Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The surgical treatment for osteoid osteoma (OO) in the upper extremity is challenging due to the difficulty in locating the lesion and the crowding of sensitive structures within the anatomy. This study aimed to describe the outcomes of navigated minimally invasive radiofrequency ablation and those of navigated mini open-intralesional curettage in treating these lesions. Nineteen consecutive patients with OO in the upper limb who underwent navigated surgery were included. The average QuickDASH and Numeric Pain Rating Scale improved from 62.2 ± 23.7 to 11.7 ± 16.9 and from 8.1 ± 1.6 to 0.5 ± 1.8, respectively (p < .01 each) following the procedure. Two complications were recorded: one patient had persistent radial nerve palsy, and one patient had transient partial radial nerve weakness. In conclusion, navigation is an important tool in the surgical treatment of OO in the upper limb. A mini open approach to identify and protect neurovascular structures is recommended.

Keywords

intralesional curettage navigation nidus osteoid osteoma radiofrequency ablation

Introduction

Osteoid osteoma (OO) was first described by Jaffe in 1935 as a benign osteoblastic bone tumor with a diameter of less than 1 cm.¹ OOs comprise 10% of all benign bone tumors.² The tibia and femur are involved in 50% of the lesions, and most commonly in the proximal femur.^3,4 The incidence of OO in the upper limb is reported to be 15%–31%.^5,6 Young males under the age of 40 years are 2 to 3 times more likely than females to be affected, and some studies report that 67%–80% of OOs occur in individuals younger than 25 years of age.^1,6–8

Aching discomfort is the most common initial symptom. It is usually worse at night and can be alleviated by rest, heat, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). OOs located near a joint can cause joint dysfunction, reactive synovitis, and effusion, which can present with stiffness and restrictions in daily activities.⁶ Prostaglandin E2 is produced at the center of the nidus, which may explain the cause of the pain,^9,10 as well as the responsiveness to NSAIDs, which reportedly relieve the discomfort in 64%–88% of cases.^4,11

Imaging modalities used for the identification and diagnosis of OOs include radiographs, computed tomography (CT) scans, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies. Approximately 25%–40% of OOs are not visualized on conventional radiographs, necessitating CT imaging to diagnose them.^4,12 A recent systematic review demonstrated that CT was the most sensitive (96.4%) imaging modality for identifying OOs, followed by plain radiography (66.4%) and MRI (65.3%).¹³

An OO is self-limiting, and regression time of non-treated OOs is reported to be 6–15 years.¹⁴ Surgical intervention is indicated when non-operative treatment fails, and the various options include radiofrequency ablation (RFA), laser thermocoagulation, arthroscopic excision, en bloc resection with excision of the entire lesion and the surrounding reactive zone, excisional biopsy, open curettage and ethanol application. En bloc excision and radiofrequency ablation are the 2 most frequently used techniques (36.9% and 25.6% respectively).¹³ CT-guided ablation, navigation technologies, fluoroscopy, and arthroscopy have been reported as means to accurately locate the lesion during the procedure to target treatment.^13,15–17 Locating the nidus during open operation or minimally invasive RFA in the upper extremity, however, is highly challenging. The proximity of sensitive anatomic structures, such as joints, skin, tendons, nerves, and blood vessels, makes it critically important to accurately locate and excise the lesion with minimal dissection and collateral damage.

The purpose of this study is to present the preoperative characteristics, the operative technique, and the postoperative outcomes of all patients with OO of the upper extremity who were treated in our institution since 2015 when we began using O arm navigation to guide accurate surgical treatment of the lesion. The guided surgical technique included either percutaneous RFA or mini open curettage. The choice between the two techniques was made by the surgeon according tothe location of the OO and the proximity to neurovascular structures, the skin, or tendons.

Materials and methods

Study design and data collection

This is a retrospective case series study. Following institutional review board approval, we identified all patients with OO of the upper extremity who underwent surgical treatment in our medical center between 1.1.2015-1.6.2022. Demographic data, date of surgery, preoperative symptoms, OO location and size, QuickDASH¹⁸ (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand) score before and after surgery, physical examination findings, and complications were collected from electronic records and imaging studies.

