Journal of surgical oncology · 2006
Calcium phosphate cement in musculoskeletal tumor surgery.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Matsumine Akihiko, Kusuzaki Katsuyuki, Matsubara Takao, Okamura Atsushi, Okuyama Noritaka, Miyazaki Shinichi, Shintani Ken, Uchida Atsumasa
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Calcium phosphate cement (CPC) is an injectable biocompatible bone substitute that has been used for various applications in orthopedic surgery. However, no extensive clinical studies of the use of CPC to fill bone cavities after curettage of musculoskeletal tumors have been reported. The present study reviewed the results for 56 musculoskeletal tumors treated by curettage and CPC implantation.
METHODS: Assessment was based on clinical examination and radiographic findings. Variables for clinical assessment included pain, limb function, and complications. Median follow-up was 18.5 months (range 6-47 months).
RESULTS: One patient experienced post-operative fractures. Three patients displayed local recurrence. One patient developed post-operative superficial wound infection, and two patients with large bony defect exhibited non-infectious serous discharge. No serious adverse effects such as deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism were encountered. In all cases, CPC was radiographically well adapted to the surrounding host bone as of final follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: CPC appears to offer a useful bone substitute for the treatment of musculoskeletal tumors. As the follow-up period for this study was short, further long-term follow-up studies are needed.
METHODS: Assessment was based on clinical examination and radiographic findings. Variables for clinical assessment included pain, limb function, and complications. Median follow-up was 18.5 months (range 6-47 months).
RESULTS: One patient experienced post-operative fractures. Three patients displayed local recurrence. One patient developed post-operative superficial wound infection, and two patients with large bony defect exhibited non-infectious serous discharge. No serious adverse effects such as deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism were encountered. In all cases, CPC was radiographically well adapted to the surrounding host bone as of final follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: CPC appears to offer a useful bone substitute for the treatment of musculoskeletal tumors. As the follow-up period for this study was short, further long-term follow-up studies are needed.