Intra- and juxta-articular Osteoid Osteoma in Children and Adolescents

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-651581/v1

Background

Osteoid osteoma (OO) is a common benign tumor in children and adolescents, but intra-and juxta-articular OO is rare and difficult to diagnose. The purpose of this study is to investigate the distinctions between intra- and juxta-articular OO, trying to avoid delaying diagnosis and optimize treatment strategies.

Methods

Thirty patients diagnosed with OO in the intra- and juxta joint at our institution who underwent surgical resection were included. Clinical and epidemiological factors, preoperative radiograph parameters, including CT, MRI, and bone scan, were documented. The outcomes of the involved extremity were evaluated at the final follow-up.

Results

Mean age at diagnosis, interval time, and follow-up time was 8.37 ± 3.79 years old, 4.67 ± 5.88 months, 3.57 ± 2.18 years, respectively. Factors identified to be significantly associated with intra- and juxta-articular OO including pain with activity (p=0.004) and abnormal range of motion (p=0.00). The factor of abnormal range of motion (p=0.03) also influenced the existence of complications. Four children had a secondary operation to cure the recurrence.

Conclusion

It is essential for clinicians and radiologists to be aware of the atypical clinical and radiographic features of intra- and juxta-articular OO, as the delayed diagnosis can lead to unnecessary pain and further complications after surgeries. The pain with activity and abnormal range of motion is helpful to identify the location of OO. The persistently abnormal range of motion also significantly leads to complications. The open surgeries to resect the nidus in juxta-articular OO were effective.

Level of Evidence: Level IV-retrospective case series 

Orthopedic Surgery

Osteoid osteoma

intra-articular

delayed diagnosis

adolescent

Osteoid osteoma (OO) is a relatively common benign tumor in children and adolescents, and the lesion is about two times more common in boys [1, 2]. Most OO occur preferentially in the metaphyseal or diaphyseal region of the long bone but have also been reported in almost every bone. Intra- and juxta-articular lesions are less common and have primarily only been included in case reports [3, 4], with the most common manifestations being in the hip joint [5, 6]. In contrast, there are numerous studies on diaphysis OO with large case numbers [7, 8]. The clinical manifestations are most reported having the night pain alleviated with NASIDs [9]. Conventional radiographs, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and technetium-99m bone scans are also necessary to correct diagnosis. Once diagnosed, the techniques reported having high success rates are percutaneous CT-guided radiofrequency ablation, CT-guided percutaneous excision, open or arthroscopic excision, and laser ablation [10–15].

Missing or delayed diagnosis may arise when atypical pain in connection with unusual radiological imaging modalities [16, 17]. Especially, juxta- and intra-articular OO may resemble more common entities such as the joint's traumatic or soft tissue pathologies. With the advance of radiological techniques, the detective abilities of OO are significantly improved. However, few studies have investigated the presentation and treatment of OO about the difference between intra- and juxta-articular, which may frequently be mistaken for alternative articular pathologies. The purpose of this study is to investigate the distinctions of the clinical presentation, imaging, diagnosis, and treatment between intra- and juxta-articular OO, with an emphasis on avoiding delaying of diagnosis and optimizing treatment strategies.

After the institution's Ethics Committee approval, a retrospective review was performed in all patients diagnosed with OO within or around joints from January 2008 to May 2019. Medical history was recorded, the inclusion criteria were: 1) a diagnosis of OO was confirmed involving the intra- and juxta-articular; 2) the follow-up time was longer than 24 months. The exclusion criteria were

the location of OO was on diaphysis,

insufficient radiographic or clinical/pathology records,

the follow-up time was less than 24 months.

Demographic and clinical data were collected. The time between complaints and diagnosis, the physical examination, the outcomes and complications, and the radiological finding were recorded.

The protocol of patients with pain of limbs in our center was as following:

Physical examination was performed in connection with complaints.

An X-ray was taken to evaluate if the obvious nidus existed (including cortical thickening, sclerosis, and a radiolucent nidus).

CT/MRI and bone scan were needed when the radiograph positive; otherwise, resting and regular review.

Surgeries were performed.

The OO was confirmed pathologically. The conception of juxta-articular was around capsular within metaphysis. The surgeries were all open excision. The interval time was the length from the first visit to diagnosis.

An Independent sample Student t-test was used to compare the continuous variables that fit the normal distribution between the two groups. The Mann-Whitney U test is used for variables that are not normally distributed. Chi-square analysis and Fisher's exact test were used to compare categorical and bivariate variables. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant for all statistical tests. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 19.0 (IBM, America).

