Primary Cooperative Application of a LARS® Tube and 3D-Printed Prosthesis for Reconstruction of the Distal Radius after en bloc Resection of Giant Cell Tumor of Bone: A Comparative Retrospective Study

Objective

Using a fibula autograft (FA) to reconstruct defects after en bloc resection of giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) in the distal radius is classic but has high complication rates. We describe a novel reconstruction method employing the cooperative application of LARS® and a 3D-printed prosthesis (L-P) and investigate whether it improves postoperative outcomes.

Methods

From April 2015 to August 2022, 14 patients who underwent the cooperative L-P reconstruction method after en bloc resection of distal radial GCTBs and 31 patients who received FA reconstruction were enrolled as two retrospective cohorts in this comparative study. The properties of the implants and critical surgical techniques were elaborated in the L-P group. Preoperative function, intraoperative data, and postoperative clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes of all patients were recorded and compared between the two groups. The grip strength and range of wrist motion, including extension, flexion, radial deviation, and ulnar deviation, were measured. The Mayo modified wrist and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores were chosen to assess wrist function and surgical functional outcomes, respectively. Kaplan–Meier curves were generated to analyze the significant differences in complication rates and implant survival between the two groups.

Results

In both groups, all 45 patients underwent the operation without complication with similar average osteotomy lengths and bleeding volumes, while a shorter operative duration was achieved in the L-P group (201.43 ± 22.87 min vs. 230.16 ± 51.44 min, P = 0.015). At a mean follow-up of 40.42 ± 18.43 months (range, 14–72 months), both reconstruction methods effectively ameliorated postoperative function. Patients who received L-P showed higher postoperative modified Mayo wrist scores (81.43 ± 5.49 vs. 71.13 ± 16.10, P = 0.003), Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores (27.64 ± 1.34 vs. 25.06 ± 2.95, P = 0.004), and grip strength on the normal side (68.71% ± 8.00% vs. 57.81% ± 12.31%, P = 0.005) than the FA group. Better wrist extension (63.21° ± 8.99° vs. 45.32° ± 14.53°, P < 0.001) and flexion (45.36° ± 7.90° vs. 30.48° ± 12.07°, P < 0.001) were also observed in the L-P group. The complication rate was significantly higher in the FA group (29/31, 93.55%) than in the L-P group (1/14 7.14%, P < 0.001). The L-P group showed higher implant survival than the FA group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The cooperative application of LARS® and 3D-printed prostheses is an effective modality for reconstructing musculoskeletal defects after en bloc resection of distal radial GCTBs, which can improve functional outcomes, diminish complication rates, and promote wrist joint stability and motion.     

Surgical management of osteochondral lesions of the first metatarsal head: A systematic review

BackgroundTreating osteochondral lesions of the first metatarsal head can help reducing pain and preventing end-stage arthritic cartilage degeneration and hallux rigidus. Several surgical techniques have been described, but no clear indications are reported. This systematic review aims to offer an overview of the current surgical treatments for focal osteochondral lesions of the first metatarsal head.MethodsThe selected articles were examined to extract data about population, surgical technique, and clinical outcomes.ResultsEleven articles were included. Mean age at surgery was 38,2 years. Osteochondral autograft was the most used technique. After surgery, an improvement was achieved in AOFAS, VAS, and hallux dorsiflexion but not in plantarflexion.ConclusionThere is limited evidence and knowledge regarding the surgical management of the first metatarsal head osteochondral lesions. Various surgical techniques have been proposed, drawn from other districts. Good clinical results have been reported. Further high-level comparative studies are necessary to design an evidence-based treatment algorithm.