The Most Appropriate Reconstruction Method Following Giant Cell Tumor Curettage: A Biomechanical Approach

Document Type : EDITORIAL


1 Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 Orthopedic research center, Mashhad university of medical sciences, Mashhad, Iran


Giant cell tumor (GCT) is a primary and benign tumor of bone, albeit locally aggressive in some cases, such as in the epi-metaphyseal region of long bones, predominantly the distal end of femur and proximal end of tibia (1). There are a variety of treatments for a bone affected by GCT, ranging from chemotherapy, radiotherapy, embolization, and cryosurgery, to surgery with the use of chemical or thermal adjuvant (2). Even with advances in new chemotropic drugs, surgery is still the most effective treatment for this kind of tumor (3). The surgery often involves defect reconstruction following tumor removal (4). The aims of treatment are removing the tumor and reconstructing the bone defect in order to decrease the risk of recurrence, and restore limb function, respectively. To achieve these goals, reconstruction is usually accompanied with PMMA bone cement infilling (4). The high heat generated during PMMA polymerization in the body can kill the remaining cancer cells, and hence the chance of recurrence decreases (5). In addition, filling the cavity with bone cement provides immediate stability, enabling patients to return to their daily activities soon (6).
The major drawbacks of the technique of curettage and cementation is the high fracture risk, due to the early loading of the bone, and the insufficient fixation of the cement in the cavity (7). Hence, several methods have been developed to fix the bone cement in order to prevent the postoperative fracture. Pattijn packed the cement with a titanium membrane which was attached to the periosteum with small screws (7). The membrane can make early normal functioning of patients possible, since it partially restore the strength and stiffness of the bone. Cement augmentation with internal fixation is another method to decrease the risk of postoperative fractures (6, 8, 9).


Main Subjects

1. Cowan RW, Singh G. Giant cell tumor of bone: a basic
science perspective. Bone. 2013; 52(1):238-46.
2. Singh S, Singh M, Mak I, Ghert M. Expressional
analysis of GFP-Tagged cells in an in vivo mouse
model of giant cell tumor of bone. Open Orthop J.
2013; 7:109-13.
3. Wu PF, Tang JY, Li KH. RANK pathway in giant cell
tumor of bone: pathogenesis and therapeutic
aspects. Tumor Biol. 2015; 36(2):495-501.
4. Fraquet N, Faizon G, Rosset P, Phillipeau J, Waast D,
Gouin F. Long bones giant cells tumors: treatment
by curretage and cavity filling cementation. Orthop
Traumatol Surg Res. 2009; 95(6):402-6.
5. Wada T, Kaya M, Nagoya S, Kawaguchi S, Isu K,
Yamashita T, et al. Complications associated with
bone cementing for the treatment of giant cell
tumors of bone. J Orthop Sci. 2002; 7(2):194-8.
6. Toy PC, France J, Randall RL, Neel MD, Shorr RI, Heck
RK. Reconstruction of noncontained distal femoral
defects with polymethylmethacrylate and crossedscrew
augmentation: a biomechanical study. J Bone
Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(1):171-8.
7. Pattijn V, Gelaude F, Sloten JV, Van Audekercke R.
Medical image-based preformed titanium membranes
for bone reconstruction. Med Imaging Syst Technol
Methods General Anatomy. 2005; 5:43-78.
8. Murray PJ, Damron TA, Green JK, Morgan HD, Werner
FW. Contained femoral defects: biomechanical
analysis of pin augmentation in cement. Clin Orthop
Relat Res. 2004; 420(1):251-6.
9. Randall RL, Weenig KN, West JR, Johnston JO, Bachus
KN. Durability and strength of Steinmann pin
augmentation in cemented tibial defects. Clin Orthop
Relat Res. 2002; 397(1):306-14.
10. Bickels J, Meller I, Malawer M. The biology and
role of cryosurgery in the treatment of bone
tumors. In: Malawer MM, Sugarbaker PH, editors.
Musculoskeletal cancer surgery. Netherlands:
Springer; 2001. P. 135-45.
11. Malawer MM, Bickels J, Meller I, Buch RG, Henshaw
RM, Kollender Y. Cryosurgery in the treatment of
giant cell tumor: a long term followup study. Clin
Orthop Relat Res. 1999; 359(1):176-88.
12. Pan KL, Chan WH. Curettage and cementation in giant
cell tumour of the distal tibia using polypropylene
mesh for containment: A. Malays Orthop J. 2010;
13. Toy PC, Arthur S, Brown D, Heck RK. Reconstruction
of noncontained proximal tibial defects with
divergent screws and cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2007; 459(1):167-73.
14. Uglialoro AD, Maceroli M, Beebe KS, Benevenia J,
Patterson FR. Distal femur defects reconstructed
with polymethylmethacrylate and internal fixation
devices: a biomechanical study. Orthopedics. 2009;
15. Bini S, Gill K, Johnston JO. Giant cell tumor of bone.
Curettage and cement reconstruction. Clin Orthop
Relat Res. 1995; 321(1):245-50.
16. Asavamongkolkul A, Pongkunakorn A, Harnroongroj
T. Stability of subchondral bone defect
reconstruction at distal femur: comparison between
polymethylmethacrylate alone and steinmann pin
reinforcement of polymethylmethacrylate. J Med
Assoc Thai. 2003; 86(7):626-33.
17. Weiner M, Damron TA, Patterson FR, Werner FW,
Mann KA. Biomechanical study of pins in cementing
of contained proximal tibia defect. Clin Orthop Relat
Res. 2004; 419(1):232-7.
18. Ruskin J, Caravaggi P, Beebe KS, Corgan S, Chen L,
Yoon RS, et al. Steinmann pin augmentation versus
locking plate constructs. J Orthop Traumatol. 2016;
19. Brekelmans WA, Poort HW, Slooff TJ. A new method
to analyse the mechanical behaviour of skeletal
parts. Acta Orthop Scand. 1972; 43(5):301-17.
20. Kamal Z, Rouhi G. A parametric investigation of the
effects of cervical disc prostheses with upward and
downward nuclei on spine biomechanics. J Mech
Med Biol. 2016; 16(2):1650092.
21. Chitsazan A, Herzog W, Rouhi G, Abbasi M. Alteration
of strain distribution in distal tibia after triple
arthrodesis: experimental and finite element
investigations. J Med Biol Engin. 2017; 6(17):1-13.
22. Nourisa J, Rouhi G. Biomechanical evaluation of
intramedullary nail and bone plate for the fixation of
distal metaphyseal fractures. J Mech Behav Biomed
Mater. 2016; 56(1):34-44.
23. Samsami S, Saberi S, Sadighi S, Rouhi G. Comparison
of three fixation methods for femoral neck fracture
in young adults: experimental and numerical
investigations. J Med Biol Eng. 2015; 35(5):566-79.
24. Rouhi G, Vahdati A, Li X, Sudak L. A three
dimensional computer model to simulate spongy
bone remodelling under overload using a semimechanistic
bone remodelling theory. J Mech Med
Biol. 2015; 15(4):1550061.
25. Rouhi G, Tahani M, Haghighi B, Herzog W. Prediction
of stress shielding around orthopedic screws: timedependent
bone remodeling analysis using finite
element approach. J Med Biol Eng. 2015; 35(4):545-
26. Ghouchani A, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Rouhi G. Voxelbased
finite element model of a reconstructed bone:
simulating a bone tumor surgery. J Bioeng Biomed
Sci. 2016; 6(5):47.
27. Ghouchani A, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Rouhi G. Predicting
the risk of post-operative fracture of giant cell 
tumor using fully voxelised finite element models.
24th annual meeting of the Iranian orthopaedic
association, September 26-30, Tehran, Iran; 2016.
28. Li J, Wodajo F, Theiss M, Kew M, Jarmas A. Computer
simulation techniques in giant cell tumor curettage
and defect reconstruction. Comput Sci Engin. 2013;
29. Mosleh H, Rouhi G, Ghouchani A, Nourisa J, Bagheri N.
Prediction of the fracture risk of reconstructed bone
with cement using QCT based structural rigidity
and finite element analysis. California: Orthopaedic
Research Society Annual Meeting San Diego; 2017.
30. Ghouchani A, Rouhi G. The great need of a
biomechanical-based approach for surgical methods
of giant cell tumor: a critical review. J Med Biol Engin.
2017; 37(4):454-67.
Volume 6, Issue 2
March 2018
Pages 85-89
  • Receive Date: 28 January 2018
  • Revise Date: 28 February 2018
  • Accept Date: 23 February 2018
  • First Publish Date: 01 March 2018