Outpatient clinic follow up

All the study patients had been diagnosed and followed in the outpatient clinic prior to undergoing surgery. Non operative treatment options included analgesics and NSAIDS. The indications to proceed with surgical intervention included substantial pain lasting for more than 3 months with failure of non-operative treatment, as well as radiologic confirmation of a nidus. They all underwent CTs and some also underwent radiographs and MRIs. In some patients with radiographic or CT findings of OO, an MRI was performed to evaluate the location of neurovascular structures around the lesion. Some patients underwent an MRI as part of the diagnostic workup prior to OO diagnosis. The postoperative routine clinic follow-up took place at 2, 6, and 12 weeks, followed by 6 and 12 months and yearly thereafter.

Surgical procedure

All operations were performed by a single surgeon according to a technique published by Ankory et al in 2019 and later by Gurel et al in 2022.^15,19 The patient was placed on a radiolucent, fluoroscopy-capable operating table, and the affected limb was prepared and draped in a sterile manner. The optical tracking array was secured to the patient either by silk sutures to the skin in proximity to the lesion or by bony anchor devices, depending upon the anatomical location of the lesion. The optical tracking array is the instrument which maintains accuracy of the navigation following the scan, even if the surgical site moves. The site was then scanned by a cone beam CT (O-arm® scanner Medtronic Sofamor, Danek Memphis, TN, USA) to locate the lesion. A 3-dimensional image was created by the navigation system (StealthStation®, Medtronic Sofamor) and by a set of calibrated navigational instruments (mainly a drill bit or a Jamshidi needle), after which the bone and the lesion were penetrated by means of real-time navigation. Specimens from the lesion were sent for histological analysis. When RFA was used, the specimens were obtained prior to placement of the RFA needle. When there was no contraindication to the use of RFA, a 15-cm RF probe needle (RITA Angiodynamics Inc., USA or Covidien Ltd. USA, cool tip 15 cm-long) was then advanced without any additional fluoroscopy images or scans. When the needle came in contact with the lesion, a second scan was performed to verify the location of the needle tip, and the ablation was performed according to a protocol of 90°C for 6–9 min. Lastly, the skin was sutured with 3-0 nylon sutures, and the patient’s skin was examined for burns or other superficial complications. When the lesion was in proximity to the skin, tendons, joints, or neurovascular structures and when RFA was contraindicated, navigation was used to accurately identify the location of the nidus and to safely remove it completely by curettage with a high-speed burr. The choice between navigated curettage or navigated RFA was made by the surgeon, taking into account the location of the lesion, the possibility to reach it by using an open approach, its proximity to the skin, tendons and neurovascular structures. In some of the cases, even when the lesion was near such structures RFA was still used and the relevant structures were protected by retraction which placed them under vision and away from the RFA destruction zone. Figures 1 and 2 show examples of navigated RFA and mini open procedures.

Figure 1.

Radiographs, CT scan, T2 sequence MRI and pre/post navigated mini open intralesional curettage O-arm scan of osteoid osteoma of the distal humerus (patient No. 10).

Figure 2.

Radiographs, CT scan MRI and pre/post navigated minimally invasive radiofrequency ablation O-arm scans of osteoid osteoma of the capitate (patient No. 14).

Statistical analysis

Continuous data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, and categorical data are presented as percentage. A paired sample t test was applied to compare preoperative to postoperative QuickDASH score. A p-value of .05 or lower was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed by IBM SPSS v24.

Results

Nineteen patients underwent O-arm-navigated surgical treatment for OO in our medical institution between 2015–2022. Their characteristics, functional scores, imaging studies, and complications are provided in Tables 1 and 2. The RFA protocol was followed in 15 patients (79%) and navigated mini open intralesional resection and curettage with a high-speed burr was used in the remaining 4 patients (21%). The mean age of the patients at surgery was 27.7 ± 11.2 years, and 13/19 (68.4%) of them were males. The mean follow-up time was 53.4 ± 27.8 months. A nidus was detected on X-ray studies in 2/14 cases, on MRI studies in 10/15 cases, and on CT scans in 19/19. Bone edema was demonstrated on MRI studies in 15/15 cases.

Table 1.

Patient characteristics outcomes and complications.

