Search

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting., Competing Interests: A. Puri is a member of the editorial board of The Bone & Joint Journal. P. Ruggieri reports consulting fees from Exactech and Stryker, unrelated to this study. M. T. Houdek reports consulting fees from Link Orthopedics, unrelated to this study. E. Botello reports consulting fees, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Zimmer Biomet, all of which are unrelated to this study. G. V. Morris reports consulting fees, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Implantcast, all of which are unrelated to this study., (© 2024 Jeys et al.)

We report a retrospective study over a 15-year period, between 2005 and 2020, evaluating clinical and functional outcomes in patients who underwent reconstruction of the distal radius with an endoprosthetic replacement following excision of both malignant and aggressive benign bone tumours. Data was collected retrospectively from a prospectively maintained electronic database, and prospectively via telephone patient consultation. Musculoskeletal Tumour Society and patient-rated wrist evaluation scores were assessed at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. Of nine implants, five were arthrodeses and four were arthroplasties. One patient required amputation within 6 months for proximal metastatic disease. At last follow-up, eight patients subjectively reported good function. Five patients returned to high functionally demanding jobs. Mean Musculoskeletal Tumour Society and patient-rated wrist evaluation scores were 72% and 50/100, respectively. We conclude that distal radius endoprosthetic replacements offer acceptable functional outcomes and remain a viable option when biological reconstruction is not possible. Level of evidence: IV.

The evidence for the functional outcome of endo- prosthetic replacement (EPR) after tumour resection has been from few cohort studies. A scoping search revealed no systematic review on patient reported outcome measures after EPR around the knee. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome of distal femoral and proximal tibial EPR after tumour resection. A systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. The search identified 2560 articles from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science. 36 studies satisfying the selection criteria were included for data synthesis. Pooled analysis was performed for homogenous studies. Narrative synthesis was performed for all the studies due to heterogeneity in methodological and statistical analysis. Amongst the overall patient population of 2930, mean ages ranged from 18-66 years and the mean follow up periods in the studies ranged from 12 - 180 months. The weighted mean functional outcome was similar for patients who had DFEPR and PTEPR. The functional outcome scores of Rotating Hinge Knee implants (RHK) were significantly greater than that for Fixed Hinge Knee implants (FHK). The weighted mean functional outcome scores were higher after cemented fixation and after primary EPR procedures. The current evidence suggests that functional out- come after EPR in the knee is good, and RHK implants are better than FHK implants. Functional outcome after primary EPR was significantly better than following revision EPR, and this underscores the importance of minimising complications at the primary surgery.