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.)

Background: Osteoid osteomas of the foot are rare, with a varying and atypical clinical as well as radiological presentation impeding early diagnosis and treatment. The aim of the present multicentre study was to 1) analyze epidemiological, clinical and radiological findings of patients with foot osteoid osteomas and to 2) deduce a diagnostic algorithm based on the findings., Methods: A total of 37 patients (25 males, 67.6%, mean age 23.9 years, range 8-57 years) with osteoid osteomas of the foot were retrospectively included, treated between 2000 and 2014 at 6 participating tertiary tumor centres. Radiographic images were analyzed, as were patients' minor and major complaints, pain relief and recurrence., Results: Most osteoid osteomas were located in the midfoot (n = 16) and hindfoot (n = 14). Painful lesions were present in all but one patient (97.3%). Symptom duration was similar for hindfoot and midfoot/forefoot (p = 0.331). Cortical lesions required fewer x‑rays for diagnosis than lesions at other sites (p = 0.026). A typical nidus could be detected in only 23/37 of x‑rays (62.2%), compared to 25/29 CT scans (86.2%) and 11/22 MRIs (50%). Aspirin test was positive in 18/20 patients (90%), 31 patients (83.8%) underwent open surgery. Pain relief was achieved in 34/36 patients (outcome unknown in one), whilst pain persisted in two patients with later confirmed recurrence., Conclusions: As previously reported, CT scans seem to be superior to MRIs towards detection of the typical nidus in foot osteoid osteomas. In patients with unclear pain of the foot and inconclusive x‑rays, osteoid osteoma should be considered as differential diagnosis., (© 2021. The Author(s).)