骨巨細胞腫は, 病理学的には良性であるが, その局所における aggressive さに加え, まれに転移をおこすこともあり, その生物学的態度は必ずしも良性とは言い難い. また, 関節近傍に発生することから, 治療法の選択に迷うことも少なくない. 我々は, 1986年から主としてstage1, 2 の GCT に対して CEMENTATION を施行してきたが, 今回その術後成績を評価しその有用性について検討した. 対象は, 11 例の GCT で, 男6例, 女5例であり, 発生部位は大腿骨遼位8例, 脛骨近位2例, 上腕骨近位が1例であった. 術後経過観察期聞は8ヶ月から72ヶ月, 平均42ヶ月であった. 術後機能評価を Enneking の modified functional evaluation system を用いて行った excellent 6例, good 4例, fairl 1例であり, また, 合併症としては, 術後に1例骨折がみられたが, 保存療法で治癒した. 少数のシリーズであり, 経過観察期間も長期ではないが, CEMENTATION は stage1 および stage2 の GCT に対する第一選択の治療法であると評価できた

MITSUNAGA, EIJI

SHIBATA, TAIHOH

Kyoto University Research Information Repository

Title<Clinical Studies>Cementation for the Giant Cell Tumor ofBoneAuthor(s)MITSUNAGA, EIJI; SHIBATA, TAIHOHCitation日本外科宝函 (1993), 62(2): 116-124Issue Date1993-03-01URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/203669RightType Departmental Bulletin PaperTextversionpublisherKyoto UniversityArch Jpn Chir 62(2), 116～124, M品rz.,1993 臨床Cementation for the Giant Cell Tumor of Bone EIJI MITSUNAGA and TAIHOH SHIBATA Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ehime University School of Medicine Ehime Japan Received for Publication, Dec. 21, 1992 Introduction Giant cel tumor of bone (GCT) is a benign bone tumor pathologically. However, its local recurrence rate ranges from 40% to 60% when simple curettage and bone graft are performed, ow・ing to its local aggressiveness14l. Due to an excessive fear of local recurrence, from the ve町 onsetof the detection of the GCT, resection arthrodesis, megaloprosthesis, osteoarticular allograft and alloar-throplasty, and, moreover, amputation may be indicated as in the case of a malignant bone tumor. Since GCT often occurs around the joint, loss of joint function will be inevitable with wide or radical procedures. As the aim in the management of GCT isto achieve good local control and to preserve joint function, several clinical investigations have been done6・9・10l. We have adopted the most reliable method of treatment, namely marginal extracapsular excision (using high-speed burr after simple curettage) followed by plugging with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)13l. This study reports our experience with eleven patients treated by marginal extracapsular curettage and cementa-tion. Clinical materials and methods We have adopted cementation following marginal extracapsular excision in eleven of fiften cases from July 1986. Four cases indicated without cementation were as follows: a resection ar-throdesis for the case aroused in the proximal femur, radiographically determined as grade II, a megaloprosthesis replacement after a wide excision for the case of GCT at the distal femur, a marginal excision and bone graft for the case occurred in the fifth lumbar vertebrae and its associated transverse process and a marginal extracapsular excision and bone graft for the case of GCT at the first cuneiform. Of eleven cases, where cementation with extracapsular excision was performed, eight lesions oc-curred at the distal femur, two lesions at the proximal tibia and one lesion at the proximal humerus. There were six males and five females, and their ages ranged from 21 to 59 years of age with an average of 33 (Table 1 ). The second case was a recurrent one with simple curettage and bone graft. Key words: Giant cel tumor of bone, Cementation, Polymethylmethacrylate, Efectiveness. 索引語 ；骨巨細胞腫，セメント充填，ポリメタクリノレ酸メチノレ，有用性．Present address: Shigenobu-cl叫 Onsen-gun,Ehime 791-02 JAPAN Patient list Table 1 。 ? ? ? ???〉????????。?〉???????????????????Functional Evaluation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Excellent Excellent Fair Excellent good Excellent good Excellent good Excellent good Complication fracture Recurrence Follow up Period ? ? ????? ? 。???? ??? ?。?? ??，?? ??????????。?．????? ，?。?。??。?。?? ， ? ??S.S目S.?， ? 。 ， ??????? 