Patient no.	Gender	Age at surgery	Location	Surgical technique	Follow up time (monthes)	Night pain	Relieved with NSAIDS	Preoperative quick DASH	Postoperative quick DASH	Preoperative NPRS (0-10)	Postoperative NPRS (0-10)	Operation time	Complications/Reoperations
1	F	17	Distal radius (styloid)	NMRFA	92	Yes	Yes	18.2	2.3	6	0	84
2	F	26	Midshaft radius	NMRFA	89	No	Yes	22.7	6.8	7	0	115	Re-NMRFA 24 months after the primary NMRFA due to recurrence. Resolution of symptoms following Re-NMRFA
3	F	37	Distal ulna	NMIC	87	Yes	Yes	52.2	11.3	9	0	47
4	F	33	Distal humerus	NMRFA	84	Yes	Yes	40.9	20.454	9	8	184	Six months following NMRFA, due to pain and limited range of motion arthroscopic contracture release was performed. This secondary procedure did not improve the patients symptoms significantly
5	M	25	Proximal ulna	NMRFA	82	Yes	Yes	84.1	4.5	10	0	69
6	M	19	Acromion	NMRFA	73	Yes	Yes	56.8	0	7	0	71
7	F	19	Humerus shaft	NMRFA	66	Yes	Yes	63.6	77.3	9	0	62	Radial nerve palsy
8	M	25	Olecranon	NMRFA	65	Yes	Yes	90.9	0	10	0	75
9	M	50	Proximal radius	NMRFA	64	Yes	Yes	88.6	15.625	10	1	55
10	M	60	Distal humerus	NMIC	59	Yes	Yes	90.9	12.5	8	0	71	Transient partial radial weakness which completely resilved
11	M	23	Olecranon	NMRFA	51	Yes	Yes	77.3	12.1	8	0	37
12	M	20	Clavicle	NMRFA	45	Yes	NO	59.1	11.1	7	0	52
13	M	23	Ulna midshaft	NMRFA	44	Yes	Yes	29.5	2.272	6	0	40
14	F	25	Capitate	NMIC	27	Yes	Yes	75.3	4	7	0	63
15	M	18	Humerus midshaft	NMRFA	26	Yes	Yes	63.6	6.25	9	0	65	Re NMRFA 12 months following primary NMRFA due to persistance of symptoms. Resolution of symptoms following Re-NMRFA
16	M	31	Radius midshaft	NMIC	19	Yes	Yes	45.5	3	8	0	70
17	M	19	Humerus midshaft	NMRFA	16	Yes	Yes	47.7	13.636	5	0	86	Re NMRFA 10 months following primary NMRFA due to persistance of symptoms. Resolution of symptoms following Re-NMRFA
18	M	31	Olecranon (extra-articular)	NMRFA	14	Yes	Yes	84.1	15.625	10	0	47
19	M	26	Humerus proximal shaft	NMRFA	12	Yes	Yes	90.9	4.5	10	0	87

The preoperative and last follow-up postoperative average QuickDASH scores were 62.2 ± 23.7 and 11.7 ± 16.9, respectively (p < .01). The preoperative and last follow-up postoperative average NPRS scores were 8.1 ± 1.6 and 0.5 ± 1.8, respectively (p < .01). Seventeen out of the 19 study patients reported substantial subjective functional improvement and complete or almost complete (0-1 on NPRS) pain resolution following the procedure. Three of them required a second procedure to achieve resolution of symptoms. One patient had neither pain nor functional improvement following her surgery (patient #4). She underwent a second arthroscopic surgery 6 months following her first operation which also did not improve her symptoms. This patient had marked arthritic elbow changes before the primary procedure which may account for the failure of the procedure. Another patient (patient #7) had complete resolution of her OO-related symptoms, but she sustained complete persistent radial palsy following navigated minimally invasive radio frequency ablation (NMRFA). Following Navigatied mini open intra lesional curettage (NMIC), patient #10 had complete resolution of his OO-related symptoms, although he sustained transient partial radial nerve weakness which completely resolved.

Patient #18 underwent an arthroscopic operative treatment in a different medical center to treat what was thought to be lateral epicondylitis. That intervention did not resolve his symptoms and he was diagnosed in our clinic with OO of the olecranon tip in a non-articular aspect 10 months later. An NMRFA by our team achieved complete resolution of his symptoms.

