Couch, Cory

Aims The aim of this study was to achieve consensus for important topics related to periprosthetic infection (PJI) in orthopaedic oncology, and to identify areas for future research. Methods In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) held in Birmingham, UK, gathered 309 delegates from 53 countries to debate 20 consensus statements on PJI in orthopaedic oncology using a modified Delphi process. Results Of 20 questions and statements on PJI in orthopaedic oncology, none achieved unanimous consensus, 18 achieved strong consensus, one achieved moderate consensus, and one achieved weak consensus. The statements that reached consensus with notable agreement were on the prophylaxis of infection, management of leaking wounds, and surgical strategies for the treatment of PJI. Short-duration antibiotic prophylaxis was deemed as effective as longer courses for lower-risk reconstructions, and aggressive management was recommended for wounds draining beyond five to seven days to prevent deep infection. Furthermore, single-stage, two-stage, and 1.5-stage revision were recognized as valid strategies, with two-stage revision remaining the most reliable. The statements that did not achieve consensus were on the role of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention and prolonged antibiotic use post-revision. Conclusion The BOOM meeting achieved consensus for important topics on periprosthetic infection in orthopaedic oncology, but highlighted the low quality of the underlying evidence. This study has provided recommendations for the treatment of leaky wounds, duration of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, and choice of revision strategy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(12):1352–1359.

AimsThe Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM), held in January 2024, convened 309 delegates from 53 countries to discuss and refine 21 consensus statements on the optimal management of chondrosarcoma.MethodsWith representation from Europe (43%; n = 133), North America (17%; n = 53), South America (16%; n = 49), Asia (13%; n = 40), Australasia (5%; n = 16), the Middle East (4%; n = 12), and Africa (2%; n = 6), the combined experience of treating bone sarcomas among attendees totalled approximately 30,000 cases annually, equivalent to 66 years of experience in the UK alone. The meeting’s process began with the formation of a local organizing committee, regional leads, and a scientific committee comprising representatives from 150 specialist units across 47 countries. Supported by major orthopaedic oncology organizations, the meeting used a modified Delphi process to develop consensus statements through online questionnaires, thematic groupings, narrative reviews, and anonymous pre-meeting polling.ResultsStrong (> 80%) consensus was achieved on 19 out of 21 statements, reflecting agreement among delegates. Key areas of consensus included the role of radiology in diagnosis and surveillance, the management of locally recurrent disease, and the treatment of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma. Notably, there was agreement that routine chemotherapy has no role in chondrosarcoma treatment, and radiological surveillance is safe for intraosseous chondrosarcomas. Despite the overall consensus, areas of controversy remain, particularly regarding the treatment of atypical cartilage tumours and surgical margins. These unresolved issues underscore the need for further research and collaboration within the orthopaedic oncology community.ConclusionBOOM represents the largest global consensus meeting in orthopaedic oncology, providing valuable guidance for clinicians managing chondrosarcoma worldwide. The consensus statements offer a reference for clinical practice, highlight key research priorities, and aim to improve patient outcomes on a global scale.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(2):246–252.

Background: Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is increasingly being performed as an outpatient (i.e., same-day discharge) procedure. Postoperatively, orthostatic hypotension or pain-related tachycardia can lead to concerns regarding the hemoglobin (Hgb) level of the patient prior to discharge. The purpose of this study was to prospectively assess the reliability and accuracy of, and patient and nurse satisfaction with, postoperative noninvasive hemoglobin (nHgb) monitoring compared with an invasive serum hemoglobin (iHgb) laboratory draw in the outpatient TJA setting. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 200 patients undergoing outpatient unilateral TJA, of whom 157 were ultimately included in our analysis (94 hips, 63 knees). Postoperatively, both nHgb and iHgb values were obtained at a mean of 36 minutes apart. Surveys were completed by patients and nurses. The strength of the agreement between the 2 Hgb monitoring methods was evaluated with use of the Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed to investigate the ability of nHgb monitoring to predict an iHgb of <11.2 g/dL (the 5th-percentile iHgb value). Results: The mean preoperative iHgb was 14.2 ± 1.1 g/dL. The mean postoperative iHgb and nHgb values were 13.3 ± 1.5 and 13.3 ± 1.2 g/dL, respectively. The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement were −3.2 and +3.1 g/dL, indicating that 95% of patients’ iHgb values are expected to fall between these limits relative to the nHgb value of the patient. The CCC and ICC were both 0.33. An nHgb cutoff value of <12.7 g/dL had 100% sensitivity and 67% specificity for detecting an iHgb of <11.2 g/dL. Patients reported less pain with the nHgb test than with the iHgb test (mean pain score, 0.0 versus 1.8; p < 0.001), and 97% of patients preferred the nHgb test. Following the nHgb test, 73% of responding patients and 83% of responding nurses were “somewhat more reassured” to “significantly more reassured” about same-day discharge. Conclusions: Routine nHgb testing can rapidly screen patients undergoing outpatient TJA for acute anemia prior to discharge. With an nHgb of <12.7 g/dL, there was perfect sensitivity and 67% specificity for detecting an iHgb of <11.2 g/dL. Most patients and nurses felt more reassured about same-day discharge after nHgb monitoring. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Metaphyseal cones with cemented stems can be successfully utilized in most revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). However, if the diaphysis has been previously violated, fixation of the cemented stem, which is important for cone ingrowth and construct survival, can be compromised. The initial results of our novel technique combining diaphyseal impaction bone-grafting with a metaphyseal cone were promising but required additional study. The purpose of the present study was to assess results of this technique in a larger cohort. Methods: A metaphyseal cone combined with diaphyseal impaction grafting and a cemented stem was utilized in 88 revision TKAs at our institution, including 35 from our prior study. The mean age at the time of revision was 67 years, and 67% of patients were male. Patients had had a mean of 4 prior knee arthroplasty procedures. The 2 most common reasons for revision were aseptic loosening (78%) and 2-stage reimplantation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (19%). The mean follow-up was 4 years. Results: At the time of the latest follow-up, no cone-impaction grafting constructs required re-revision for aseptic loosening. Five-year survivorship free from any revision of the cone-impaction grafting construct and free from any reoperation was 95% and 65%, respectively. A total of 25 knees (28%) underwent reoperation, with the 2 most common indications being PJI and periprosthetic fracture. All cones were osseointegrated, and all bone graft appeared stable or incorporated. One patient had radiographic evidence of tibial component loosening despite a well-fixed cone; however, this patient was asymptomatic and had not undergone revision at 9 years. Conclusions: When presented with a sclerotic, polished diaphyseal canal with deficient cancellous bone and concomitant metaphyseal bone loss, our technique of combining diaphyseal impaction grafting with a metaphyseal cone proved extremely durable in this larger series of patients. No cone-impaction grafting constructs required re-revision for aseptic loosening. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.