decreased, but there was no significant difference (P gt; 0.05). Thirty-one patients underwent posterior short segment fusion; the mean follow-up period was 21.3 months (range, 1-3 years); postoperative hematoma, poor wound heal ing, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and superficial infection occurred in 1 case, respectively, and were cured after symptomatic treatment; VAS score of low back and lower extremity and ODI were significantly decreased (P lt; 0.05); and postoperative lumbar scol iosis Cobb angle and lordosis angle were significantly improved at last follow-up (P lt; 0.05). Ten patients underwent posterior long segment fusion; the mean follow-up period was 17.1 months (range, 1-3 years); postoperative symptoms worsened in 1 case and was cured after physical therapy and drug treatment for 3 months, and deep infection occurred in 1 case and was cured after debridement and continuous irrigation drainage; VAS score and ODI were significantly decreased (P lt; 0.05); and postoperative scol iosis Cobb angle and lordosis angle were improved significantly at last follow-up (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion The treatment of degenerative lumbar scol iosis and spinal stenosis should be individual and step. Surgery treatment should be rely on decompression while deformity correction subsidiary. Accurate judgment of the responsible segment of symptoms, scol iosis and lordosis can prevent the operation expansion and increase safety of surgery with active control bleeding.
Objective To compare the treatment effect of patellar resurfacing versus patellar non-resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. Methods We identified eligible studies in PubMed (1950 to 2008.6), OVID MEDLINE (1950 to 2008.6), OVID CINAHL (1950 to 2008.6), OVID EBM (2nd Quarter 2008), CBMdisk (1978 to 2008.6), and CNKI (1981 to 2008.6), and handsearched some Chinese orthopedic journals to identified randomize controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patellar resurfacing versus patellar non-resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. Data were extracted and methodological quality was critically assessed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analyses were performed using Stata 10.0 software. Outcomes of interest included the number of reoperations for patellofemoral problems, the prevalence of postoperative anterior knee pain, and the improvement in HSS knee score. Results Thirteen RCTs involving 1 566 patients were included. The scores of methodological quality respectively were more than 13. The results of meta-analyses showed that patellar resurfacing could decrease the re-operation rate for patellofemoral problems (RR=0.30, 95%CI 0.14 to 0.62, Plt;0.01). The rate of postoperative anterior knee pain and the improvement in HSS knee score were comparable between patellar resurfacing and patellar non-resurfacing. Conclusion The outcome identified is re-operations for patellofemoral problems. The resurfaced patella performs better, and we find an increased relative risk for re-operation when the patella is left un-resurfaced. No differences are observed between the two groups for the prevalence of postoperative anterior knee pain, and the improvement in HSS knee score. Further well-designed and large-scale RCTs are required to determine the effects of patellar resurfacing and non-resurfacing on these outcomes.
Objective To compare the efficacy of plating versus intramedullary nailing in the treatment of adult humeral shaft fracture. Methods We identified eligible studies in PubMed (1950 to September 2007), MEDLINE (1950 to September 2007), OVID CINAHL (1950 to September 2007), OVID EBM (3rd Quarter 2007), CBMdisk (1978 to June 2007) and CNKI (1981 to June 2007). We also handsearched several Chinese orthopedic journals. Data were extracted and evaluated by two reviewers independently. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing plating versus intramedullary nailing for humeral shaft fracture in adults were included and the quality of these trials was critically assessed. Data analyses were conducted with Stata 10.0. Results Six RCTs involving 425 patients were included, among which the statistical heterogeneity was not significant (Pgt;0.1). Cumulative meta-analyses showed that intramedullary nailing might increase the re-operation rate in studies conducted before the year of 2000 (OR=0.39, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.90, P=0.03), but the difference was not significant in studies conducted after 2000 (OR=0.54, 95%CI 0.27 to 1.08, P=0.08). Intramedullary nailing might increase the incidence of shoulder impingement compared with plating (OR=0.13, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.65, P=0.01). The rates of non-union, deep infection, iatrogenic radial nerve injury and internal fixation failure were similar between plating and intramedullary nailing. Meta-analyses were not conducted for union time, operation time and bleeding (transfusion) volume, because the relevant data were not available from the included trials. Conclusion Intramedullary nailing may increase the incidence of shoulder impingement. The rates of re-operation, non-union, deep infection, iatrogenic radial nerve injury and internal fixation failure are similar between plating and intramedullary nailing. Further well-designed and large-scale randomized controlled trials are required to determine the effects of plating and intramedullary nailing on these outcomes.