Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 6;479(5):1134–1143. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001539

Table 2.

Comparison of characteristics between patients with HO and patients with LR (n = 278)

Variable With HO, % (n) With LR, % (n) p value
8 (21) 10 (28)
Age in years, mean ± SD 26 ± 14 26 ± 12 0.74
Gender, % (n)
 Male 76 (16) 61 (17) 0.21
 Female 24 (5) 39 (11)
Follow-up in months, mean ± SD 62 ± 32 65 ± 36 0.29
Mean time of occurrence postoperatively in months, mean ± SD 6 ± 4 18 ± 8 <0.001a
Tumor type, % (n)
 Osteosarcoma 81 (17) 89 (25)
 Ewing sarcoma 9 (2) 4 (1) 0.42
 Parosteal osteosarcoma 5 (1) 4 (1)
 Periosteal osteosarcoma
 Chondrosarcoma
 MFH 5 (1) 4 (1)
 Leiomyosarcoma
Pain at presentation of HO or LR, % (n)
 Yes 14 (3) 8 (24) <0.001a
 No 86 (18) 14 (4)
Chemotherapy, % (n)
 Yes 95 (20) 96 (27) 0.83
 No 5 (1) 4 (1)
Tumor stage, % (n)
 IIA 5 (1) 7 (2) 0.39
 IIB 95 (20) 93 (26)
Tumor location, % (n)
 Distal femur 71 (15) 75 (21) 0.52
 Proximal tibia 29 (6) 25 (7)
Length of resection in cm, mean ± SD 18 ± 3 18 ± 3 0.33
Size of lesion in cm2, mean ± SD 4 ± 3 4 ± 3 0.21
a

Statistically significant (p value < 0.05); HO = heterotopic ossification; LR = local recurrence; MHF = malignant fibrous histiocytoma; MUTARS = Modular Universal Tumor and Revision System; HMRS = Howmedica Modular Reconstruction System; GMRS = Global Modular Reconstruction System.