MyMedR

Displaying all 6 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

The effect of excision of the posterior arch of C1 on C1/C2 fusion using transarticular screws

Chang KC, Samartzis D, Fuego SM, Dhatt SS, Wong YW, Cheung WY, et al.

Bone Joint J, 2013 Jul;95-B(7):972-6.
PMID: 23814252 DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B7.30598

Transarticular screw fixation with autograft is an established procedure for the surgical treatment of atlantoaxial instability. Removal of the posterior arch of C1 may affect the rate of fusion. This study assessed the rate of atlantoaxial fusion using transarticular screws with or without removal of the posterior arch of C1. We reviewed 30 consecutive patients who underwent atlantoaxial fusion with a minimum follow-up of two years. In 25 patients (group A) the posterior arch of C1 was not excised (group A) and in five it was (group B). Fusion was assessed on static and dynamic radiographs. In selected patients CT imaging was also used to assess fusion and the position of the screws. There were 15 men and 15 women with a mean age of 51.2 years (23 to 77) and a mean follow-up of 7.7 years (2 to 11.6). Stable union with a solid fusion or a stable fibrous union was achieved in 29 patients (97%). In Group A, 20 patients (80%) achieved a solid fusion, four (16%) a stable fibrous union and one (4%) a nonunion. In Group B, stable union was achieved in all patients, three having a solid fusion and two a stable fibrous union. There was no statistically significant difference between the status of fusion in the two groups. Complications were noted in 12 patients (40%); these were mainly related to the screws, and included malpositioning and breakage. The presence of an intact or removed posterior arch of C1 did not affect the rate of fusion in patients with atlantoaxial instability undergoing C1/C2 fusion using transarticular screws and autograft.
Comparison between percutaneous fluoroscopic-guided and conventional open pedicle screw placement techniques for the thoracic spine: a safety evaluation in human cadavers

Kwan MK, Chiu CK, Lee CK, Chan CY

Bone Joint J, 2015 Nov;97-B(11):1555-61.
PMID: 26530660 DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35789

Percutaneous placement of pedicle screws is a well-established technique, however, no studies have compared percutaneous and open placement of screws in the thoracic spine. The aim of this cadaveric study was to compare the accuracy and safety of these techniques at the thoracic spinal level. A total of 288 screws were inserted in 16 (eight cadavers, 144 screws in percutaneous and eight cadavers, 144 screws in open). Pedicle perforations and fractures were documented subsequent to wide laminectomy followed by skeletalisation of the vertebrae. The perforations were classified as grade 0: no perforation, grade 1: < 2 mm perforation, grade 2: 2 mm to 4 mm perforation and grade 3: > 4 mm perforation. In the percutaneous group, the perforation rate was 11.1% with 15 (10.4%) grade 1 and one (0.7%) grade 2 perforations. In the open group, the perforation rate was 8.3% (12 screws) and all were grade 1. This difference was not significant (p = 0.45). There were 19 (13.2%) pedicle fractures in the percutaneous group and 21 (14.6%) in the open group (p = 0.73). In summary, the safety of percutaneous fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine between T4 and T12 is similar to that of the conventional open technique.
The accuracy and safety of fluoroscopically guided percutaneous pedicle screws in the lumbosacral junction and the lumbar spine: a review of 880 screws

Chiu CK, Kwan MK, Chan CY, Schaefer C, Hansen-Algenstaedt N

Bone Joint J, 2015 Aug;97-B(8):1111-7.
PMID: 26224830 DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B8.35330

We undertook a retrospective study investigating the accuracy and safety of percutaneous pedicle screws placed under fluoroscopic guidance in the lumbosacral junction and lumbar spine. The CT scans of patients were chosen from two centres: European patients from University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, and Asian patients from the University of Malaya, Malaysia. Screw perforations were classified into grades 0, 1, 2 and 3. A total of 880 percutaneous pedicle screws from 203 patients were analysed: 614 screws from 144 European patients and 266 screws from 59 Asian patients. The mean age of the patients was 58.8 years (16 to 91) and there were 103 men and 100 women. The total rate of perforation was 9.9% (87 screws) with 7.4% grade 1, 2.0% grade 2 and 0.5% grade 3 perforations. The rate of perforation in Europeans was 10.4% and in Asians was 8.6%, with no significant difference between the two (p = 0.42). The rate of perforation was the highest in S1 (19.4%) followed by L5 (14.9%). The accuracy and safety of percutaneous pedicle screw placement are comparable to those cited in the literature for the open method of pedicle screw placement. Greater caution must be taken during the insertion of L5 and S1 percutaneous pedicle screws owing to their more angulated pedicles, the anatomical variations in their vertebral bodies and the morphology of the spinal canal at this location.
Retrospective cohort study of 68 sacral giant cell tumours treated with nerve-sparing surgery and evaluation on therapeutic benefits of denosumab therapy

Lim CY, Liu X, He F, Liang H, Yang Y, Ji T, et al.

