| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Vascular and Interventional Radiology |
1 From the Departments of Radiology (G.M.V., W.R.O., A.A.v.d.B.H., J.L.B.) and Orthopaedic Surgery (A.H.M.T.), Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, PO Box 9600, NL-2300 RC, Leiden, the Netherlands. From the 2002 RSNA scientific assembly. Received October 2, 2003; revision requested December 23; final revision received April 26, 2004; accepted June 15. Address correspondence to J.L.B. (e-mail: J.L.Bloem@lumc.nl).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent (permission for the procedure and permission to use patient data for analysis) was obtained from all patients who met study criteria, and institutional review board did not require approval. Analysis included age, sex, size and location of osteoid osteoma, presence of calcified nidus, number of needle positions used for coagulation, coagulation time, accuracy of needle position, learning curve of radiologist, and previous treatment in 95 consecutive patients with osteoid osteoma treated with thermocoagulation. With 
2 analysis, Fisher exact test, or unpaired Student t test and logistic regression analysis, 23 unsuccessfully treated patients were compared with 72 successfully (pain-free) treated patients.
RESULTS: Parameters associated with decreased risk for treatment failure were advanced age (mean age, 24 years in treatment success group vs 20 years in treatment failure group) and increased number of needle positions during thermocoagulation. Estimated odds ratios were, respectively, 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.88, 0.99) and 0.10 (95% confidence interval: 0.02, 0.41). Patients with a lesion of 10 mm or larger seemed at risk for treatment failure (odds ratio = 2.68), but the 95% confidence interval of 0.84 to 8.52 included the 1.00 value. Needle position was inaccurate in nine of 23 patients with treatment failure; only one needle position was used in eight of these nine patients. Lesion location, calcification, sex, coagulation time, radiologist’s learning curve, and previous treatment were not risk factors.
CONCLUSION: Multiple needle positions reduce the risk of treatment failure in all patients and should especially, but not exclusively, be used in large (
10-mm) lesions or lesions that are difficult to engage to reduce the risk for unsuccessful treatment.
© RSNA, 2004
Index terms: Bone neoplasms, therapy • Computed tomography (CT), guidance, 40.12119 • Osteoma, 40.3122
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Lesion Diagnosis and Location
Clinical and imaging criteria (radiographs and computed tomographic [CT] scans) used to establish a diagnosis of osteoid osteoma at the time of inclusion of patients in this study were described elsewhere (3,5,11). Typically, patients have pain (nocturnal) that is not related to physical activity and is not relieved or alleviated by salicylates or other nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Radiographs and CT scans display a nidus that may be radiolucent or calcified, and characteristically, the maximum diameter does not exceed 1.5 cm, with surrounding reactive sclerosis and periosteal reaction. Initially an imaging diagnosis of osteoid osteoma was established in consensus by two authors (W.R.O., G.M.V.) in all 95 patients. A biopsy was performed when the radiologic findings and clinical presentation were not completely typical. In 40 patients, all criteria mentioned previously were met, and biopsy specimens were not removed. In the remaining 55 patients, we attempted to obtain a histologic diagnosis by removing a biopsy specimen immediately prior to thermocoagulation. A histologic diagnosis of osteoid osteoma was determined in 20 of these 55 patients. No histologic diagnosis could be determined in the remaining 35 patients because of insufficient material.
The same two authors reviewed cases in these 35 patients to identify reasons why the cases were considered to be atypical at the time of treatment. Cases in nine of the 35 patients turned out to be typical after all, although lesions in seven of these patients were found in uncommon locations such as the ulna, the humerus (two patients), the carpal bone, the lumbar spine, the fibula, and the phalanx of the hand. Six patients with pain alleviated with salicylates did not have nocturnal pain, but they had all other typical imaging findings. In 20 patients, the imaging findings were not typical. An ellipsoid shape was found in 13 patients, and in four of these patients, the largest diameter of the shape exceeded 15 mm (16 [two patients], 20, and 22 mm). Imaging findings that were considered to be atypical in the remaining seven patients were little sclerosis (three patients), intramedullary localization (two patients), and postsurgical or drilling defects that obscured the original lesion (two patients).