。?????? ??????????Radiological Grade ??????????????????????H回tologicalGrade ??????????????Anatomic site dist. Femur dist. Femur dist. Femur dist. Femur dist. Femur dist. Femur dist. Femur prox. Humerus prox. Tibia prox. Tibia dist. Femur Sex ??????Age ?????? 。???? ? ? 。 ，????? ????????????Case K.M. T. TS.* H.M. T.TN. T.K. N. I. S. T. A. K. K. S. M.T. T. N. ふrecurrentαse after curettage with bone graft **: associated with a pathologic fracture preoperatively Functional results according to a modified funcional evaluation system Table 2 Emotional acceptance Ave. 31.9 ??????????????Functional ability ????。?????。???Strength ???????????????Deformity ???????????????Stability ???? ??????????Pain ??。?。?。??。?。?????Motion ? ? ?， 、?、??、?????????、?Score Max=35 ????。?????????? ???1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 118 日外宝第62巻第2号（平成5年3月）TR/TE (500/25) TR/TE (500/25) c TR/TE (500/25) TR/TE (2000/90) (Fig. 1 A-C) CEMENTATION FOR THE GIANT CELL TU恥fOROFBONE 119 D Fig. 1 Case 8. 22 year old male. GCT at the proximal humerus was assoc則edwith a pathologic fracture (A) However, a bony shel was considered to be preserved until the operation was performed (B）ー OnMRimag-ing study, an extraosseous extension could not be determined (C). X-ray taken at 23 months after the opera-tion reveals 2 mm radiolucent zone around the plugged cement (D). According to a modified functional evaluation system, this case was rated as excellent (E) Although the fifth and the eighth case were associated with pathologic fractures at their initial visits to our hospital, bony shells were preserved until the operations were performed, and an extraosseous ex-tension could not be determined by an MR imaging study (Fig. 1). Radiologically, according to Campanacci’s classification1l in which one lesion was graded as grade I, three lesions were graded as grade III and seven lesions were graded as grade I. According to the surgical staging system4l one case was in sl, eight in s2 and two in s3. The mean follow-up period was 40.6 months with a range of 8-72 months. Once the diagnosis of giant cell tumor was made, usually from a needle biopsy specimen, we evaluated the lesions according to Campanaccz’s classification and Enneking’s surgical staging system. Besides Campanaccz’s grade III and Enneking’s stage 3, we adopted marginal extracapsular curettage with cementation as the first treatment of choice. Even when the lesion was associated with a pathologic fracture, cementation was indicated if the bony shell was preserved. Marginal extracap-sular curettage was achieved through a rectan伊ilarwindow placed into the overlying cortex, and in-tralesional excision of the tumor was performed using a curette followed by resection of a margin of normal bone using a high-speed burr. It was essential not to penetrate the joint cartilage and to use a high-speed burr in al directions in order not to leave a residual tumor. After the cavity was ir-rigated sufficiently with a saline solution and dried, it was hand-packed with PMMA. An in-traoperative X-ray was taken to confirm whether penetration of PMMA into the joint or the ex-traosseous region had occurred. Postoperatively, a bulky compressive dressing was applied, and a continuous passive motion was started on the second day after surgery. A partial weight bearing was permitted one or two weeks after surgery. 120 日外宝第62巻第2号（平成5年3月）Results We evaluated our results according to a modified Enneking’s functional evaluation system5,15). This system consists of seven factors, motion, pain, stability, deformity, strength, functional ability and emotional acceptance. Each factor was rated as follows; 5 points as excellent, 3 points as good, 1 point as fair and 0 points as poor. In our series, 6 were rated as excellent, 4 were rated as good and 1 was rated as fair. The score ranged from 23 to 35 with an average of 31.9 (Table 2). There was no local recurrence and no infection. Although one patient suffered from a pathologic fracture at the B Fig. 2 Case 6. 