Table 2.

Imaging results.

Patient no.	X-ray	MRI		CT
Patient no.	Nidus seen	Nidus seen	Bone edema	Nidus seen	Size MM	Location
1	No	-	-	YES	3.5	Cortical
2	No	-	-	YES	2.5	Subcortical
3	-	-	-	Yes	4.2	Cortical
4	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	6.4	Cortical
5	-	No	Yes	Yes	3.8	Subcortical
6	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	9.2	Cortical
7	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	6.1	Cortical
8	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	5.1	Subchonral
9	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	7.8	Cortical
10	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	8.4	Cortical
11	No	No	Yes	Yes	2.4	Subchondral
12	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	5.6	Subcortical
13	No	-	-	Yes	3.2	Cortical
14	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	4.4	Cortical
15	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	5.1	Cortical
16	-	Yes	Yes	Yes	8.1	Cortical
17	-	-	-	Yes	9.8	Cortical
18	-	Yes	Yes	Yes	9.3	Cortical
19	No	No	Yes	Yes	6.6	Cortical

Discussion

The findings of our study demonstrate favorable results for the use of navigated RFA/curettage for treating OO of the upper extremity. The characteristics of our patients were similar to those of patients described in other publications on OO of the upper extremity.^20,21 We observed functional improvement of the patients following surgery, which was also demonstrated by a significant reduction in their average NPRS and QuickDASH scores. Our reoperation rate was similar to the limited data available in current literature.^20–22 In our series, 3 patients had persistence of symptoms following primary NMRFA. They all underwent Re-NMRFA which resulted in resolution of their symptoms. One patient with persistent pain accompanied by limited elbow range of motion and notable radiographic arthritic symptoms underwent arthroscopic revision surgery which failed. We encountered 2 neurologic complications: one patient had persistent radial nerve palsy at the level of the distal humerus and another patient had transient radial nerve weakness which completely resolved.

In this publication, as in two earlier publications on the application of our surgical method in multiple locations, we present our navigated approach to osteoid osteoma.^15,19 The navigated technique offered improved accuracy and provided measures to confirm the removal of the lesion during the procedure. It also allowed operation room and surgical team setting which enables an open or mini open approach with dissection and protection of neurovascular structures. The navigated technique for the treatment of osteoid osteoma has been described in several publications in addition to ours,^{15,19,23–25} and this is the first that is specific to the upper extremity. In a study by Ankory et al, our surgical technique was first described and published.¹⁵ We demonstrated the results of the first 52 patients who underwent navigated radiofrequency ablations for the treatment of OO in our institution. Another publication by Gurel et al presented the results of 14 patients with OO of the foot and ankle and also discussed the added value of the navigated technique in mini open curettage and complex anatomic locations.¹⁹

Although CT guidance in ablation procedures of OO is a well-accepted and accurate method,^16,26–29 the navigated technique offers a more flexible real-time stepwise approach to the exact location of the nidus in comparison to the CT-guided technique in which multiple scans may sometimes be required until an accurate location is found and during which the surgical instruments may harm nearby structures. It also enables less radiation exposure to the surgical team.¹⁵ Finally, all of our reported procedures were performed by an orthopedic surgeon in an operating room setting, which enabled both closed manipulation for stiff joints as well as an additional open approach in some of the patients treated with NMRFA (patients 1, 2, 7, 9, 15, 17, 19) for the retraction of neurovascular structures away from the “destruction zone” of the RFA needle, when necessary, thereby increasing the safety of the procedure and enabling the performance of minimally invasive RFA in cases which otherwise would have required open curettage.

