The Application of Jade Prosthesis and Allograft in Proximal Tibia of Neoplastic Bone Defect: A Case Report

Jiazuo Shen¹, Jianfei Yao¹, Dasheng Lin¹, Zhenqi Ding¹, Kejian Lian^1, and Bin Lin¹

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, the Affiliated Dongnan Hospital of Xiamen University, Orthopaedic Trauma Center of the 175th Hospital of PLA, Zhangzhou, Fujian, PR China

Cite this paper

Jiazuo Shen, Jianfei Yao, Dasheng Lin, Zhenqi Ding, Kejian Lian and Bin Lin. The Application of Jade Prosthesis and Allograft in Proximal Tibia of Neoplastic Bone Defect: A Case Report. American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research. 2013; 1(3):45-47. doi: 10.12691/AJCMR-1-3-3

Abstract

The upper-middle tibia is the multiple growth section of benign and malignant neoplasm, which is easy to result in bone defect after tumorectomy and it is a serious problem in orthopaedics. We reported a case about a huge benign or potential malignant tumor( giant cell tumor of bone) in upper-middle tibia and contrasted the advantage between the jade prosthesis and the allograft. Initially, the tumor had been curetted and then the upper-middle tibia had been given iliac bone graft, but the tumor recurred one year later. Then orthopedists gave the tumor excision and jade prosthesis replacement by the fixation of intramedullary screw. However, twenty one years later, the intramedullary screw fatigue fractured, orthopedists advised the patient be unloaded the jade prosthesis and be given the operative knee prosthesis surface replacement before allogeneic tibial condyle replacement. While 6 months later, the allogeneic bone in vivo had immunologic rejection and the knee was swelling, pain and no function. Finally, orthopedists gave the knee arthrodesis. Hence, we discovered that jade prosthesis had more advantages than allograft in proximal tibia of neoplastic bone defect and jade prosthesis was secure, durable, long period length, low immunological rejection and should be popularized in clinic.

Keywords

jade prosthesis, knee surface arthroplasty, allogeneic bone, giant cell tumor of bone, arthrodesis

Copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References

[1]	Barjaktarovic R, Popovic Z, Radoicie D. Megaendoprosthesis in the treatment of bone tumors in the knee and hip region. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2011. 68(1): 62-7.
[2]	Tan PK, Tan MH. Functional outcome study of mega-endoprosthetic reconstruction in limbs with bonetumour surgery. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2009. 38(3): 192-6.
[3]	Jeys LM, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Abudu A. Post operative infection and increased survival in osteosarcoma patients: arethey associated. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007. 14(10): 2887-95.
[4]	Boons HW, Keijser LC, Schreuder HW, Pruszczynski M, Lemmens JA, Veth RP. Oncologic and functional results after treatment of giant cell tumors of bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2002. 122(1): 17-23.
[5]	Trieb K, Bitzan P, Lang S, Dominkus M, Kotz R. Recurrence of curetted and bone-grafted giant-cell tumours with and withoutadjuvant phenol therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2001. 27(2): 200-2.
[6]	Veth R, Schreuder B, van BH, Pruszczynski M, de Rooy J. Cryosurgery in aggressive, benign, and low-grade malignant bone tumours. Lancet Oncol. 2005. 6(1): 25-34.