AIM: In recent years @entity10545 have been treated more frequently by means of percutaneous procedures. Several percutaneous techniques have been established. Our study presents the results which were obtained using a percutaneous drill system. In addition, a comparison between the results of the percutaneous procedure and the open surgical therapy is performed. METHOD: The retrospective study included @entity1 with an @entity10545 who underwent percutaneous therapy or open surgery between 1992 and 2000. The following variables were addressed: age, gender, duration of complaints, localisation of the @entity5 , duration of hospital stay, size of the nidus, histology and recurrences. RESULTS: Of the total of 22 @entity1 with an @entity10545 , 10 (45 %) were treated percutaneously and 12 (55 %) surgically. With regard to age, gender, and duration of complaints, the two groups were similar. Six (60 %) of the percutaneously treated @entity1 sustained at least one recurrence. On the other hand, only one @entity1 (8 %) of the surgically treated group experienced a recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with recent studies presenting success rates in percutaneous treatment of @entity10545 between 77 and 100 percent, our own results are worse. One explanation for the low success rate might be the small drill size used.

[Treatment of XXXX : percutaneous procedure in comparison with open surgery].

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient'] @entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['tumour'] @entity10545 :: ('MESH:D010017', 'Disease') :: ['osteoid osteoma', 'osteoid osteomas']
@entity10545 :: (MESH:D010017,Disease) :: ['osteoid osteoma']