The mean age in the group of 60 patients who had either all typical imaging findings or a histologic diagnosis of osteoid osteoma was 22.6 years (range, 4–53 years). The mean age in the group of 35 patients who were considered not to exhibit all typical imaging findings at the time of treatment and in whom the findings were not confirmed histologically was 23.4 years (range, 4–52 years).
Duration of pain was known in 92 of 95 patients, and mean duration was 2.0 years (range, 0.1–5.5 years). The lesions were located in patients in the following areas: femur, 42 patients; tibia, 14 patients; ischial bone, iliac bone, or acetabulum, seven patients; talus, five patients; ulna and humerus, four patients each; lumbar spine and carpal and metacarpal bones of the hand, three patients each; fibula, navicular bone of the foot, and cervical spine, two patients each; and cuneiform bone of the foot, dorsal spine, radius, and phalanx of the hand, one patient each.
Treatment Success or Failure
Results of treatment were determined by an experienced (26 years of experience) orthopedic surgeon (A.H.M.T.) with clinical evaluation. After one session of thermocoagulation in 95 patients, treatment was successful in 72 (76%) and unsuccessful in 23 (24%). Treatment was defined as successful when pain had disappeared within 2 weeks after the procedure and did not recur during clinical follow-up. Treatment was defined as unsuccessful when residual (12 patients) or recurrent (11 patients) symptoms (pain and/or impaired function) that resembled the symptoms at presentation reappeared during follow-up or persisted for more than 2 weeks after thermocoagulation. In the group with treatment success, the mean follow-up was 43 months (range, 5–81 months), and 90% (65 of 72) of patients underwent follow-up for more than 12 months. In the group with treatment failure, the mean follow-up was 36 months (range, 10–68 months), and 91% (21 of 23) of patients underwent follow-up for more than 12 months. These clinical results are described elsewhere in detail (11).
Assessment of Risk Factors for Treatment Failure
To identify parameters that were associated with an increased risk of unsuccessful treatment, we compared the following parameters in consensus: patient age (G.M.V., A.A.v.d.B.H.), sex (G.M.V., A.A.v.d.B.H.), lesion size (G.M.V., W.R.O.), lesion location and relationship to joint and cortex (G.M.V., W.R.O.), calcification of nidus (G.M.V., W.R.O.), number of needle positions used to coagulate the lesion (G.M.V., W.R.O.), duration of thermocoagulation (W.R.O., A.H.M.T.), needle not placed in the center of the lesion (G.M.V., W.R.O.), percentage of previously treated patients (G.M.V., A.A.v.d.B.H.), and learning curve of the radiologist (G.M.V., A.A.v.d.B.H.). CT scans were retrospectively analyzed in consensus by two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists (G.M.V. and W.R.O., with 10 and 31 years of experience, respectively) to identify problems with visualization of the lesion and/or with targeting of the lesion that contributed to wrong needle positioning. To evaluate the learning curve, or the effect of the number of procedures performed by the radiologist, the procedures were arbitrarily classified into three groups on the basis of the date of treatment. The first 32 patients formed group 1, the next 32 patients formed group 2, and the last 31 patients formed group 3. All procedures were performed by the same radiologist (W.R.O.).
