Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 139, Issue 12, pp 1659–1666 | Cite as

Surgical treatment of low-grade chondrosarcoma involving the appendicular skeleton: long-term functional and oncological outcomes

  • Shai S. Shemesh
  • Juan Pretell-MazziniEmail author
  • Patrici a J. Quartin
  • Tal Frenkel Rutenberg
  • Sheila A. Conway
Orthopaedic Surgery



The traditional treatment for chondrosarcoma is wide local excision (WLE), as these tumors are resistant to chemotherapy and radiation treatment. While achieving negative margins has traditionally been the goal of chondrosarcoma resection, multiple studies have demonstrated good short-term results after intralesional procedures for low-grade chondrosarcomas (LGCS) with curettage and adjuvant treatments (phenol application, cauterization or cryotherapy) followed by either cementation or bone grafting. Due to the rarity of this diagnosis and the recent application of this surgical treatment modality to chondrosarcoma, most of the information regarding treatment outcomes is retrospective, with short or intermediate-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term results of patients with LGCS of bone treated with intralesional curettage (IC) treatment versus WLE. This retrospective analysis aims to characterize the oncologic outcomes (local recurrence, metastases) and functional outcomes in these two treatment groups at a single institution.


Using an institutional musculoskeletal oncologic database, we retrospectively reviewed medical records of all patients with LGCS of the appendicular skeleton that underwent surgical treatment between 1985 and 2007. Thirty-two patients (33 tumors) were identified with LGCS; 17 treated with IC and 15 with WLE.


Seventeen patients (18 tumors) with a minimum clinical and radiologic follow-up of 10 years were included. Nine patients were treated with IC (four with no adjuvant, three with additional phenol, one with liquid nitrogen and one with H2O2) with either bone graft or cement augmentation, and nine others were treated with WLE and reconstruction with intercalary/osteoarticular allograft or megaprosthesis. The mean age at surgery was 41 years (range 14–66 years) with no difference (p = 0.51) between treatment cohorts. There was a mean follow-up of 13.5 years in the intralesional cohort (range 10–19 years) and 15.9 years in the WLE cohort (range 10–28 years, p = 0.36). Tumor size varied significantly between groups and was larger in patients treated with WLE (8.2 ± 3.1 cm versus 5.4 ± 1.2 cm, at the greatest dimension, p = 0.021). There were two local recurrences (LR), one in the intralesional group and one in the wide local excision group, occurring at 3.5 months and 2.9 years, respectively, and both required revision. No further LR could be detected with long-term follow-up. The MSTS score at final follow-up was significantly higher for patients managed with intralesional procedures (28.7 ± 1.7 versus 25.7 ± 3.4, p = 0.033). There were less complications requiring reoperation in the intralesional group compared with the wide local excision group, although this difference was not found to be statistically significant (one versus four patients, respectively; p = 0.3).


This series of low-grade chondrosarcoma, surgically treated with an intralesional procedures, with 10-year follow-up, demonstrates excellent local control (88.9%). Complications were infrequent and minor and MSTS functional scores were excellent. Wide resection of LGCS was associated with lower MSTS score and more complications. In our series, the LR in both groups were detected within the first 3.5 years following the index procedure, and none were detected in the late surveillance period.


Chondrosarcoma Low grade Intralesional treatment Wide local excision 


Author contributions

All authors have demonstrated (1) substantial contributions to research design, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; (2) drafting the paper or revising it critically; (3) approval of the submitted and final versions.


There is no funding source.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent



  1. 1.
    Leerapun T, Hugate RR, Inwards CY, Scully SP, Sim FH (2007) Surgical management of conventional grade I chondrosarcoma of long bones. Clin Orthop Relat Res 463:166–172. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mohler DG, Chiu R, McCall DA, Avedian RS (2010) Curettage and cryosurgery for low-grade cartilage tumors is associated with low recurrence and high function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2765–2773. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hickey M, Farrokhyar F, Deheshi B, Turcotte R, Ghert M (2011) A systematic review and meta-analysis of intralesional versus wide resection for intramedullary grade I chondrosarcoma of the extremities. Ann Surg Oncol 18:1705–1709. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans HL, Ayala AG, Romsdahl MM (1977) Prognostic factors in chondrosarcoma of bone: a clinicopathologic analysis with emphasis on histologic grading. Cancer 40:818–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mirra JM, Gold R, Downs J, Eckardt JJ (1985) A new histologic approach to the differentiation of enchondroma and chondrosarcoma of the bones. A clinicopathologic analysis of 51 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 214–237Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rozeman LB, Hogendoorn PCW, Bovee JVMG (2002) Diagnosis and prognosis of chondrosarcoma of bone. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2:461–472. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Welkerling H, Kratz S, Ewerbeck V, Delling G (2003) A reproducible and simple grading system for classical chondrosarcomas. Analysis of 35 chondrosarcomas and 16 enchondromas with emphasis on recurrence rate and radiological and clinical data. Virchows Arch 443:725–733. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mermerkaya MU, Bekmez S, Karaaslan F, Danisman M, Kosemehmetoglu K, Gedikoglu G et al (2014) Intralesional curettage and cementation for low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones: retrospective study and literature review. World J Surg Oncol 12:336. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Skeletal Lesions Interobserver Correlation among Expert Diagnosticians Study (2007) Reliability of histopathologic and radiologic grading of cartilaginous neoplasms in long bones. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:2113–2123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verdegaal SHM, Brouwers HFG, van Zwet EW, Hogendoorn PCW, Taminiau AHM (2012) Low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones treated with intralesional curettage followed by application of phenol, ethanol, and bone-grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:1201–1207. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Errani C, Tsukamoto S, Ciani G, Akahane M, Cevolani L, Tanzi P et al (2017) Risk factors for local recurrence from atypical cartilaginous tumour and enchondroma of the long bones. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 27:805–811. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Di Giorgio L, Touloupakis G, Vitullo F, Sodano L, Mastantuono M, Villani C (2011) Intralesional curettage, with phenol and cement as adjuvants, for low-grade intramedullary chondrosarcoma of the long bones. Acta Orthop Belg 77:666–669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meftah M, Schult P, Henshaw RM (2013) Long-term results of intralesional curettage and cryosurgery for treatment of low-grade chondrosarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:1358–1364. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen X, Yu LJ, Peng HM, Jiang C, Ye CH, Zhu SB et al (2017) Is intralesional resection suitable for central grade 1 chondrosarcoma: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:1718–1726. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hanna SA, Whittingham-Jones P, Sewell MD, Pollock RC, Skinner JA, Saifuddin A et al (2009) Outcome of intralesional curettage for low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:1343–1347. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Campanacci DA, Scoccianti G, Franchi A, Roselli G, Beltrami G, Ippolito M et al (2013) Surgical treatment of central grade 1 chondrosarcoma of the appendicular skeleton. J Orthop Traumatol 14:101–107. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dierselhuis EF, Gerbers JG, Ploegmakers JJW, Stevens M, Suurmeijer AJH, Jutte PC (2016) Local treatment with adjuvant therapy for central atypical cartilaginous tumors in the long bones: analysis of outcome and complications in one hundred and eight patients with a minimum follow-up of two years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:303–313. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schreuder HW, Pruszczynski M, Veth RP, Lemmens JA (1998) Treatment of benign and low-grade malignant intramedullary chondroid tumours with curettage and cryosurgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 24:120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Souna BS, Belot N, Duval H, Langlais F, Thomazeau H (2010) No recurrences in selected patients after curettage with cryotherapy for grade I chondrosarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:1956–1962. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shemesh SS, Acevedo-Nieves JD, Pretell-Mazzini J (2018) Treatment strategies for central low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Musculoskelet Surg 102:95–109. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bauer HC, Brosjo O, Kreicbergs A, Lindholm J (1995) Low risk of recurrence of enchondroma and low-grade chondrosarcoma in extremities. 80 patients followed for 2–25 years. Acta Orthop Scand 66:283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gunay C, Atalar H, Hapa O, Basarir K, Yildiz Y, Saglik Y (2013) Surgical management of grade I chondrosarcoma of the long bones. Acta Orthop Belg 79:331–337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim W, Han I, Kim EJ, Kang S, Kim H-S (2015) Outcomes of curettage and anhydrous alcohol adjuvant for low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bone. Surg Oncol 24:89–94. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR, Fedenko AN, Learch T (2006) Influence of cryosurgery on treatment outcome of low-grade chondrosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 451:201–207. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aarons C, Potter BK, Adams SC, Pitcher JDJ, Temple HT (2009) Extended intralesional treatment versus resection of low-grade chondrosarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2105–2111. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murphey MD, Flemming DJ, Boyea SR, Bojescul JA, Sweet DE, Temple HT (1998) Enchondroma versus chondrosarcoma in the appendicular skeleton: differentiating features. Radiographics 18:1213–1215. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Group ESESNW (2014) Bone sarcomas: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 25(Suppl 3):iii113– iii 23Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Czerniak B. Dorfman, Czerniak S (2015) Bone tumors E-book. Elsevier Health SciencesGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gerrand C, Athanasou N, Brennan B, Grimer R, Judson I, Morland B et al (2016) UK guidelines for the management of bone sarcomas. Clin Sarcoma Res 6:7. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schwab JH, Wenger D, Unni K, Sim FH (2007) Does local recurrence impact survival in low-grade chondrosarcoma of the long bones? Clin Orthop Relat Res 462:175–180. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Donati D, Colangeli S, Colangeli M, Di Bella C, Bertoni F (2010) Surgical treatment of grade I central chondrosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:581–589. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rabin Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel-Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Musculoskeletal Oncology DivisionUniversity of Miami-Miller School of MedicineMiamiUSA
  3. 3.Miami Cancer InstituteBaptist Hospital of MiamiMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations