Treatment and outcome of parosteal osteosarcoma: Biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction

Background and Objectives Due to its good prognosis despite local recurrence, more and less invasive methods for surgical treatment of parosteal osteosarcoma (POS) have been described. Aim of this retrospective single‐center study was to investigate differences in outcome after biological and prosth...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Journal of surgical oncology Vol. 103; no. 8; pp. 782 - 789
Main Authors:	Funovics, Philipp T., Bucher, Frederik, Toma, Cyril D., Kotz, Rainer I., Dominkus, Martin
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company 15-06-2011 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Subjects:	Adolescent Adult Amputation - statistics & numerical data biological reconstruction Bone Neoplasms - mortality Bone Neoplasms - pathology Bone Neoplasms - therapy Bone Transplantation Disease-Free Survival Female Follow-Up Studies Humans Lung Neoplasms - mortality Lung Neoplasms - secondary Male medullary involvement Middle Aged modular endoprosthesis Neoadjuvant Therapy Neoplasm Recurrence, Local Osteosarcoma - mortality Osteosarcoma - pathology Osteosarcoma - therapy parosteal osteosarcoma Periosteum - pathology Periosteum - surgery Prostheses and Implants Retrospective Studies Young Adult
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Background and Objectives Due to its good prognosis despite local recurrence, more and less invasive methods for surgical treatment of parosteal osteosarcoma (POS) have been described. Aim of this retrospective single‐center study was to investigate differences in outcome after biological and prosthetic reconstruction. Methods A total of 28 patients with POS, 14 females, 14 males, mean age of 27 years (median, 24 years; range 15–59 years), mean follow‐up of 130 months (median, 104 months; range, 9–383 months), underwent wide tumor resection and prosthetic reconstruction (12 patients, 42.9%), less extensive resection and biological reconstruction (11 patients, 39.3%), rotationplasty (three patients, 10.7%), or amputation (two patients, 7.1%). Results There were two cases of local recurrence in patients with biological reconstruction and three cases of pulmonary metastases, leading to death of disease in two. Ten‐year disease‐specific survival was 91.1%. There was no significant difference between prosthetic and biological reconstruction in terms of local recurrence, metastasis, or functional outcome (mean MSTS Score, 85%). There were significantly more revisions in prosthetic reconstructions. Conclusions Given that the resection of the tumor has clear margins, both prosthetic and biological reconstruction show similar results; prostheses allow better local tumor control, however, require more revisions over time. J. Surg. Oncol. 2011;103:782–789. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Bibliography:	ArticleID:JSO21859 istex:A4A1A7BA004221F325596F8EFDCE7E29983291BA ark:/67375/WNG-L3HL8FGM-9 ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23
ISSN:	0022-4790 1096-9098
DOI:	10.1002/jso.21859