Thirty children and adolescents, 27 (90%) males and 3 (10%) females, were included and confirmed by pathological histology. The mean age at diagnosis was 8.37 ± 3.79 years old, ranging from 2.3 to 15. The mean interval time was 4.67 ± 5.88 months, ranging from 0 to 24 months. The mean follow-up time was 3.57 ± 2.18 years (range, 1–10 years). (Table 1) The location of OO was shown in figure 1. The most prominent complaints were pain, including night pain (60%), pain with activities (46.67%). Limping (76.67%) and abnormal range of motion of joint (53.33%) was also conspicuous (Figure.1).

On radiological data, all patients had X-ray, CT, and MRI. The cortical thickening and typical nidus were visible only in 12 (40%) patients on X-ray, 26 (86.67%) patients with a diagnostic lesion on CT for one time, 3 (10%) patients for two times, and 1 (3.33%) patient for three times to identify the disease. MRI was performed to observe the lesion, retinacular thickening, synovitis, and effusion. 2 (6.67%) patients even had MRI two times to find the lesion. In the 27 (90%) bone scans available for review, 24 (88.89%) were having an increased radiotracer uptake.

The initial diagnosis was based on the radiological data and clinical manifestation in 15 (50%) patients. The others were identified with an average delayed time of 6 months. However, no obvious factors were related to the alternative or delayed diagnosis. Factors identified on analysis to be significantly associated with intra- and juxta-articular OO, including pain with activity (p=0.004) and abnormal range of motion (p=0.00). Noticeably, the factor of abnormal range of motion (p=0.03) also influenced the existence of complications, including multiple surgeries, relapse, coxa vara, and limited range of motion (Table 2).

Four of the children (13.33%), both intra-articular lesions, underwent surgical resection after a diagnosis of OO, but they developed limb pain again on average 1-year later, and further examination suggested recurrence of OO. Therefore, the second operation was warranted to remove the lesion again. Fortunately, no one needed the third operation.

Jaffe introduced OO on 5 cases of benign bone tumor in 1935[18]. Approximately one out of ten cases of OO are intra- or juxta-articular [4]. It is not difficult to recognize the regular lesion based on the characteristic clinical, radiological and histological pictures. However, it is still a challenge if the position is located in the joint capsules, which may produce a variety of nonspecific manifestations and confusing radiological features [5].

OO occurs predominantly in the appendicular skeleton. According to the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society staging system, the lesion was classified as cortical, cancellous, and subperiosteal [19, 20]. The hip was the most commonly affected joint, accounting for 28%-40% of all cases [21]. In our study, lesions were seen in most of the functional joints, with the hip being the most prominent (63.33%). The tricking point of intra- and juxta-articular lesions lies in their insidious clinical manifestations, which leads to delayed diagnosis and thus makes the children's pain unable to be resolved. It was worth noticing that the physis lesions can cause limb length discrepancy with potential coronal and/or sagittal malalignment

Pain is the most common symptom, even the lesion involved joints[22]. The clinical manifestation can be subtle, such as the patient can present with referred pain in the knee if the lesion is involved in the hip. Synovitis is another feature when the articular lesion continues to progress. Joint pain, flexion contracture, decreased range of motion, and a limp or antalgic gait can also be seen in these patients[23]. In the present study, most patients presented with pain as the primary symptom, although the location was variable and influenced by status. However, loss of function took the form of decreased range of motion of the affected joint, including a limp, abnormal range of motion, and uncomfortable when playing. Pain with activity and abnormal range of motion was significantly different between intra- and juxta-articular patients. This may attribute to the constant friction on the intra-articular lesion. More severe synovitis can cause more pronounced pain; other than that, long-standing inflammation may damage the cartilage on the joint surface[7, 23]. From that, consistently abnormal range of motion also obviously influenced the complications. Therefore, we suggest that in the case of suspected intra-articular cases, the relevant examinations should be actively improved to avoid permanent damage to the intra-articular structures

