Effects of graft types used after curettage in benign bone tumors on postoperative complications and functional results

Objective: The aim of the study conducted by us is to determine the advantages and weaknesses of allograft and tricalcium phosphate graft options used after curettage in benign bone tumors by comparing their effects on postoperative complications and functional results. In this study, two graft types were compared with appropriate statistical methods using functional and radiological scoring and radiological measurement methods that are widely used and valid in the literature. Materials and Methods: Postoperative mid and long term results of 88 patients who were operated on for benign bone tumors at Manisa Celal Bayar University Hafsa Sultan Hospital Orthopedics and Traumatology clinic were recorded and compared. Patients who were followed for a minimum of one year were included in our study. During the postoperative follow-up of the patients, their MSTS functional scores, NEER/COLE radiological improvement degrees were calculated at their last admission, and their complications were recorded. Results: Of the 88 patients in our study, 50 received allograft and 38 received tricalcium phosphate. The development of complications in both graft types is similar and no statistically significant difference was found (p: 0.936). The development of recurrence in both graft types is similar and no statistically significant difference was found (p: 0.740). The development of hypertrophic scar and keloid in both graft types is similar and no statistically significant difference was found (p: 0.899). The development of infection is similar in both types of grafts, and no statistically significant difference was found (p: 0.648). The development of other complications is similar in the use of both types of grafts, and no statistically significant difference was found (p: 0.576). The results of the NEER/COLE radiological healing classification were similar in both graft types and no statistically significant difference was found (p: 0.579). MSTS functional score results were similar in both graft types, but no statistically significant difference was found (p: 0.811). Conclusion: The use of tricalcium phosphate is a newer method than the use of allograft. İn our study, it was determined that the radiological, functional results and complication rates of both groups were similar and that the use of tricalcium phosphate was an alternative graft option. The number of studies comparing the use of tricalcium phosphate and allograft is not sufficient. More comprehensive and numerous studies are needed both in our country and in the world.