This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Muscolo, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Gruenberg, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Muscolo, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Gruenberg, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 75, Issue 11 1656-1662, Copyright © 1993 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc


JOURNAL CONTENTS

The use of a bone allograft for reconstruction after resection of giant-cell tumor close to the knee

DL Muscolo, MA Ayerza, ME Calabrese and M Gruenberg
Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Italian Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The results of bone-allograft reconstruction after the resection of giant-cell tumor close to the knee were reviewed in fifty-two patients (fifty-five allografts), who had been followed for a mean of seven years (range, two to twenty-four years). One giant-cell tumor was graded as stage 1; twenty, as stage 2; and thirty-one, as stage 3. Three reconstructions were repeated transplants that were done after the failure of a previous transplant. Ten allograft reconstructions were intercalary and were combined with an arthrodesis of the knee, and forty-five were osteoarticular. Major complications included infection (after three reconstructions), resorption of the graft (six), collapse of the articular surface (two), fracture (two), and recurrence (one). According to the criteria described by Mankin et al. for functional analysis, forty-two (76 per cent) of the extremities had a result that was considered to be excellent or good. Radiographic evaluation according to the system of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society showed a mean score of 72 per cent for osteoarticular reconstructions, and of 86 per cent for intercalary reconstructions.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JBJSHome page
D. L. Muscolo, M. A. Ayerza, L. A. Aponte-Tinao, E. Abalo, and G. Farfalli
Unicondylar Osteoarticular Allografts of the Knee
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., October 1, 2007; 89(10): 2137 - 2142.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
D. L. Muscolo, M. A. Ayerza, L. A. Aponte-Tinao, and M. Ranalletta
Use of Distal Femoral Osteoarticular Allografts in Limb Salvage Surgery
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., November 1, 2005; 87(11): 2449 - 2455.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
R. E. Day, S. Megson, and D. Wood
Iontophoresis as a means of delivering antibiotics into allograft bone
J Bone Joint Surg Br, November 1, 2005; 87-B(11): 1568 - 1574.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]