Comparative efficacy of intraoperative extracorporeal irradiated and alcohol-inactivated autograft reimplantation for the management of osteosarcomas—a multicentre retrospective study

Abstract

Abstract Background Biologic bone reconstruction in limb salvage surgery for the treatment of malignant bone tumours has always been controversial. The various inactivation methods, their convenience and stability, the curative effects elicited and associated costs all need to be considered. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of intraoperative extracorporeal irradiated reimplantation with alcohol-inactivated autograft reimplantation for limb salvage surgery in patients with osteosarcoma. Methods We retrospectively analysed 28 patients with osteosarcoma, 14 patients treated with intraoperative cobalt 60 irradiation and reimplantation (group A), and 14 patients treated by alcohol-inactivated autograft reimplantation (group B). The postoperative complications and clinical efficacy of each treatment method were compared by statistical analysis. Results The local recurrence rate was 14.3% in each group. Complete bony union was achieved in 64.3% of patients in group A and 71.4% of patients in group B. The overall 5-year survival rate was 71.4% in group A and 78.6% in group B. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 25.33 ± 4.72 (range 15–30) in group A and 24.00 ± 5.85 (range 15–30) in group B, and the mean International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) score was 25.79 ± 5.13 (range 20–36) in group A and 26.14 ± 5.33 (range 20–30) in group B. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate a significant difference. The results showed that the long-term clinical efficacy did not differ significantly between the two methods. Conclusions In limb salvage surgery for osteosarcoma, intraoperative extracorporeal irradiation and alcohol-inactivated autograft reimplantation yielded equivalent outcomes. The alcohol-inactivated method may be a much more convenient and inexpensive way to reconstruct bone defects. Additional studies as well as more case studies are needed to fully evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of this treatment method.