Osteoid osteoma of the foot : Presentation, treatment and outcome of a multicentre cohort.
Diagnosis
Foot tumour
Osteoid osteoma
Radiology
Symptoms
Journal
Wiener klinische Wochenschrift
ISSN: 1613-7671
Titre abrégé: Wien Klin Wochenschr
Pays: Austria
ID NLM: 21620870R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
27
08
2021
accepted:
05
10
2021
pubmed:
5
11
2021
medline:
24
6
2022
entrez:
4
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Osteoid osteomas of the foot are rare, with a varying and atypical clinical as well as radiological presentation impeding early diagnosis and treatment. The aim of the present multicentre study was to 1) analyze epidemiological, clinical and radiological findings of patients with foot osteoid osteomas and to 2) deduce a diagnostic algorithm based on the findings. A total of 37 patients (25 males, 67.6%, mean age 23.9 years, range 8-57 years) with osteoid osteomas of the foot were retrospectively included, treated between 2000 and 2014 at 6 participating tertiary tumor centres. Radiographic images were analyzed, as were patients' minor and major complaints, pain relief and recurrence. Most osteoid osteomas were located in the midfoot (n = 16) and hindfoot (n = 14). Painful lesions were present in all but one patient (97.3%). Symptom duration was similar for hindfoot and midfoot/forefoot (p = 0.331). Cortical lesions required fewer x‑rays for diagnosis than lesions at other sites (p = 0.026). A typical nidus could be detected in only 23/37 of x‑rays (62.2%), compared to 25/29 CT scans (86.2%) and 11/22 MRIs (50%). Aspirin test was positive in 18/20 patients (90%), 31 patients (83.8%) underwent open surgery. Pain relief was achieved in 34/36 patients (outcome unknown in one), whilst pain persisted in two patients with later confirmed recurrence. As previously reported, CT scans seem to be superior to MRIs towards detection of the typical nidus in foot osteoid osteomas. In patients with unclear pain of the foot and inconclusive x‑rays, osteoid osteoma should be considered as differential diagnosis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Osteoid osteomas of the foot are rare, with a varying and atypical clinical as well as radiological presentation impeding early diagnosis and treatment. The aim of the present multicentre study was to 1) analyze epidemiological, clinical and radiological findings of patients with foot osteoid osteomas and to 2) deduce a diagnostic algorithm based on the findings.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 37 patients (25 males, 67.6%, mean age 23.9 years, range 8-57 years) with osteoid osteomas of the foot were retrospectively included, treated between 2000 and 2014 at 6 participating tertiary tumor centres. Radiographic images were analyzed, as were patients' minor and major complaints, pain relief and recurrence.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Most osteoid osteomas were located in the midfoot (n = 16) and hindfoot (n = 14). Painful lesions were present in all but one patient (97.3%). Symptom duration was similar for hindfoot and midfoot/forefoot (p = 0.331). Cortical lesions required fewer x‑rays for diagnosis than lesions at other sites (p = 0.026). A typical nidus could be detected in only 23/37 of x‑rays (62.2%), compared to 25/29 CT scans (86.2%) and 11/22 MRIs (50%). Aspirin test was positive in 18/20 patients (90%), 31 patients (83.8%) underwent open surgery. Pain relief was achieved in 34/36 patients (outcome unknown in one), whilst pain persisted in two patients with later confirmed recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
As previously reported, CT scans seem to be superior to MRIs towards detection of the typical nidus in foot osteoid osteomas. In patients with unclear pain of the foot and inconclusive x‑rays, osteoid osteoma should be considered as differential diagnosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34735614
doi: 10.1007/s00508-021-01966-0
pii: 10.1007/s00508-021-01966-0
pmc: PMC9213275
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
434-441Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Int Orthop. 2001;25(2):119-22
pubmed: 11409450
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2014 May-Jun;53(3):282-5
pubmed: 24751209
BMC Cancer. 2018 Jul 13;18(1):735
pubmed: 30001718
Foot Ankle Surg. 2015 Dec;21(4):228-34
pubmed: 26564722
Eur Radiol. 2004 Apr;14(4):607-17
pubmed: 14663625
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Apr;46(4):1019-1036
pubmed: 30341641
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 May;198(5):1039-52
pubmed: 22528893
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998 Mar;170(3):609-14
pubmed: 9490939
Radiographics. 2010 May;30(3):737-49
pubmed: 20462991
Mod Pathol. 1998 Feb;11(2):175-80
pubmed: 9504688
Orthopade. 2021 Sep;50(9):689-699
pubmed: 33830283
Radiology. 1994 Apr;191(1):217-23
pubmed: 8134575
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001 Jun;12(6):717-22
pubmed: 11389223
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2014 Dec;43(12):552-6
pubmed: 25490009
Clin Radiol. 2003 Nov;58(11):845-52
pubmed: 14581007
J Pediatr Orthop. 2006 Sep-Oct;26(5):695-700
pubmed: 16932114
Eur J Radiol. 1998 May;27 Suppl 1:S91-7
pubmed: 9652508
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011 Feb;34(1):180-3
pubmed: 20668850
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jul;448:248-51
pubmed: 16826123
Pediatr Radiol. 2012 Dec;42(12):1490-501; quiz 1540-2
pubmed: 23089877
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2017 Nov;21(5):630-647
pubmed: 29025191
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2018 Jul - Aug;57(4):826-832
pubmed: 29503136
Biomed Res Int. 2019 May 15;2019:4376851
pubmed: 31223617