Plain radiography is warranted when children are complaining of pain or limited range of motion. The manifestation is different from the traditional cortical lesion, and the surrounding reactive sclerosis can be minimal or absent in intra- and juxta-articular OO[24]. The nidus is not visualized on plain films, but additional findings such as loss of function often remind the physician to take further imaging workup. The sensitivity of Technetium-99-labeled bone scintigraphy is 100% for confirming the diagnosis of OO[25]. So, if the bone scan imaging is positive, limited-field, thin-cut CT scans should be the next imaging modality for more precise localization. CT is the modality of choice for diagnosis and specifying the location of the lesion. In the present study, all patients had CT scans, but not all patients had the classical image of the nidus, so multiple CTs was performed. The reasons why we must do CT are as follows: 1. CT can help us locate the lesion accurately and facilitate subsequent surgical operations; 2. 2. CT can exclude other diseases with similar clinical manifestations, such as synovitis, bone tuberculosis, infection, etc. MRI is also a reliable method of visualizing the nidus since it is more sensitive to detecting reactive changes in soft tissue. Germann et al[26] claimed that MRI was excellently suited for diagnosing intra- and extra-articular OO because the joint effusion and synovitis were distinguished between the intra- and extra-articular. However, it was not easy to separate the soft tissue edema and synovitis from intra- and juxta-articular OO.

Although non-operative treatment can be considered as an option since some patients might heal spontaneously[27], in our center, all patients underwent surgical resection since symptoms persisted, even with NSAIDs. Moreover, in children with growth potential, the continued presence of these tumors can lead to undesired complications, such as limb length discrepancies or osteoarthritis. In this study, four patients (13.33%) had performed secondary surgeries (Fig. 2). The reasons were as following: 1) the resection was incomplete; 2) The location of the lesion was inaccurate during the operation; More physicians proposed to perform excision for intra-articular locations of the tumor [24, 28–31]. Over the years, CT-guided techniques, including trephine excision, cryoablation, radiofrequency ablation, and laser thermocoagulation, were reported to be a successful and low risk [32–35]. However, although this procedure is minimally invasive, it entails some problems, such as it is difficult to obtain an intraoperative tumor specimen, which is still a gold stand for definitive diagnosis of OO on histological examination[36].

Although intra- and juxta-articular OO has atypical clinical and radiographic features, clinicians should keep in mind the possibility of this disorder and conduct a further examination, as the delayed diagnosis can lead to unnecessary pain and psychological disorders in children. It is crucial to identify the location of OO when children have pain with activity and abnormal range of motion. The persistently abnormal range of motion also significantly leads to complications. The open surgeries to resect the nidus in juxta-articular OO were effective, less invasive arthroscopic surgery for achieving an early return to athletic activity might be more suitable for the intra-articular lesion.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Our study was approved by The Ethics Committee approval of Children’s hospital of fudan university, shanghai. China

Consent for publication

All volunteers agreed to participate in research and consent for publication.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

The project is sponsored by Shanghai Shenkang Clinical Research Cultivation Project (2019). NO. SHDC12019X28

Authors’ contributions

Zhiqiang Zhang and Xiaoyan Ni made substantial contributions to the conception, reviewed the case, collected the data, carried out the initial analyses, and drafted the initial manuscript. Ping Xu collected the data, and performed the surgeries. Bo Ning performed the surgeries. Dahui Wang coordinated and supervised data collection, and critically reviewed the revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Conflict of Interest of Statement

Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Healey JH, Ghelman B. Osteoid osteoma and osteoblastoma. Current concepts and recent advances. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 1986(204):76–85.
Peyser A, Applbaum Y, Simanovsky N, Safran O, Lamdan R. CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of pediatric osteoid osteoma utilizing a water-cooled tip. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(10):2856–61.
Gaeta M, Minutoli F, Pandolfo I, Vinci S, D'Andrea L, Blandino A. Magnetic resonance imaging findings of osteoid osteoma of the proximal femur. European radiology. 2004;14(9):1582–9.
Franceschi F, Marinozzi A, Papalia R, Longo UG, Gualdi G, Denaro E. Intra- and juxta-articular osteoid osteoma: a diagnostic challenge: misdiagnosis and successful treatment: a report of four cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2006;126(10):660–7.
May CJ, Bixby SD, Anderson ME, Kim YJ, Yen YM, Millis MB, Heyworth BE. Osteoid Osteoma About the Hip in Children and Adolescents. The Journal of bone joint surgery American volume. 2019;101(6):486–93.
Cohen MD, Harrington TM, Ginsburg WW. Osteoid osteoma: 95 cases and a review of the literature. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1983;12(3):265–81.
Boscainos PJ, Cousins GR, Kulshreshtha R, Oliver TB, Papagelopoulos PJ. Osteoid osteoma. Orthopedics. 2013;36(10):792–800.
Iyer RS, Chapman T, Chew FS. Pediatric bone imaging: diagnostic imaging of osteoid osteoma. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2012;198(5):1039–52.
Bottner F, Roedl R, Wortler K, Grethen C, Winkelmann W, Lindner N. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor for pain management in osteoid osteoma. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 2001(393):258–263.
Hoffmann RT, Jakobs TF, Kubisch CH, Trumm CG, Weber C, Duerr HR, Helmberger TK, Reiser MF. Radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of osteoid osteoma-5-year experience. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73(2):374–9.
Lindner NJ, Ozaki T, Roedl R, Gosheger G, Winkelmann W, Wörtler K. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation in osteoid osteoma. The Journal of bone joint surgery British volume. 2001;83(3):391–6.
Mylona S, Patsoura S, Galani P, Karapostolakis G, Pomoni A, Thanos L. Osteoid osteomas in common and in technically challenging locations treated with computed tomography-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation. Skeletal radiology. 2010;39(5):443–9.
Peyser A, Applbaum Y, Khoury A, Liebergall M, Atesok K. Osteoid osteoma: CT-guided radiofrequency ablation using a water-cooled probe. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(2):591–6.
Fenichel I, Garniack A, Morag B, Palti R, Salai M. Percutaneous CT-guided curettage of osteoid osteoma with histological confirmation: a retrospective study and review of the literature. International orthopaedics. 2006;30(2):139–42.
Roqueplan F, Porcher R, Hamzé B, Bousson V, Zouari L, Younan T, Parlier-Cuau C, Laredo JD. Long-term results of percutaneous resection and interstitial laser ablation of osteoid osteomas. European radiology. 2010;20(1):209–17.
Joyce MJ, Mankin HJ. Caveat arthroscopos: extra-articular lesions of bone simulating intra-articular pathology of the knee. The Journal of bone joint surgery American volume. 1983;65(3):289–92.
Roberts P, Davies AM, Starkie CM, Grimer RJ. The nidus of an osteoid osteoma mimicking an os supratrochleare dorsale. Br J Radiol. 1990;63(755):899–902.
JAFFE HL. OSTEOID-OSTEOMA: A BENIGN OSTEOBLASTIC TUMOR COMPOSED OF OSTEOID AND ATYPICAL BONE. Arch Surg. 1935;31(5):709–28.
Kitsoulis P, Mantellos G, Vlychou M. Osteoid osteoma. Acta orthopaedica Belgica. 2006;72(2):119–25.
Noordin S, Allana S, Hilal K, Nadeem N, Lakdawala R, Sadruddin A, Uddin N. Osteoid osteoma: Contemporary management. Orthop Rev. 2018;10(3):7496.
Campanacci M, Ruggieri P, Gasbarrini A, Ferraro A, Campanacci L. Osteoid osteoma. Direct visual identification and intralesional excision of the nidus with minimal removal of bone. The Journal of bone joint surgery British volume. 1999;81(5):814–20.
Bauer TW, Zehr RJ, Belhobek GH, Marks KE. Juxta-articular osteoid osteoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991;15(4):381–7.
Song MH, Yoo WJ, Cho TJ, Chung CY, Park MS, Cheon JE, Choi IH. Clinical and radiological features and skeletal sequelae in childhood intra-/juxta-articular versus extra-articular osteoid osteoma. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(1):3.
Ge SM, Marwan Y, Abduljabbar FH, Morelli M, Turcotte RE. Arthroscopic management of intra- and juxta-articular osteoid osteoma of the upper extremity: a systematic review of the literature. European journal of orthopaedic surgery traumatology: orthopedie traumatologie. 2020;30(8):1333–44.
Wells RG, Miller JH, Sty JR. Scintigraphic patterns in osteoid osteoma and spondylolysis. Clinical nuclear medicine. 1987;12(1):39–44.
Germann T, Weber MA, Lehner B, Kintzele L, Burkholder I, Kauczor HU, Rehnitz C: Intraarticular Osteoid Osteoma: MRI Characteristics and Clinical Presentation Before and After Radiofrequency Ablation Compared to Extraarticular Osteoid Osteoma. RoFo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 2020, 192(12):1190–1199.
Moberg E. The natural course of osteoid osteoma. The Journal of bone joint surgery American volume. 1951;33(a(1):166–70.
Ramaswamy AG, Kumaraswamy V, Patil N, Pattanshetti V. Arthroscopic Excision of Osteoid Osteoma of the Femoral Neck. Indian journal of orthopaedics. 2018;52(5):568–71.
Kamrani RS, Moradi A, Sharafat Vaziri A, Nabian MH, Ghane B: Arthroscopic ablation of an osteoid osteoma of the elbow: a case series with a minimum of 18 months' follow-up. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 2017, 26(5):e122-e127.
Ge SM, Marwan Y, Addar A, Algarni N, Chaytor R, Turcotte RE. Arthroscopic Management of Osteoid Osteoma of the Ankle Joint: A Systematic Review of the Literature. The Journal of foot ankle surgery: official publication of the American College of Foot Ankle Surgeons. 2019;58(3):550–4.
Stražar K, Slodnjak I, Zupanc O, Drobnič M. Arthroscopic removal of osteoid osteoma with gamma probe assistance in the hip joint. Hip international: the journal of clinical experimental research on hip pathology therapy. 2019;29(3):328–35.
Esteban Cuesta H, Martel Villagran J, Bueno Horcajadas A, Kassarjian A, Rodriguez Caravaca G. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation in osteoid osteoma: Tips and tricks in special scenarios. Eur J Radiol. 2018;102:169–75.
Parlier-Cuau C, Champsaur P, Nizard R, Hamze B, Laredo JD. Percutaneous removal of osteoid osteoma. Radiologic clinics of North America. 1998;36(3):559–66.
Tomasian A, Cazzato RL, Auloge P, Garnon J, Gangi A, Jennings JW: Osteoid osteoma in older adults: clinical success rate of percutaneous image-guided thermal ablation. Clinical radiology 2020, 75(9):713.e711-713.e716.
Santiago E, Pauly V, Brun G, Guenoun D, Champsaur P, Le Corroller T. Percutaneous cryoablation for the treatment of osteoid osteoma in the adult population. European radiology. 2018;28(6):2336–44.
Daniilidis K, Martinelli N, Gosheger G, Hoell S, Henrichs M, Vogt B, Hardes J, Vieth V. Percutaneous CT-guided radio-frequency ablation of osteoid osteoma of the foot and ankle. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(12):1707–10.

Table 1 Demographic, Clinical Characteristics and radiological data

Characteristic
Sex (male/female)	9:1
Age at diagnosis (year)	8.37 ± 3.79
Interval time (month)	4.67 ± 5.88
Follow-up time (year)	3.57 ± 2.18
X-ray (n)	30 (100%)
CT (n) 1 time 2 times 3 times	26 (86.67%) 3 (10%) 1(3.33%)
MRI (n) 0 1 time 2 times	6 (20%) 22 (73.33%) 2 (6.67%)
Bone scan (n)	27 (90%)
Complications (n) Secondary surgeries Coxa vara	6 (20%) 1 (3.33%)

Table 2 Comparison of factors between several groups

	Total	Intra-articular	Juxta-articular	p	Complica-tions	no complications	p	Delayed diagnosis	No delay	p
Patients(n)	30	17	13	-	7	23		15	15	-
Sex(n)	30			0.56			1			1
male	27	16	11		6	21		14	13
female	3	1	2		1	2		1	2
Age(year)	8.37±3.8	8.29±3.95	8.47±3.73	0.9	10.21±4.18	7.8±3.57	0.144	7.57±3.74	9.17±3.8	0.255
delayed time(month)	2.5 (0-9.25)	3 (0-6)	0 (0-12)	0.9	6 (0-10)	2 (0-9)	0.47	6 (3-12)	0 (0-0)	0
Pain at night(n)	30			1			1			0.06
yes	18	10	8		4	14		12	6
no	12	7	5		3	9		3	9
Pain with activity(n)	30			0.004			0.66			0.27
yes	14	12	2		4	10		9	5
no	16	5	11		3	13		6	10
Abnormal range of motion(n)	30			0			0.03			0.25
yes	16	15	1		5	11		10	6
no	14	2	12		2	12		5	9
NSAID(n)	30			1			1			0.22
Yes	3	2	1		0	3		3	0
no	27	15	12		7	20		12	15
Delayed diagnosis(n)	30			0.14			0.39	NA
yes	15	11	4		5	10
no	15	6	9		2	13
Complications(n)	30			0.1	NA					0.39
yes	7	6	1					5	2
no	23	11	12					10	13
Articular(n)	30	NA					0.1			0.14
yes	17				6	11		11	6
no	13				1	12		4	9
Size of tumor (CT)(mm³)	252 (200-420)	294 (200-441)	245 (175-370)	0.385	240 (175-300)	294 (200-441)	0.44	225 (175-324)	315 (200-600)	0.16

Intra- and juxta-articular Osteoid Osteoma in Children and Adolescents

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Tables

Status:

Version 1