Intralesional curettage was performed when the RFA approach was contraindicated due to the location of the OO being in close proximity to the skin, tendons, or neurovascular structures. We consider navigation to also be indicated in open or arthroscopic surgery since one of the major challenges in any surgical treatment of OO is posed by the difficulty of identifying and confirming complete removal of the nidus.²⁴

Four of the OO cases in this series involved the elbow joint. All 4 were associated with synovial joint reaction and limited range of motion. Three of those patients had complete resolution of their symptoms following the primary operation. One patient underwent secondary arthroscopic surgery which did not improve her symptoms. A closed manipulation to increase the range of motion was performed during the procedures of these patients with OO involving the elbow joint associated with limited range of motion. Performing the manipulation to address the elbow stiffness was possible thanks to the setting of an operation room, general anesthesia, and orthopedic surgeon who performed the procedure. There are several publications of surgical outcomes of OO involving the elbow. Kamrani et al reported the results of 10 such patients who underwent arthroscopic ablation. Those authors observed improved function and resolution of OO-related symptoms in those patients. Two of their patients underwent reoperation, one of whom patients had subsequent arthrosis and the other had persistent pain.²¹ Knežević et al published their series (6 patients) and a review of the literature (23 patients) on OO involving the elbow with success rates of 86.4%–96.3%, minimal complication rates, and recurrence rates of 0%–3.7%.³⁰ Ge et al also published a review of 19 patients with OO of the elbow who underwent arthroscopic treatment. They reported good functional outcomes with 10.5% reoperations and 10.5% complications.²²

The first attempt of NMRFA did not solve the OO symptoms and a second Re- NMRFA was successful in 3 of our current cases. We believe that when the first procedure is unsuccessful, unless there is a specific reason to consider a different surgical technique, the revision surgery can also be NMRFA. All re-NMRFAs performed in these series achieved resolution of the OO symptoms. We attribute the failure in the primary procedures to an incomplete ablation of the lesion and therefore think that although the first attempt was unsuccessful, the chances are high for success in a repeated attempt and a benefit of NMRFA over open surgery. Our revision rate was similar to those of other publications.^20–22,28

We encountered 2 peripheral nerve injuries in this series. Patient #10 had partial transient radial nerve neuropraxia which completely resolved, leaving this patient symptom free with excellent functional outcome. Although patient #7 had complete resolution of her OO-related symptoms, she also had persistent radial nerve palsy at the level of the distal humerus. We attribute this peripheral nerve injury to thermal injury sustained by the RFA. After the occurrence of this complication, we adopted a much more liberal approach in performing an open or mini-open approach prior to placement of the RFA needle in order to ensure safe distance of the needle from any neurovascular structure.

The main limitation of our study is its retrospective design and the lack of a control group. Other publications on OO in the upper extremity commonly share those drawbacks.

In conclusion, our study findings demonstrate good results for navigated operative treatment of OO of the upper extremity. Only one of our 19 patients had no resolution of OO-related symptoms, while one patient had persistent radial nerve palsy. We demonstrated that the navigated technique provided definitive assistance in performing curative surgery for OO in the challenging anatomy of the upper limb.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ron Gurel

Shai Factor

References

Jaffe

. Osteoid-osteoma: a benign osteoblastic tumor composed of osteoid and atypical bone. Arch Surg 1935; 31(5): 709–728.

Dahlin

Unni

. Bone tumors: general aspects and data on 8,547 Cases. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Pub., 1986.

Hakim

Pelly

Kulendran

, et al. Benign tumours of the bone: a review. J Bone Oncol 2015; 4(2): 37–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbo.2015.02.001.

May

Bixby

Anderson

, et al. Osteoid osteoma about the hip in children and adolescents. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American 2019; 101(6): 486–493. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00888.

Bednar

Mccormack

Classer

, et al. Osteoid osteoma of the upper extremity. J Hand Surg Am 1993; 18(6):1019–1025.

Cohen

Harrington

Ginsburg

. Osteoid osteoma: 95 cases and a review of the literature. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1983; 12(3): 265–281. DOI: 10.1016/0049-0172(83)90010-0.

Orlowski

Mercer

. Osteoid osteoma in children and young adults. Pediatrics 1977; 59(4): 526–532.

Rosenberg

. Skeletal system and soft tissue tumors. Robbins pathologic basis of disease 1994; 45(3): 1213–1271.

Makley

Dunn

. Prostaglandin synthesis by osteoid osteoma. Lancet 1982; 320(8288): 42.

10.

Wold

Pritchard

Bergert

, et al. Prostaglandin synthesis by osteoid osteoma and osteoblastoma. Mod Pathol 1988; 1(2): 129–131.

