Conventional vs. endoscopic-assisted curettage of benign bone tumours. An experimental study

Abstract

BackgroundThis experimental study aimed at directly comparing conventional and endoscopic-assisted curettage towards (1) amount of residual tumour tissue (RTT) and (2) differences between techniques regarding surgical time and surgeons’ experience level.MethodsThree orthopaedic surgeons (trainee, consultant, senior consultant) performed both conventional (4x each) and endoscopic-assisted curettages (4x each) on specifically prepared cortical-soft cancellous femur and tibia sawbone models. “Tumours” consisted of radio-opaque polyurethane-based foam injected into prepared holes. Pre- and postinterventional CT-scans were carried out and RTT assessed on CT-scans. For statistical analyses, percentage of RTT in relation to total lesion’s volume was used. T-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied to assess differences between surgeons and surgical techniques regarding RTT and timing.ResultsMedian overall RTT was 1% (IQR 1 – 4%). Endoscopic-assisted curettage was associated with lower amount of RTT (median, 1%, IQR 0 − 5%) compared to conventional curettage (median, 4%, IQR 0 − 15%, p = 0.024). Mean surgical time was prolonged with endoscopic-assisted (9.2 ± 2.9 min) versus conventional curettage (5.9 ± 2.0 min; p = 0.004). No significant difference in RTT amount (p = 0.571) or curetting time (p = 0.251) depending on surgeons’ experience level was found.ConclusionsEndoscopic-assisted curettage appears superior to conventional curettage regarding complete tissue removal, yet at expenses of prolonged curetting time. In clinical practice, this procedure may be reserved for cases at high risk of recurrence (e.g. anatomy, histology).