Aggressive Giant Cell Tumor at Proximal Femur after Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Tao Kun,Wang Qi,Zhang Xian-long
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00029330-200811010-00019
2008-01-01
Abstract:Tumor at the site of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a rare event. There have been 46 cases of malignant tumors at the site of total hip prosthesis since 1974. Among them, there were 41 sarcomas, 4 lymphomas and 1 epidermoid. Malignant fibrous histiocytoma was the most common (20 cases) followed by osteosarcoma (9 cases). Here we report a case of a giant cell tumor combined with an aneurysmal bone cyst 3 years after an aluminum oxide ceramic THA. CASE REPORT In June 2003, a 28-year-old woman suffered from a Garden IV femoral neck fracture (Figure 1) because of falling to the ground. There seemed to be some bone resorption and osteoclasia at the fracture site. Emission computed tomography (ECT) demonstrated no increased uptake in the other part of the skeleton except for the fracture site. Open reduction and internal fixation was performed at another hospital in July 2003. Gross examination and frozen section of the tissue at the fracture site showed no evidence of malignancy during the operation. Unfortunately the fracture line existed and no callus formation occurred (Figure 2).Figure 1.: Garden IV femoral neck fracture.Figure 2. Nonunion of the fracture site.Figure 3. A Stryker ceramic on ceramic prosthesis was implanted.Figure 4. Complete destruction of the trochanteric region and large obvious soft tissue shadows.Figure 5. Gross pathology of the tumor.Figure 6. Nuclear atypia, hyperchromatism and abnormal mitotic were not found (HE staining, original magnification × 400)In February 2004, THA was performed for the patient because of non-union of the femoral neck fracture. We implanted a Stryker ceramic-on-ceramic prosthesis (SECUR-FIT HA PSL Ceramic-on-Ceramic Shell, Alumina Insert, Alumina C-Taper Head and Omnifit M-HA Stem, Figure 3). Two months later, she could almost walk as normal and was quite satisfied with her surgery. Radiograph showed an osteopenic area at the greater trochanter region. No intramedullary erosions of the proximal femoral bone were present. In February 2007, she noticed gradual swelling and localized pain of her left hip accompanying with low fever. In April 2007, plane X-rays revealed complete destruction of the trochanteric region (Figure 4). CT scan showed lots of necrosis around the prosthesis in the proximal femoral. An aggressive giant cell tumor combined with an aneurysmal bone cyst was confirmed by a CT-guided puncture biopsy. Before surgery, routine examinations showed hemoglobin 75 g/L, hematocrit (HCT) 21.3% and white blood cell count normal. CT of the chest and abdomen showed no evidence of metastasis. Ultrasound showed splenomegaly. ECT demonstrated no increased uptake in the skeleton except for the trochanteric region. From the radiograph we could see large soft tissue shadows around the proximal femur (Figure 4). The mass protruded from intra-medullary to extra-medullary. Considering that the aggressive giant cell tumor had already infiltrated into the surrounding soft tissue, we preformed a left hemipelvectomy for the patient. A 25 cm × 10 cm × 10 cm expansile bone tumor in the proximal femoral diaphysis was found intraoperatively. The tumor was soft and haemorrhagic with extensive necrosis. It surrounded the proximal femoral component and completely destroyed the surrounding cortex. It invaded the soft tissue from intra-medullary to extra-medullary. Acetabular was not invaded by the tumor (Figure 5). By microscopy, the specimen was carefully checked but without nuclear atypia, hyperchromatism, or abnormal mitotic. Osteoclastic giant cells were sporadically distributed throughout the stromal cells (Figure 6). Results of immuno-histochemical staining were as follows: white blood cell LCA (+), MPO (-), CD99 (-), L26 (-), UCHL-1 (+), histiocyte KP-1 (+), Mac387 (-), CD34 (-). The diagnosis of giant cell tumor combined with aneurysmal bone cyst was established according to the symptoms, radiological and pathological findings. DISCUSSION After THA, numerous particles of ultra high molecularweight polyethylene (PE), polymethylmethacrylate, 99% purity titanium (Ti), nickel chromium, cobalt chromium alloy, and aluminium oxide (A12O3) were released into the capsules and the bone adjacent to the implant. Since 1950 researchers have been concerned about the oncogenesis of the solid implant and its particles.1-4 So far, 46 cases of tumor at the site of THA had been reported.5 Among them 20 were malignant fibrous histiocytoma, 9 osteosarcoma, 4 lymphoma, 2 fibrosarcoma, 2 leiomyosarcoma, 2 spindle cell sarcoma, 1 chondrosarcoma, 1 synovial sarcoma, 1 liposarcoma, 1 malignant fibrous epithelioma, 1 rhabdomyosarcoma, 1 malignant nerve sheath tumor and 1 epidermoid cancer. We could find no reports of benign tumor that occurred and no giant cell tumors were reported previously. Boardman et al6 reported a benign psoas mass following metal on metal resurfacing of the hip. Only one report of sarcoma associated with aluminum oxide ceramic THA could be found on Pubmed.7 Our patient used a Stryker's SECUR-FIT HA PSL Ceramic on Ceramic Shell, Alumina Insert, Alumina C-Taper Head and Omnifit M-HA Stem. Both the shell and stem were made of TiAlV alloy. The giant cell tumor was benign but its biological behavior was malignant. It was a potential malignancy. Tumors at the site of a hip prosthesis can be preoperative, occult, primary or metastatic. The mean latent period was 6.0 years (range, 0.5-20 years) after the first THA.5 Eighteen of the 47 tumors developed within 3 years after surgery. In a meta-analysis, in which included a total of 173 166 THA and 58 777 total knee arthroplasty patients were included, an overall risk of cancer following total joint arthroplasty seemed not to increase.8 Considering the hundreds of thousands of THA patients, the incidence of 47 such cases was so minute that the local occurrence of tumor was highly coincidental. Because of its poor prognosis, high mutilation and fatality, we mainly discussed early and correct diagnosis of tumor at the site of THA, regardless of the relationships between carcinoma and various alloy, PMMA and infection. The main problem was that most of the orthopedists were not aware of the possibility of a tumor at the site of THA and that improper surgical intervention would accelerate the local development and metastasis.9 In all of the 47 cases, we found the medical management was rapid and effective after the diagnosis was made, but obviously delayed diagnosis existed among most of the cases. In our case, during the first open reduction and internal fixation, histological examination was checked. Only inflammatory granulation tissue and little pieces of necrotic bone associated with histiocytes were seen. And it was a pity that no histological examination was done during THA and we did not pay much attention to the osteopenia around the trochanteric region after the THA. So just as Schuh et al9 suggested, in the event of localized pain, significant swelling, and rapid osteolyses or loosening of the implants, particularly if it occurred years after primary surgery and aseptic loosening was ruled out, a malignancy must be considered. Our opinion is that tumor at the site of THA should be in the differential diagnosis with loosening, infection and disuse osteopenia at the trochanteric region. And selective histopathological examination should be obligatory for patients with rapid and severe osteolysis during revision.