Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2026
Modeling Primary Bone Tumors and Bone Metastasis with Solid Tumor Graft Implantation into Bone
Published on: September 9, 2020
Treatment and outcome of parosteal osteosarcoma: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction
Philipp T Funovics1, Frederik Bucher, Cyril D Toma
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria. philipp.funovics@meduniwien.ac.at
Background And Objectives:
Due to its good prognosis despite local recurrence, more and less invasive methods for surgical treatment of parosteal osteosarcoma (POS) have been described. Aim of this retrospective single-center study was to investigate differences in outcome after biological and prosthetic reconstruction.
Methods:
A total of 28 patients with POS, 14 females, 14 males, mean age of 27 years (median, 24 years; range 15-59 years), mean follow-up of 130 months (median, 104 months; range, 9-383 months), underwent wide tumor resection and prosthetic reconstruction (12 patients, 42.9%), less extensive resection and biological reconstruction (11 patients, 39.3%), rotationplasty (three patients, 10.7%), or amputation (two patients, 7.1%).
Results:
There were two cases of local recurrence in patients with biological reconstruction and three cases of pulmonary metastases, leading to death of disease in two. Ten-year disease-specific survival was 91.1%. There was no significant difference between prosthetic and biological reconstruction in terms of local recurrence, metastasis, or functional outcome (mean MSTS Score, 85%). There were significantly more revisions in prosthetic reconstructions.
Conclusions:
Given that the resection of the tumor has clear margins, both prosthetic and biological reconstruction show similar results; prostheses allow better local tumor control, however, require more revisions over time.
