| Summary: | Abstract Background Curettage is widely used in orthopedic oncology; the defect created frequently requires filling for mechanical and functional stability for the bones and adjacent joint. Allograft, bone graft substitute, and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) are the most common substances used each with their benefits and drawbacks. The aim of the study is to show that good functional result can be achieved with curettage and bone filler, regardless of type. Methods A series of 267 cases were reviewed between 1994 and 2015 who received curettage treatment and placement of a bone filler. Endpoints included fracture, infection, cellulitis, pulmonary embolism, and paresthesia. Complication rates at our single institution were compared against literature values for three study cohorts: allograft, bone graft substitute, and PMMA bone fillers. Friedman test, Wilcoxon test, and Z-score for two populations were used to compare our subset against literature values and between different bone filling types. Results Our cases included 18 autografts, 74 allografts, 121 bone graft substitute, and 54 PMMA of which the bulk of complications occurred. Our overall complication rate was 3.37%. Allograft has a complication rate of 1.35%, bone graft substitute of 4.13%, and PMMA of 5.56%. Other techniques did not yield any complications. Combination filling techniques PMMA + allograft and PMMA + bone graft substitute had sample sizes too small for statistical comparison. Statistical comparison yielded no significant difference between complications in any of the filling groups (P = 0.411). Conclusions Some has even argued that bone defects following curettage do not require bone filling for good outcome. However, many structural or biologic benefits that aid in earlier return to functionality can be conferred by filling large bone defects. There was no significant difference in postoperative complication rates between allograft, bone graft substitute, and PMMA when compared at our institution and with literature values. Nevertheless, one complication with a large defect filled with allograft, requiring a subsequent reconstruction using vascularized fibular graft. Taking everything into account, we see bone graft substitute as a suitable alternative to other bone filling modalities.
|
|---|