Early postoperative compilations of bone filling in curettage defects

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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Clark J. Chen, Earl W. Brien
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2019-08-01
Series:Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-019-1297-4
_version_ 1798039269579685888
author Clark J. Chen
Earl W. Brien
author_facet Clark J. Chen
Earl W. Brien
author_sort Clark J. Chen
collection DOAJ
description 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.
first_indexed 2024-04-11T21:51:33Z
format Article
id doaj.art-ad21749f57eb49a68abe08f10b79e42a
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1749-799X
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-11T21:51:33Z
publishDate 2019-08-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
spelling doaj.art-ad21749f57eb49a68abe08f10b79e42a2022-12-22T04:01:14ZengBMCJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research1749-799X2019-08-0114111210.1186/s13018-019-1297-4Early postoperative compilations of bone filling in curettage defectsClark J. Chen0Earl W. Brien1Miller School of Medicine, University of MiamiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical CenterAbstract 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.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-019-1297-4CurettageBenign bone tumorGiant cell tumorBone fillingAutograftAllograft
spellingShingle Clark J. Chen
Earl W. Brien
Early postoperative compilations of bone filling in curettage defects
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
Curettage
Benign bone tumor
Giant cell tumor
Bone filling
Autograft
Allograft
title Early postoperative compilations of bone filling in curettage defects
title_full Early postoperative compilations of bone filling in curettage defects
title_fullStr Early postoperative compilations of bone filling in curettage defects
title_full_unstemmed Early postoperative compilations of bone filling in curettage defects
title_short Early postoperative compilations of bone filling in curettage defects
title_sort early postoperative compilations of bone filling in curettage defects
topic Curettage
Benign bone tumor
Giant cell tumor
Bone filling
Autograft
Allograft
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13018-019-1297-4
work_keys_str_mv AT clarkjchen earlypostoperativecompilationsofbonefillingincurettagedefects
AT earlwbrien earlypostoperativecompilationsofbonefillingincurettagedefects