48 year old female. GCT at the distal femur (A). Two months after the operation, this patient suffered from a pathologic fracture. A callus formation was visible on x-ray examination (arrow) (B). X-ray taken 36 months after the operation (C). According to a modified functional evaluation system, this case was rated as excellent. CEMENTATION FOR THE GIANT CELL TU恥10ROFBONE 121 A c 』圃圃圃圃Fig. 3 Case 3. 59 year old female. GCT at the d凶alfemur (A). X-ray taken immedi岨telyafter the operation (B) 叩 d69 months after the operation (C). A degenerative joint change was present, but did not progress after the operation. 122 日外宝第62巻第2号（平成5年3月）upper part of the cementation, the fracture healed by conservative treatment (Fig. 2）・ Incase 3, a degenerative joint change was present but did not progress after cementation (Fig. 3）・Discussions Due to the greater tendency of GCT to occur around the joint and due to its local ag-gressiveness, the aim of the treatment of GCT isto achieve good local control and preserve joint func-tion. A number of alternative methods have been developed as an adjuvant management to achieve local control; for example, c町osurgery(liquid nitrogen), phenol/alcohol application, PMMA and laser have been tried. Since Vidal's first repo口oncementation for GCT, several authors10・16l have us-ed PMMA as filers in the treatment ofGCT. However, this technique had not gained wide-spread acceptance, partly because the physical prope口iesof P恥f恥1Awere believed to be only temporary substitutes for normal bone and not real, permanent ones. In 1985, at the third International Limb Salvage (ISO LS) Conference in Florida, functional results of the cementation procedure for GCT over two years were reported for 240 cases at several institutes2・3・7l and were superior to those of wide en block excision. The local recurrence rate of curettage filling with P恥1MAwas reported to range from 4.8% to 29.4%. In our small series, there was no local recurrence. There are two major advantages of filling with PM恥1Ainto the curettaged cavity. One of them is to stabilize immediately the reconstructed defect including the subchondral region. The other is to have the possibility of increasing the surgical margin owing to PMMA’s thermal or cytotoxic effects. Leeson8l demonstrated experimentally that PMMA-related thermal necrosis could extend the surgical margin by 1-2 mm. Rock12l stated that the monomer released by PMMA was cytotoxic which further increased the local necrosis, and the free radicals which additionally were released upon polymerization were toxic to lipid component of the cel. On the other hand, there are also disadvantages to using PMMA. Thermal necrosis results in increasing the risk of a pathologic frac-ture, particularly in large lesions. Moreover, one of our m勾orconcerns is to accelerate the degenera-tion of the articular cartilage through the damage to subchondral bone. However, fortunately in practice, there are few patients showing the evidence of osteoarthritis in large series with the longest follow-up periods11l In spite of our small series and short therm follow-up, the progression of ar-ticular cartilage degeneration has not been evident. Marginal extracapsular curettage with cementation for the treatment of GCT results in good local control, a low incidence of complications and satisfactory joint function. We recommend marginal extracapsular curettage with cementation as the treatment of choice for GCT, particulary for the cases in stage 1 and stage 2. In summary, we reported eleven cases of giant cel tumors of bone which we treated by marginal extracapsular curettage and cementation. There was no local recurrence and no infection. Fune’ tional results were evaluated according to a modified Enneking’s functional evaluation system where six were rated as excellent, four were rated as good and one was rated as fair. A postoperative pathologic fracture occurred in one case and, fortunately, healed by conservative treatment. In con-clusion, we recommend this method of treatment as the first treatment of choice for these cases with stage 1 and stage 2 giant cel tumor of bone. CE恥1ENTATIONFOR THE GIANT CELL TUMOR OF BONE 123 References 1) Campanacci M, Giunti A and Olmi R: Giant cel tumours of bone. A study of 209 cases with long-termゐHowup in 130. Ital. J. Orthop and Traumat. 