Bone and soft tissue tumor ablation has reached widespread acceptance in the locoregional treatment of various benign and malignant musculoskeletal (MSK) lesions. Many principles of ablation learned elsewhere in the body are easily adapted to the MSK system, particularly the various technical aspects of probe/antenna design, tumoricidal effects, selection of image guidance, and methods to reduce complications. Despite the common use of thermal and chemical ablation procedures in bone and soft tissues, there are few large clinical series that show longitudinal benefit and cost-effectiveness compared with conventional methods, namely, surgery, external beam radiation, and chemotherapy. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteomas has been evaluated the most and is considered a first-line treatment choice for many lesions. Palliation of painful metastatic bone disease with thermal ablation is considered safe and has been shown to reduce pain and analgesic use while improving quality of life for cancer patients. Procedure-related complications are rare and are typically easily managed. Similar to all interventional procedures, bone and soft tissue lesions require an integrated approach to disease management to determine the optimum type of and timing for ablation techniques within the context of the patient care plan.

Background Early adverse tissue reactions around metalon-metal (MoM) hip replacements, especially pseudotumors, are a major concern. Because the causes and pathomechanisms of these pseudotumors remain largely unknown, clinical monitoring of patients with MoM bearings is challenging. Questions/purposes The purpose of this study was to compare the lymphocyte subpopulations in peripheral blood from patients with a failed MoM hip implant with and without a pseudotumor and patients with a well-functioning MoM hip implant without a pseudotumor. Potential differences in the systemic immune response are expected to reflect local differences in the periprosthetic tissues. Methods Consenting patients who underwent a revision of a failed MoM hip implant at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH) from 2011 to 2014, or presented with a well-functioning MoM hip implant for a postoperative clinical followup at TOH from 2012 to 2013, were recruited for this study, unless they met any of the exclusion criteria (including diagnosed conditions that can affect peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations). Patients with a failed implant were divided into two groups: those with a pseudotumor (two hip resurfacings and five total hip arthroplasties

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract