Discussion
Since Heijden [
18] and other scholars suggested treating GCTB with curettage, burring and adjuvant therapy in 2014, the local recurrence rates have decreased from 30–50% [
11,
28,
29,
30,
31,
32] to 6–25% [
33,
34,
35]. In this mode of treatment, researchers generally agree that thorough curettage is the first and most important step. Thus, it is necessary to thoroughly open the ‘window’. The size of the ‘window’ usually depends on the size of the lesion on the image. However, this range is often inadequate. The residual cavity after curettage is usually much larger than the size of the window. As a result, there are many ‘blind areas’ that make it impossible to achieve complete curettage. Thus, high-speed burring (HSB) has become a highly praised method by clinicians [
36]. However, some researchers with opposing views proposed that the sputtering of particles caused the dissemination of tumor cells [
37]. Therefore, it is not plausible that the use of HSB will significantly reduce the recurrence rate in comparison with curettes. In terms of inactivation of the residual cavity, we found that ethanol and electrocoagulation were currently the safest inactivation methods by reading the literature (Table
1). Therefore, we combined these two inactivation methods in the management of residual cavities and described the specific application scheme in detail.
At present, there are also some controversies about the indications of curettage combined with adjuvant therapy. Fraquet [
38] believed that segmental resection was the best choice for patients with GCTB, including those with Campanacci grade III GCTB and GCTB located at the distal radius, ulna, fibula, and other nonloadbearing sites. The reason was that Campanacci grade III GCTB was characterized by a large area of bone damage and was bound to the articular surface with varying degrees of damage. However, after the summary of the past practice experience and the improvement and standardization of the surgical procedure, we gradually expanded the indications of curettage. For giant cell tumors of the bone with facet destruction, we think that 50% can be used as a cut-off point. Joint invasion is a cortical breach in the articular surface and articular surface involvement is without breach. For lesions with less than 50% destruction, we believe that TC is feasible. The destruction ratio here refers to the ratio of the affected facet to the total articular surface. Although giant cell tumors of bone often show eccentric growth, most do not cause continuous and complete destruction of the articular surface. On the basis, as long as no more than 50% of the articular surface is destroyed, the self-repair of the subchondral bone and residual cavity accompanied with the support of strong internal fixation can fully guarantee the mechanical support for several years. When the joint surface destruction is more than 50%, curettage and internal fixation are far from providing adequate mechanical support. Due to the large-scale destruction of the subchondral bone, the patients not only need a long period of braking, but also are very likely to have serious arthritic manifestations in a short time and will rapidly progress to the collapse of the articular surface.
On this basis, we try to change the indication of surgical treatment for GCTB. The indications of SR are Campanacci grade III GCTB with pathological fracture, more than 50% joint invasion and/or involvement of most of the metaphyseal. The indications for TC are Camapanacci grade II–III GCTB with or without pathological fracture and slight joint invasion (less than 50% of the articular surface). The damage to the articular surface is evaluated by MRI and CT (Fig.
1). For GCTB patients with a small range of invasion to the articular surface and soft tissues or with pathological fracture, curettage combined with adjuvant therapy is supported with some notable points. The use of chemical reagents can only involve smearing rather than soaking. Soaking may lead to leakage of fluid into the joint cavity and surrounding tissues, which will increase the incidence of complications, such as injury to vessels and nerves. The power and time when used at juxta-articular points should be appropriately reduced to avoid large-scale damage to articular chondrocytes and synovial tissues. And to avoid leakage of bone cement into the joint cavity and surrounding soft tissue, the allogeneic bone is usually chosen as the implant material.
According to the statistical results, we found that the recurrence rates after the two operations were similar, even for GCTB-graded Companacci III and with partial articular surface invasion, which possibly indicated that the effect of tumor cell elimination achieved by TC was similar to that achieved by SR. TC was even used in two patients whose lesions were located at the proximal humerus. And there was no recurrence observed in these two patients. The patients even preserved good function of the upper limbs, which was not achieved by SR. Moreover, for patients with pathological fracture, the recurrence rates after SR and TC were also shown to be similar. The TC group was shown to have a shorter operation time and less blood loss. For the follow-up of limb function, the limb function of patients in the TC group was superior to that of patients in the SR group. The rehabilitation training in the TC group was much easier and the recovery period was shorter, which indicated that the retention of autologous joints had a beneficial influence on postoperative functional recovery. The degree of satisfaction in the TC group was obviously higher than that in the SR group. Even for patients graded Campanacci III with less than 50% articular surface invasion, limb function after TC was shown to be superior to that in SR. For GCTB patients with joint surface invasion, surgeons generally believed that the postoperative function was not ideal and the complications such as articular surface collapse would occur in a short time. However, our clinical experience and research results indicated that for giant cell tumor of the bone with mild articular surface invasion, careful and efficient expanded curettage could not only ensure a low recurrence rate but also would better reserve the limb function. Since patients with GCTB are mostly young and middle-aged, long-term complications caused by artificial joints can be expected. During the follow-up, 3 of 19 patients underwent revision surgeries. The high possibility of revision surgery after SR is an additional financial and emotional burden for patients. At present, except for a superficial infection in one patient, we have not found any operation-related complications in the TC group, which may be due to the insufficient follow-up period.
For a long time, the bone cement has been the best choice for residual cavity filling after curettage of giant cell tumor of the bone, which is because bone cement can perfectly match the osseous voids and provide sufficient mechanical strength. What’s more, it has a tumoricidal ability by thermal polymerization [
39]. But this conclusion was based on the specific methods of curettage and different residual cavity management. Gaston [
40] analyzed the effect of bone cement on the postoperative recurrence rate after using phenol alone. He concluded that bone cement could significantly reduce the recurrence rate. But this conclusion is obviously one-sided.
After comparing the effects of bone grafts and bone cement, we found that there was possibly no significant difference in the recurrence rate between the BC group and BG group, which might be because the polymerization heat effect of BC was negligible after high-temperature inactivation. Therefore, we think that bone cement filling after thermal inactivation is not helpful to further reduce the postoperative recurrence rate. As for the mechanical support, it was shown that functional recovery was also unaffected by the implant materials. In the BG group, no fracture was found during routine functional exercise after surgery, which was likely to indicate that bone grafting could also fully support the patients’ postoperative functional rehabilitation after strong internal fixation. In addition, we found that some patients in the BC group had discomfort around the joint, which might indicate the occurrence of long-term adverse joint events [
41]. We used logistic regression to analyze the relationship between joint discomfort and filling material, age. We concluded, based on our results, that the probability of joint discomfort in postoperative patients may increase with age, while the choice of filler material may not have a significant effect on predicting joint discomfort. Therefore, we believe that it may be possible to predict the probability of joint discomfort by the age of the patient, based on the fact that the patient has identified the filler material. In the BG group, deep infection and transplant rejection associated with bone grafts were not found. On the contrary, we observed an obvious bone repair response in the residual cavity after bone grafts during the follow-up period (Fig.
1A’ and C’). This self-repair and spontaneous fusion will lead to greater comfort and better functional recovery in the long term. In conclusion, allogeneic bone grafts may be a more suitable implant material than bone cement in the long term.
Bone grafting is an important method of treating bone defects. Compared to autologous bone grafts, allogeneic bone grafts are more costly but easily available in terms of quantity and type. The overall infection rate of allogeneic bone grafts ranges from approximately 1.2 to 9% (8% in patients after bone tumor surgery and up to 9% in patients after large allogeneic bone grafts). In the case of benign, degenerative, or traumatic bone defects, infection after allograft bone grafting is rare, in contrast to malignant or aggressive bone tumors where the incidence of postoperative infection is as high as 13%. Approximately 75% of graft infections occur within 4 months of allografting. The availability of allografts is mainly reflected in osteoinduction and osteoinduction. Osteoconduction, also known as scaffolding, relies on osteoinduction to promote healing and replacement of the allograft bone. In contrast, osteoinduction often plays an important role in the early stages of allograft bone healing.
There was one patient in each group who experienced relapse and died due to multiple metastases. At least two rigorous pathological examinations were performed on both patients. The results were consistent. The aim of repetitive pathological examinations is not only to further confirm the diagnosis but also to detect changes in the course of the disease. The rate of metastasis in patients with GCTB is 1.5%. The cellular and molecular biological aspects of this potential invasiveness are unknown. However, once malignant transformation occurs, curettage within the lesion is not recommended. The wrong choice will lead to the artificial spread of tumor cells. Thus, follow-up is a critical aspect of patient management. If large recurrent lesions appear in a short period (less than half a year) and progress rapidly, the possibility of malignant transformation should be considered first. Under these circumstances, SR should be chosen as the treatment option to avoid the worst outcome, even if the images still show the characteristics of benign tumors.
For postoperative rehabilitation, there are many views regarding the mobilization scheme after prosthetic reconstruction. Some surgeons believe that as long as the internal fixation is strong enough, you can move freely on the floor immediately after surgery, especially for a patient receiving a distal femoral prosthesis. Some doctors, on the other hand, consider the early postoperative period to be marked by trauma and painful swelling of the limb and that it is not advisable to move the joints close to the injury site and to wait a few weeks before moving freely for functional exercise. There is no standard general guideline and most decisions are left to the experience and preference of the practitioner.
Although our study was not perfect and part views in the surgical procedure were not entirely innovative, our purpose is definite. We want to convey to clinical researchers and surgeons a careful, detailed and standardized surgical treatment for giant cell tumor of the bone. By the views (full-covered and sequential curettage, endoscopic assistance, standard and combined inactivation, and repeated flushing), we presented a complete surgical procedure to the readers in a comprehensive way, which reflected our rich surgical experience and pursuit to the conscientiousness. We believe that as long as surgeons are rigorous and careful, many patients with GCTB can avoid premature prosthesis replacement and have good postoperative function. The recurrence rate of TC is not significantly low on the whole, which is due to inadequate experience and imperfect surgical procedures in the early stage. From 2017 to 2020, we performed TC on 21 patients (fourteen graded Campanacci III and with less than 50% articular surface involvement). Only one patient had a relapse. This patient was diagnosed with telangiectatic osteosarcoma on biopsy after recurrence. The remaining patients were all tumor-free and had good limb function so far, which fully reflects the importance of refined and standardized surgical treatment. The rigorous surgical spirit is what this article most wants to convey to readers.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.