Thermocoagulation
Radiographs and bone scintigraphic images were only used to localize the lesions for CT and were not analyzed in the current study. Helical CT (Tomoscan SR 7000 or AV E 1; Philips, Best, the Netherlands) with a reconstruction section thickness of 1–2 mm was the imaging method used to assess the previously mentioned imaging parameters. The technique of CT-guided thermocoagulation used is described in detail elsewhere (11,12). Thermocoagulation had been performed by using an electrically isolated hollow needle with a 5-mm unprotected tip that was not cooled (Sluijter-Mehta cannula; Radionics, Burlington, Mass). The protocol used had required heating to 90°C for 4 minutes for each needle position by using a heating system (Radionics-RFG 3 C RF-Lesion Generator System; Radionics). The radiologist who performed the procedure (W.R.O.) was allowed to adjust the coagulation time on the basis of individual considerations. Coagulation time was increased when lesions were large ( 10 mm), when the needle tip was not placed in the center of the lesion, and, most important, when multiple needle positions were used. It was decreased when lesions were small (< 10 mm) or when vulnerable structures, such as skin, cartilage, or nerves, were close to the lesion. Location and maximum diameter were determined on pretreatment CT scans by two observers (G.M.V., W.R.O.) in concert who did not have information about success or failure of thermocoagulation. Lesions were arbitrarily classified as either smaller than 10 mm or 10 mm or larger in diameter. Procedural CT scans (obtained during thermocoagulation with the needle positioned for thermocoagulation) and follow-up CT scans obtained in patients with residual or recurrent symptoms (cases of treatment failure) were assessed to determine whether the nidus was properly targeted.
Statistical Analysis
Differences in age, sex, and the relationship between the parameters defined previously and presence or absence of treatment failure were evaluated with univariate analysis by using 2 analysis, the Fisher exact test, and the unpaired Student t test. Interaction between parameters was examined by using 2 analysis, Fisher exact test, and Spearman correlation analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine predictors of treatment failure after one session of thermocoagulation. Parameters that correlated, or had a tendency to correlate, with presence or absence of treatment failure, as well as parameters that displayed interaction with these factors, were entered in the logistic regression model. The statistical significance of the interaction terms was examined in the logistic regression model, and odds ratios were determined. A backward-stepwise likelihood ratio elimination method was used, and a difference with a P value of less than .05 was considered statistically significant. A software package (SPSS, 10.0.7; SPSS, Chicago, Ill) was used for this statistical analysis.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Lesion Size
The mean maximum diameter of the lesion in the treatment failure group was 10 mm (range, 2–25 mm) and 9 mm (range, 3–22 mm) in the treatment success group. When lesions were stratified according to a diameter smaller than 10 mm or a diameter of 10 mm or larger, the majority of lesions, both in the treatment failure group (12 of 23 [52%]) and the treatment success group (43 of 72 [60%]), were smaller than 10 mm in diameter. Diameter (P = .75) and percentage of patients with a small lesion (P = .52) were not significantly different for the two groups.
Lesion Location
Treatment of 12 of 46 intraarticularly located and of 11 of 49 extraarticularly located osteoid osteomas was unsuccessful. This small difference was not significant (P = .68).
Treatment of 13 of 63 intracortical and 10 of 32 extracortical osteoid osteomas was unsuccessful. This difference was not significant (P = .25).
Because of the large variety in types of hosting bone, no meaningful statistical analysis of these data was possible. There were no major differences relative to the overall failure rate of 24% (23 of 95 patients). Most lesions were located in the femur, and 10 of 42 lesions located in the femur were unsuccessfully treated. The spine was considered to be the most critical location. Two of six patients with lesions in the spine were unsuccessfully treated.
Calcified Nidus
Six of 18 osteoid osteomas without and 17 of 77 of those with a calcified nidus were unsuccessfully treated. This difference was not significant (P = .36).
Number of Needle Positions in Relation to Lesion Size
In six (8%) of 72 patients in the treatment success group, the number of needle positions was not recorded. Details about the number of needle positions in relation to lesion size and treatment failure are listed in Table 1. The majority of treatment failures (in 11 of 12 small lesions and in eight of 11 large lesions) were seen in the group treated with only one needle position. In the treatment failure group, the number of times only one needle position was used was more frequent than that in the treatment success group, and the difference was significant (P = .01). Multiple needle positions were more frequently used to treat large lesions, and the difference was significant (P = .01).
|
Inaccurate Procedures in Patients with Treatment Failure
In nine (39%) of 23 patients with treatment failure, problems with positioning of the needle were encountered. In eight of these nine patients, only one needle position was used. In the remaining patient, three needle positions were used. The mean coagulation time used in these nine patients was 5.67 minutes, and the mean diameter of the lesion was 9.56 mm. The problems can be subcategorized into two groups for these nine patients: access and visualization problems.