Bone Joint J, 2020 Feb;102-B(2):177-185.
PMID: 32009426 DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B2.BJJ-2019-0813.R1

AIMS: To investigate the benefits of denosumab in combination with nerve-sparing surgery for treatment of sacral giant cell tumours (GCTs).
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with GCT who presented between January 2011 and July 2017. Intralesional curettage was performed and patients treated from 2015 to 2017 also received denosumab therapy. The patients were divided into three groups: Cohort 1: control group (n = 36); cohort 2: adjuvant denosumab group (n = 9); and cohort 3: neo- and adjuvant-denosumab group (n = 17).
RESULTS: There were 68 patients within the study period. Six patients were lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up was 47.7 months (SD 23.2). Preoperative denosumab was found to reduce intraoperative haemorrhage and was associated with shorter operating time for tumour volume > 200 cm3. A total of 17 patients (27.4%) developed local recurrence. The locoregional control rate was 77.8% (7/9) and 87.5% (14/16) respectively for cohorts 2 and 3, in comparison to 66.7% (24/36) of the control group. The recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate was significantly higher for adjuvant denosumab group versus those without adjuvant denosumab during the first two years: 100% vs 83.8% at one year and 95.0% vs 70.3% at two years. No significant difference was found for the three-year RFS rate.
CONCLUSION: Preoperative denosumab therapy was found to reduce intraoperative haemorrhage and was associated with shorter operating times. Adjuvant denosumab was useful to prevent early recurrence during the first two years after surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):177-185.
Controversies in orthopaedic oncology

Jeys LM, Thorkildsen J, Kurisunkal V, Puri A, Ruggieri P, Houdek MT, et al.

Bone Joint J, 2024 May 01;106-B(5):425-429.
PMID: 38689572 DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.106B5.BJJ-2023-1381

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting.
Identifying consensus and areas for future research in chondrosarcoma : a report from the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting

Jeys LM, Morris GV, Kurisunkal VJ, Botello E, Boyle RA, Ebeid W, et al.

Bone Joint J, 2025 Feb 01;107-B(2):246-252.
PMID: 39889743 DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.107B2.BJJ-2024-0643.R1

AIMS: The Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM), held in January 2024, convened 309 delegates from 53 countries to discuss and refine 21 consensus statements on the optimal management of chondrosarcoma.
METHODS: With representation from Europe (43%; n = 133), North America (17%; n = 53), South America (16%; n = 49), Asia (13%; n = 40), Australasia (5%; n = 16), the Middle East (4%; n = 12), and Africa (2%; n = 6), the combined experience of treating bone sarcomas among attendees totalled approximately 30,000 cases annually, equivalent to 66 years of experience in the UK alone. The meeting's process began with the formation of a local organizing committee, regional leads, and a scientific committee comprising representatives from 150 specialist units across 47 countries. Supported by major orthopaedic oncology organizations, the meeting used a modified Delphi process to develop consensus statements through online questionnaires, thematic groupings, narrative reviews, and anonymous pre-meeting polling.
RESULTS: Strong (> 80%) consensus was achieved on 19 out of 21 statements, reflecting agreement among delegates. Key areas of consensus included the role of radiology in diagnosis and surveillance, the management of locally recurrent disease, and the treatment of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma. Notably, there was agreement that routine chemotherapy has no role in chondrosarcoma treatment, and radiological surveillance is safe for intraosseous chondrosarcomas. Despite the overall consensus, areas of controversy remain, particularly regarding the treatment of atypical cartilage tumours and surgical margins. These unresolved issues underscore the need for further research and collaboration within the orthopaedic oncology community.
CONCLUSION: BOOM represents the largest global consensus meeting in orthopaedic oncology, providing valuable guidance for clinicians managing chondrosarcoma worldwide. The consensus statements offer a reference for clinical practice, highlight key research priorities, and aim to improve patient outcomes on a global scale.