11.

Ilyas

Younge

. Medical management of osteoid osteoma. Can J Surg 2002; 45(6): 435–437.

12.

Assoun

Richardi

Railhac

, et al. Osteoid osteoma: MR imaging versus CT. Radiology 1994; 191(1): 217–223. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.191.1.8134575.

13.

Jordan

Koç

Chapman

AWP

, et al. Osteoid osteoma of the foot and ankle-A systematic review. Foot Ankle Surg 2015; 21(4): 228–234. DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2015.04.005.

14.

Boscainos

Cousins

Kulshreshtha

, et al. Osteoid osteoma. Orthopedics 2013; 36(10): 792–800. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20130920-10.

15.

Ankory

Kadar

Netzer

, et al. 3D imaging and stealth navigation instead of CT guidance for radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteomas: a series of 52 patients. BMC Muscoskel Disord 2019; 20(1): 1–6. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-2963-8.

16.

Tordjman

Perronne

Madelin

, et al. CT-guided radiofrequency ablation for osteoid osteomas: a systematic review. Eur Radiol 2020; 30(11): 5952–5963. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06970-y.

17.

Yildiz

Bayrakci

Altay

, et al. Osteoid osteoma: the results of surgical treatment. Int Orthop 2001; 25(2): 119–122. DOI: 10.1007/s002640100231.

18.

Beaton

Wright

Katz

. Upper extremity collaborative group. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87(5): 1038–1046.

19.

Gurel

Amzallag

Benady

, et al. Intraoperative three-dimensional navigation for surgical treatment of osteoid osteoma in the foot and ankle – a series of 14 cases. Foot Ankle Surg 2022; 28(8): 1468–1472, DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2022.09.001.

20.

Jafari

Shariatzade

Najd Mazhar

, et al.

Osteoid Osteoma of the Hand and Wrist: A Report of 25 Cases

Med J Islam Repub Iran 2013; 27: 62–66.

21.

Kamrani

Moradi

Sharafat Vaziri

, et al. Arthroscopic ablation of an osteoid osteoma of the elbow: a case series with a minimum of 18 months’ follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26(5): e122–e127. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.01.010.

22.

Marwan

Abduljabbar

, et al. Arthroscopic management of intra- and juxta-articular osteoid osteoma of the upper extremity: a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2020; 30(8): 1333–1344. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-020-02710-6.

23.

Fujiwara

Kunisada

Takeda

, et al. Mini-open excision of osteoid osteoma using intraoperative O-arm/Stealth navigation. J Orthop Sci 2019; 24(2): 337–341. DOI: 10.1016/j.jos.2018.09.017.

24.

Lin

, et al. Open surgery for osteoid osteoma with three dimensional C-arm scan under the guidance of computer navigation. Orthop Surg 2016; 8(2): 205–211. DOI: 10.1111/os.12233.

25.

Niu

Zhang

, et al. Radiofrequency ablation under 3D intraoperative Iso-C C-arm navigation for the treatment of osteoid osteomas. Br J Radiol 2015; 88(1056): 20140535. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20140535.

26.

Daniilidis

Martinelli

Gosheger

, et al. Percutaneous CT-guided radio-frequency ablation of osteoid osteoma of the foot and ankle. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132(12): 1707–1710. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-012-1614-4.

27.

Fenichel

Garniack

Morag

, et al. Percutaneous CT-guided curettage of osteoid osteoma with histological confirmation: a retrospective study and review of the literature. Int Orthop 2006; 30(2): 139–142. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-005-0051-1.

28.

Soong

Jupiter

Rosenthal

. Radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma in the upper extremity. J Hand Surg Am, 2006; 31(2): 279–283.

29.

Zouari

Bousson

Hamzé

, et al. CT-guided percutaneous laser photocoagulation of osteoid osteomas of the hands and feet. Eur Radiol 2008; 18(11): 2635–2641. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1045-3.

30.

Knežević

Bojanić

. Comparison of arthroscopy versus percutaneous radiofrequency thermal ablation for the management of intra- and juxta-articular elbow osteoid osteoma: case series and a literature review. BMC Muscoskel Disord 2022; 23(1): 287. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05244-6.