Two lesions in the pelvis were difficult to approach. One of these lesions (maximum diameter, 10 mm) was difficult to reach because of its location deep in the ischial bone (Fig 1). The other lesion, located in the acetabulum, was difficult to target because of its location close to the joint, and it was, in addition, a large lesion (maximum diameter, 25 mm). Two of nine patients had spine lesions. In these two patients with treatment failure in spine lesions (lumbar spine lesion [diameter, 10 mm] and cervical spine lesion [diameter, 9 mm]), the approach was difficult because of the proximity of nerve roots in these lesions that were located in the pedicles. The vertebral artery and facet joint were also close to the lesion located in the cervical spine (Fig 2).
|
|
|
The remaining four of nine patients had osteoid osteomas that were difficult to localize exactly. Sclerosis and postsurgical changes secondary to previous treatment prohibited unequivocal visualization of the nidus in a patient with treatment failure in a lesion (maximum diameter, 4 mm) in the femur. Retrospective analysis showed that the tip of the electrode was not placed in the lesion. Similar problems secondary to the presence of sclerosis and cysts were encountered in three patients who did not undergo previous treatment and who had lesions in the capitate bone (maximum diameter, 14 mm), the trapezoid bone (maximum diameter, 2 mm), and the femur (maximum diameter, 5 mm) (Fig 3).
|
Previously Treated Lesions
In three of 10 patients who were treated unsuccessfully in referring hospitals (nine with surgery and one with thermocoagulation), treatment failed after thermocoagulation at our institution. This failure rate of 30% is not significantly different (P = .70) from the failure rate of 24% (20 of 85 patients) in the group without previous treatment.
Logistic Regression Analysis
As described before, by using univariate analysis we found that age, number of needle positions, and time of coagulation correlated with treatment failure. However, interaction was found between number of needle positions and lesion size (P = .01), coagulation time and lesion size (P = .03), and number of needle positions and coagulation time (P < .01). The Spearman correlation coefficients used to describe these interactions were, respectively, 0.27, 0.23, and 0.76 (P < .01 [number of needle positions and lesion size], P = .03 [coagulation time and lesion size], and P < .001 [number of needle positions and coagulation time], respectively).
Therefore, size of the lesion was also included in the logistic regression model. Backward-stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to identify age and number of needle positions as factors associated with treatment failure (Table 2). Advanced age (mean age, 24 years in the treatment success group vs 20 years in the treatment failure group) was associated with a trend of decreasing risk for treatment failure (odds ratio = 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.88, 0.99). Similarly, if multiple needle positions during thermocoagulation were used, patients were less at risk for treatment failure (odds ratio = 0.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.02, 0.41). Patients with a lesion 10 mm or larger in diameter seemed more at risk for treatment failure (odds ratio = 2.68); however, the 95% confidence interval of 0.84 to 8.52 included the 1.00 value. Coagulation time was not an independent predictor of treatment failure. Concordance of the model was good, with observed outcome of 0.77.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In our study, inaccurate needle placement was found to be the cause for treatment failure in nine of 23 patients. Rosenthal et al (7) mention two patients in whom needle placement was an issue. In one patient, the transverse plane could not be used because of the size of the patient, and in the other patient, close proximity to the neurovascular bundle affected the procedure. We identified two equally important reasons for inaccurate needle placement: (a) difficult approach because of close relationship with vital structures, such as nerves, or because of deep location, such as in the pelvis, or (b) poor visualization of the nidus because of osseous abnormalities that may be secondary to earlier treatment.
A solution for the difficult approach is hard to identify, since improvement did not occur in the consecutive procedures performed in 95 patients who were included in this study. The use of dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to identify poorly visualized lesions prior to the CT-guided thermocoagulation may be a solution based on findings in some reports in the literature and our anecdotal experience (12,13). The use of MR imaging data during the CT-guided procedure may, however, pose a problem. The potential role of dynamic enhanced MR imaging in these situations needs to be addressed in larger patient cohorts. Alternatively, increasing the coagulated volume can be attractive, as described previously, when no vital structures are close to the lesion.
