Surgical Outcome and Oncological Survival of Osteofibrous Dysplasia-Like and Classic Adamantinomas: An International Multicenter Study of 318 Cases

BACKGROUND

Osteofibrous dysplasia-like adamantinoma (OFD-AD) and classic adamantinoma (AD) are rare, neoplastic diseases with only limited data supporting current treatment protocols. We believe that our retrospective multicenter cohort study is the largest analysis of patients with adamantinoma to date. The primary purpose of this study was to describe the disease characteristics and evaluate the oncological outcomes. The secondary purpose was to identify risk factors for local recurrence after surgical treatment and propose treatment guidelines.

METHODS

Three hundred and eighteen confirmed cases of OFD-AD and AD for which primary treatment was carried out between 1985 and 2015 were submitted by 22 tertiary bone tumor centers. Proposed clinical risk factors for local recurrence such as size, type, and margins were analyzed using univariable and multivariate Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 318 cases, 128 were OFD-AD and 190 were AD. The mean age at diagnosis was 17 years (median, 14.5 years) for OFD-AD and 32 years (median, 28 years) for AD; 53% of the patients were female. The mean tumor size in the OFD-AD and AD groups combined was 7.8 cm, measured histologically. Sixteen percent of the patients sustained a pathological fracture prior to treatment. Local recurrence was recorded in 22% of the OFD-AD cases and 24% of the AD cases. None of the recurrences in the OFD-AD group progressed to AD. Metastatic disease was found in 18% of the AD cases and fatal disease, in 11% of the AD cases. No metastatic or fatal disease was reported in the OFD-AD group. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that uncontaminated resection margins (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.164, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.092 to 0.290, p < 0.001), pathological fracture (HR = 1.968, 95% CI = 1.076 to 3.600, p = 0.028), and sex (female versus male: HR = 0.535, 95% CI = 0.300 to 0.952, p = 0.033) impacted the risk of local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

OFD-AD and AD are parts of a disease spectrum but should be regarded as different entities. Our results support reclassification of OFD-AD into the intermediate locally aggressive category, based on the local recurrence rate of 22% and absence of metastases. In our study, metastatic disease was restricted to the AD group (an 18% rate). We advocate wide resection with uncontaminated margins including bone and involved periosteum for both OFD-AD and AD.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Anatomical variations of the deltoid artery

Despite the expansion of arthroscopic surgery of the shoulder, the open deltopectoral approach to the shoulder is still frequently used, for example in fracture fixation and shoulder replacement. However, it is sometimes accompanied by unexpected bleeding. The cephalic vein is the landmark for the deltopectoral interval, yet its intimate relationship with the deltoid artery, and the anatomical variations in that structure, have not previously been documented.

In this study the vascular anatomy encountered during 100 consecutive elective deltopectoral approaches was recorded and the common variants described. Two common variants of the deltoid artery were encountered. In type I (71%) it crosses the interval and tunnels into the deltoid muscle without encountering the cephalic vein. However, in type II (21%) it crosses the interval, reaches the cephalic vein and then runs down, medial to and behind it, giving off several small arterial branches that return back across the interval to the pectoralis major. Several minor variations were also seen (8%).

These variations in the deltoid artery have not previously been described and may lead to confusion and unexpected bleeding during this standard anterior surgical approach to the shoulder.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:657–9.

Preparation for the next major incident: are we ready?

BACKGROUND

In 1996, Carley and Mackway-Jones examined British hospital's readiness for a major incident. In the light of recent terrorist events in London, our group has re-visited the issue and conducted a telephone survey of relevant parties to investigate whether the situation has changed almost 10 years on.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A proforma was devised, and registrars in anaesthesia, accident and emergency medicine, general surgery and trauma and orthopaedics were telephoned in trauma units across the UK and questioned about their readiness to respond to a major incident. Major incident co-ordinators for each of the units were contacted, and their planning, readiness, training opportunities, and recent rehearsals were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 179 registrars were contacted in 34 different units throughout Britain. One hundred and forty four responses were obtained. Sixty eight registrars (47%) had not read any of their hospitals major incident plan. Only 77 (54%) of the registrars questioned felt confident in the knowledge of their specific role during a major incident. Major incident co-ordinators were contacted at 34 hospitals, and 17 responses obtained. It was remarkably difficult to achieve even that level of response. Rehearsal of major incident plans varied widely between hospitals with 82% of hospitals having practised within the past five years but only 35% were planning for a rehearsal in the next twelve months. 25% of hospitals that responded did not hold any teaching on major incident planning at their introduction sessions for junior and middle grade doctors. Limitations to improvement of major incident planning included: lack of funds, lack of a designated full-time major incident co-ordinator, and lack of technology. There was no significant difference between units within London and those in other regions.

DISCUSSION

Preparedness for major incidents in the UK remains poor 10 years after Carley and Mackway-Jones examined the issue. Effective major incident plans require forethought, organisation, briefing of relevant staff and regular rehearsal. Increased resources should be provided for this at a local level and more regular rehearsals undertaken to ensure our preparedness for future major incidents.

Does it matter whom you see? - a fracture clinic audit

INTRODUCTION

A consultant-led service for trauma in the UK has become the accepted norm. Practice in fracture clinics may vary widely between consultants and has an impact on the number of patients seen and, therefore, the time devoted to each patient.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 945 patients attending our unit's fracture clinics were analysed over a 6-week period, representing one complete cycle of our trauma system.

RESULTS

The overall discharge rate was 38% but this differed significantly between consultants. Patients re-presenting for the same complaint were evenly distributed between those discharging aggressively and those re-reviewing regularly.

CONCLUSIONS

Re-reviewing patients has a significant impact on the number of patients seen in future clinics and, therefore, the time that can be devoted to each patient, individual consultant workload and teaching of junior staff. Since the re-presentation rate between those discharging aggressively and those re-reviewing more frequently was the same, discharge protocols are recommended for common trauma conditions to standardise the process. Specialist clinics are recommended for more complex trauma cases.

Pressure for beds--does it put our orthopaedic patients at risk?

INTRODUCTION

High occupancy rates of NHS beds has meant that increasing numbers of trauma patients find themselves on non-orthopaedic wards. Nursing staff on these wards may not have the specialist training to nurse such patients and may not recognise complications should they arise. The failure to recognise compartment syndrome was highlighted in a Clinical Governance meeting, leading to an assessment of nursing awareness of this condition.

METHODS

Fifty orthopaedic trained nurses and a matched cohort of 50 non-orthopaedic trained nurses were asked a series of questions relating to compartment syndrome.

RESULTS

The majority of non-orthopaedic nurses failed to recognise the signs of early compartment syndrome.

CONCLUSION

Compartment syndrome is a limb-threatening condition which requires prompt recognition. Patients at risk should be nursed in an appropriate environment.