Reduced recurrence rate and comparable functionality after wide resection and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with allograft-prosthetic composite versus curettage for proximal humeral giant cell tumor : a multicenter retrospective study
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
BACKGROUND: Giant cell tumors of bone (GCTBs) are rare, aggressive tumors, and the proximal humerus is a relatively rare location for GCTBs; limited evidence exists on which surgical approaches and reconstruction techniques are optimal. In the largest case series to date, we evaluated the recurrence rate of proximal humeral GCTBs and the functional outcomes of different resection and reconstruction options in this multicenter study.
METHODS: All 51 patients included in this study received initial surgical treatment for proximal humeral GCTBs from January 2007 to December 2020, with a minimum 2-year follow-up period. Local recurrence and functional outcomes were statistically analyzed in relation to demographic, clinical, and primary surgical variables. Functional outcomes were reported by patients and were assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score and QuickDASH instrument (shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand instrument).
RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 81.5 months (range, 30-191 months), and the overall recurrence rate was 17.6% (9 of 51 patients). The majority of recurrences (n = 7) occurred in the first 2 years of follow-up. The intralesional curettage group (n = 23) showed a statistically significant difference in the recurrence rate compared with the en bloc resection group (n = 28) (34.8% vs. 3.6%, P = .007). Among shoulders receiving en bloc resection, 16 were reconstructed with hemiarthroplasty; 8, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) reconstruction; and 4, arthrodesis. On the basis of intention-to-treat analysis, the mean functional Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores of the groups undergoing curettage, rTSA with APC, hemiarthroplasty, and arthrodesis were 26.0 ± 3.1, 26.0 ± 1.7, 20.3 ± 2.8, and 22.5 ± 1.3, respectively (P < .001 [with P < .001 for curettage vs. hemiarthroplasty and P = .004 for rTSA with APC vs. hemiarthroplasty]) and the mean QuickDASH scores were 14.0 ± 11.0, 11.6 ± 4.5, 33.1 ± 11.8, and 21.6 ± 4.7, respectively (P < .001 [with P < .001 for curettage vs. hemiarthroplasty and P = .003 for rTSA with APC vs. hemiarthroplasty]).
CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our data, en bloc resection followed by reverse shoulder arthroplasty showed a lower recurrence rate and no significant difference in functional outcome scores for proximal humeral GCTBs compared with intralesional curettage. Therefore, we believe that rTSA with APC may be reasonable for the initial treatment of proximal humeral GCTBs.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:33 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery - 33(2024), 5 vom: 16. Apr., Seite 1040-1049 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Zhou, Lenian [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Arthrodesis |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 15.04.2024 Date Revised 15.04.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.jse.2023.09.009 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM36337597X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM36337597X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240415232939.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jse.2023.09.009 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1376.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM36337597X | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37844829 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S1058-2746(23)00734-6 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Zhou, Lenian |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Reduced recurrence rate and comparable functionality after wide resection and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with allograft-prosthetic composite versus curettage for proximal humeral giant cell tumor |b a multicenter retrospective study |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 15.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 15.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Giant cell tumors of bone (GCTBs) are rare, aggressive tumors, and the proximal humerus is a relatively rare location for GCTBs; limited evidence exists on which surgical approaches and reconstruction techniques are optimal. In the largest case series to date, we evaluated the recurrence rate of proximal humeral GCTBs and the functional outcomes of different resection and reconstruction options in this multicenter study | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: All 51 patients included in this study received initial surgical treatment for proximal humeral GCTBs from January 2007 to December 2020, with a minimum 2-year follow-up period. Local recurrence and functional outcomes were statistically analyzed in relation to demographic, clinical, and primary surgical variables. Functional outcomes were reported by patients and were assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score and QuickDASH instrument (shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand instrument) | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 81.5 months (range, 30-191 months), and the overall recurrence rate was 17.6% (9 of 51 patients). The majority of recurrences (n = 7) occurred in the first 2 years of follow-up. The intralesional curettage group (n = 23) showed a statistically significant difference in the recurrence rate compared with the en bloc resection group (n = 28) (34.8% vs. 3.6%, P = .007). Among shoulders receiving en bloc resection, 16 were reconstructed with hemiarthroplasty; 8, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) reconstruction; and 4, arthrodesis. On the basis of intention-to-treat analysis, the mean functional Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores of the groups undergoing curettage, rTSA with APC, hemiarthroplasty, and arthrodesis were 26.0 ± 3.1, 26.0 ± 1.7, 20.3 ± 2.8, and 22.5 ± 1.3, respectively (P < .001 [with P < .001 for curettage vs. hemiarthroplasty and P = .004 for rTSA with APC vs. hemiarthroplasty]) and the mean QuickDASH scores were 14.0 ± 11.0, 11.6 ± 4.5, 33.1 ± 11.8, and 21.6 ± 4.7, respectively (P < .001 [with P < .001 for curettage vs. hemiarthroplasty and P = .003 for rTSA with APC vs. hemiarthroplasty]) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our data, en bloc resection followed by reverse shoulder arthroplasty showed a lower recurrence rate and no significant difference in functional outcome scores for proximal humeral GCTBs compared with intralesional curettage. Therefore, we believe that rTSA with APC may be reasonable for the initial treatment of proximal humeral GCTBs | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Multicenter Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Proximal humerus | |
| 650 | 4 | |a arthrodesis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a curettage | |
| 650 | 4 | |a giant cell tumor of bone | |
| 650 | 4 | |a hemiarthroplasty | |
| 650 | 4 | |a multicenter retrospective study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a reverse shoulder arthroplasty | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zuo, Dongqing |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wen, Junxiang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sun, Wei |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cai, Zhengdong |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Weibin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Zhichang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dong, Yang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yang, Qingcheng |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhu, Hongyi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yuan, Ting |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery |d 1992 |g 33(2024), 5 vom: 16. Apr., Seite 1040-1049 |w (DE-627)NLM07528877X |x 1532-6500 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:33 |g year:2024 |g number:5 |g day:16 |g month:04 |g pages:1040-1049 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2023.09.009 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 33 |j 2024 |e 5 |b 16 |c 04 |h 1040-1049 | ||