There is a correlation between treatment success and coagulation time. Coagulation time, however, is not an independent parameter in this study, with a recommended coagulation time of 4 minutes and a minimum of 2 minutes. The observed difference in coagulation time between the treatment failure and treatment success groups can be explained by the interaction between coagulation time and the number of needle positions (Spearman correlation, 0.76). The conclusion that increasing only the coagulation time is not effective in reducing treatment failure is supported by analysis of the coagulation process (12). It appears from our data and data reported in the literature, as well as from a theoretical perspective (14), that an effective coagulation time of 4 minutes per needle position is sufficient and a coagulation time of more than 6 minutes per needle position is probably not necessary (12). Rosenthal et al (7) described one patient in whom a short coagulation time of 1 minute was thought to have been the reason for failed treatment.
With the technique we used, a spherical zone of approximately 1 cm is coagulated (12). It appears that, even when the needle is positioned in the center of the lesion, this zone is insufficient in a minority of patients. The number of needle tip positions used per procedure, and thus the volume of coagulated tissue, was significantly smaller in the treatment failure group than it was in the treatment success group. The volume of the coagulated tissue can be increased safely by using multiple needle positions. We used a 5-mm large noninsulated tip. Increasing the size of the noninsulated tip or using a cooled tip to allow greater heat transmission as compared with that with a noncooled tip will result in a larger treatment zone (12). However, we do not advocate the use of a cooled tip. In regard to the findings of Dupuy et al (15), we also prefer to coagulate a small volume surrounding the needle tip because of safety considerations. Complications such as vaporization within the tissue, carbonization, and unintended injury to normal tissue have been described with use of cooled tips in experimental studies (16).
Young age is a risk factor for treatment failure that is difficult to explain. The practical consequence would be to be more generous in the number of needle positions in young patients.
There were limitations to this study. The size of the population, especially the total number of patients, especially those with treatment failure, is relatively small in relation to various parameters such as lesion location. As a consequence of our approach of allowing multiple needle positions depending on lesion size and location, not all parameters were fixed. We were, however, still able to determine the relationship between these parameters and the treatment failure risk. We did not include histologic confirmation of the diagnosis of osteoid osteoma in all cases, either because the diagnosis based on clinical and imaging findings could be established with confidence in typical cases or because the pathologist was not able to determine a histologic diagnosis because of insufficient biopsy material. Brodie abscess, especially, can be difficult to differentiate from osteoid osteoma in atypical cases. We believe that strict adherence to the combination of well-known clinical and imaging findings reduces this risk to an acceptable level, especially when the limits of histologic diagnosis are taken into consideration.
We conclude that multiple needle positions reduce the risk for treatment failure in lesions of all sizes. Multiple needle positions should especially be used for lesions of 10 mm or larger in diameter or for lesions with a nidus that is difficult to engage to more likely result in treatment success.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Authors stated no financial relationship to disclose.
Author contributions: Guarantors of integrity of entire study, all authors; study concepts and design, all authors; literature research, G.M.V., J.L.B.; clinical studies, A.H.M.T., W.R.O.; data acquisition, G.M.V., A.H.M.T., W.R.O., A.A.v.d.B.H.; data analysis/interpretation, G.M.V., A.H.M.T., W.R.O., A.A.v.d.B.H., J.L.B.; statistical analysis, G.M.V., A.A.v.d.B.H., J.L.B.; manuscript preparation and editing, G.M.V., A.A.v.d.B.H., J.L.B.; manuscript definition of intellectual content, revision/review, and final version approval, all authors
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. Peyser, Y. Applbaum, A. Khoury, M. Liebergall, and K. Atesok Osteoid Osteoma: CT-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation Using a Water-Cooled Probe Ann. Surg. Oncol., February 1, 2007; 14(2): 591 - 596. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Gangi, H. Alizadeh, L. Wong, X. Buy, J.-L. Dietemann, and C. Roy Osteoid Osteoma: Percutaneous Laser Ablation and Follow-up in 114 Patients Radiology, December 1, 2006; 242(1): 293 - 301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