1: 249-277, 1975 2) Camargo FP and Camargo OP: Sur♂cal treatment of benign cav町 bonelesions using methylmetacrylate ce-ment and polyethylene prosthesis: Experience with 175 cases. in limb salvage in musculoskeletal oncology, pp 519-527, 1987. 3) Conrad EU, En町 kingWF and Spri時 fieldDS: Ga悶 ltcel tumor treated wi出 curretageand cementation, m limb salvage in musculoskeletal oncology, pp 516-519, 1987. 4) Enneking WF: A system of staging musculoskeletal neoplasms Clin目 Or出op.204: 9-24, 1986. 5) Enneking WF: A system for the functional evaluation of the surgical management of muscloskeletal tumors, in limb salvage in musculoskeletal oncology, pp 5-16, London, Churchill Livingstone, 1987. 6) Jocobs PA and Clemency RE: The closed cryosurgical treatment of giant cel tumor. Clin. Orthop 192: 149-158, 1985 7) Johonstonj: Treatment of giant cel bone tumors by aggressive curettage and packing with bone cement, in limb salvage in musculoskeletal oncology, pp 512-516, London, Churchill Livingstone, 1987. 8) Lesson MC, Li卵 tSB and Makley JT: Thermal aspects of the use of polym吋1ylmethac1γlatein large metaphyseal defects in bone: A clinical review and laboratory study, in new developments for limb salvage in musculoskeletal tumors, pp 277-288, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989. 9) Marcove RC, Weis LD, Vaghaiwalla MR and Pearson R: Cryosurgery in the treatment of giant cel tumors of bone.: A report of 52 consecutive cases. Clin. Orthop. 134：・ 275-289,1978 10) Persson BM and Wouters H¥V: Curettage and Acrylic cementation in surgery of giant cel tumors of bone. Clin. Orthop. 120: 125ー133,1976. 11) Persson BM, Rydholm A, Berlin 0 and Gunterberg B: Curettage and acrylic cementation in surgical treatment of giant-cell bone tumors, in limb salvage in musculoskeletal oncology, pp 476, Churchill Livingstone, London, 1987 12) Rock M: Adjuvant management of benign tumors; basic concepts of phenol and cement use. Chir. Organi Mov., LXXV, Suppl. N. 1. 195ー197,1990 13) Shibata T, et al: Rationale and effectiveness of bone cement plugging for giant-cell tumor of bone (in Japanese). Cent. Jpn. J. O此hop.Trauma!. 31: 177-179, 1988 14) Surg HW, et al: Giant-cell tumor of bone: analysis of two hundred and eight cases in chinese patients. J Bone and Joint Surg 64-A: 755-761, 1982. 15) Tomita Kand Tuchiya H: Functional evaluation of limb salvage surgeηin osteosarcomas. M.B. Orthop. 27: 85-90, 1990 (in Japanese). 16) Willert HG, Enderle A: Temporary bone cement plug: An alternative treatment of large cystic tumorous lesion near the joint. In Kotz R: The proceedings: 2nd International workshop on the design and application of tumor prostheses for bone and joint reconstruction. Vienna, Egerman Druckereigesell-schaft: 69-72, 1983 124 和文抄録日；外宝第62巻第2号（平成5年3月）骨巨細胞腫に対する CEMENTATIONの経験愛媛大学医学部整形外科光長栄治，柴田大法骨巨細胞腫は，病理学的には良性であるが，その局 骨近位2例，上腕骨近位がl例であった．術後経過観所における aggressiveさに加え，まれに転移をおこす 察期聞は8ヶ月から72ヶ月，平均42ヶ月であった．術こともあり，その生物学的態度は必ずしも良性とは言 後機能評価を Ennekingの modifiedfunctional evalua-い難い．また，関節近傍に発生することから，治療法 tion systemを用いて行った excellent 6例， good4 の選択に迷うことも少なくない．我々は， 1986年から 例， fair!I例であり，また，合併症としては，術後に主として stage!,2のGCTに対して CEMENTA TION 1例骨折がみられたが，保存療法で治癒した．少数のを施行してきたが，今回その術後成績を評価しその有 シリーズであり，経過観察期間も長期ではないが，用性について検討した．対象は， 1例の GCTで，男 CEMENTATIONは stage!および stage2のGCTに6例，女5例であり，発生部位は大腿骨遼位8例，腔 対する第一選択の治療法であると評価できた．

<臨床>骨巨細胞腫に対する CEMENTATION の経験

http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/203669/1/ngh062002_116.pdf

<臨床>骨巨細胞腫に対する CEMENTATION の経験

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Kyoto University Research Information Repository