[Demographical characteristics and surgical treatment outcomes of giant cell tumor of bone at the Department of Orthopedics at Semmelweis University].

Abstract

Introduction: Giant cell tumor of bone is accountable for 5–9% of primary bone tumors and is usually characterized by intermediate dignity and high recurrence rate. Numerous adjuvant procedures have been presented in the literature, however, their efficiency remains controversial, often due to low case numbers and the consequential inappropriate statistical interpretation. Objective: Our aim was to survey the demographical and epidemiological data of patients treated at the Department of Orthopedics of Semmelweis University between 2008 and 2023, compare these data to the international literature, and analyze the impact of different adjuvant therapies on recurrence-free survival. Method: 135 patients’ data have been analyzed. Depending on the type of surgery and adjuvant therapy, the patients were clustered into homogenous groups, and their recurrence-free survival probabilities were compared. Results: Among the different adjuvant therapies, the lowest recurrence rates were observed when using phenol with bone resin (21%) or phenol only (30%). Wide resection resulted in a significantly reduced recurrence rate (5%) but in most cases also in sacrificing the joint. 67% of patients became tumor-free after the curettage of the primary tumor. Conclusion: When treating giant cell tumor of bone, joint-sparing techniques must be prioritized. This makes intralesional curettage combined with local adjuvant therapy the most practiced surgery. Utilizing phenol alone or with bone resin seems to reduce the recurrence rates nearly equally, which were curative in 67% of the cases at the first time. Filling the deficiency with homologous bone and acrylic bone resin is less efficient and is only advised in defined indications. The most effective treatment is wide resection but, in most cases, it results in sacrificing the joint. Recurrence did not indicate the more aggressive behavior of the tumor, probably it was due to the limitations of the prior surgery. The primary tumor underwent malignant transformation in 4%. Orv Hetil. 2025; 166(33): 1294–1301.