Percutaneous Curettage and Suction for Pediatric Extremity Aneurysmal Bone Cysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of treating extremity aneurysmal bone cysts (ABC) by percutaneous curettage compared with open intralesional excision. METHODS: A retrospective review of 17 patients with histologically proven primary ABCs and no evidence of a secondary lesion treated either by percutaneous curettage or open intralesional excision with at least 24-month follow-up was undertaken. The percutaneous curettage group was uniformly treated on an outpatient basis using angled curettes under image guidance followed by intralesional evacuation. The primary outcome was radiographic healing using the Neer/Cole 4-grade classification. Complications were noted. RESULTS: Seventeen patients with a mean age of 11.7 years (range, 1.7 to 17.5) were evaluated. Nine patients underwent percutaneous curettage and 8 had an open intralesional excision. The 2 treatment groups were comparable with regard to age, sex, number of procedures, morphologic type of ABC, and follow-up period. At follow-up, the proportion of patients with satisfactory healing (Neer/Cole grades I and II) were similar among the 2 groups (P = 0.74). In the percutaneous curettage group, 2 cases recurred necessitating repeat procedures, whereas 1 case recurred in the open intralesional excision group and was successfully treated percutaneously. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous curettage is a safe and minimally invasive alternative for extremity ABCs that can be performed as an outpatient procedure. Not all ABCs require wide exposure and an open intralesional excision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".