Treatment alternatives and clinical outcomes of bone filling after benign tumour curettage. A systematic review - 14/07/21

Doi : 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102966

Nelson Fabrício Gava ⁎ , Edgard Eduard Engel
Department of Biomechanics, Medicine and Rehabilitation of the Locomotor System, Clinical Hospital, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, 3900, Bandeirantes avenue, 11th floor, 14040-030, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil

^⁎Corresponding author.

Sous presse. Épreuves corrigées par l'auteur. Disponible en ligne depuis le Wednesday 14 July 2021
Cet article a été publié dans un numéro de la revue, cliquez ici pour y accéder

Abstract

Background

Benign and pseudo-neoplastic bone lesions are usually treated by curettage and filling of the cavity. This filling is usually achieved with the use of autologous bone grafts, bone cement, allografts, xenografts, or synthetic bone substitutes. Recently, some authors have suggested that these defects do not require filling for consolidation but the respective rate of complications of each method is not well defined. Therefore, we did a systematic review aiming to answer: (1) Not filling bone cavities after benign bone tumour curettage may increase the rate of fractures? (2) Can the volume of the bone defect in itself be a specific or reliable predictor of fracture? (3) Does the mean functional outcome, recurrence, non-weight bearing time, other postoperative complications or bone consolidation time vary between the methods of filling?

Patients and methods

The PubMed (2407 articles) and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (50 articles) databases were reviewed, without restriction considering publication date. After exclusion criteria, 62 articles were selected for data collection. Filling or not filling (UN), methods of filling, fracture rate, bone defect size, mean functional outcome, recurrence, non-weight bearing time, other postoperative complications, consolidation time were the data of interest.

Results

The number of patients was 2555 distributed among the different filling methods. Unfilled cavities were associated with higher fracture rate [20/302 (6.62%)] versus 4/189 (2.12%) for allografts, 14/343 (4.08%) for cement filling, 4/247 for autograft (1.62%), and 12/580 (2.07%) for bone substitute. The volume of the bone defect alone is not a specific or reliable predictor of fracture. All filling methods were similar regarding the mean functional outcome, recurrence rate and consolidation time. The bone cement allowed early weight bearing time (mean of weeks): UN: 9.67; autologous bone grafts: 9.8; bone cement: 0.5; allografts: 9.0; synthetic bone substitutes: 9.96.

Conclusion

Not filling the bone cavity after benign bone tumour curettage is an alternative, but can increase fracture rate, even in small volume bone defects. The use of prophylactic fixation drastically reduces the fracture rate. Filling with cement reduces weight bearing time. There are little differences between the methods used to fill, even compared to not filling the cavity.