Jutte, Paul

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.

Abstract Background The first-line management strategy for acute periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) is debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). Suppressive antibiotic therapy (SAT) after DAIR is proposed to improve outcomes, yet its efficacy remains under scrutiny. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective study in patients with acute PJI of the hip or knee who were treated with DAIR in centers from Europe and the United States. We analyzed the effect of SAT using a Cox model landmarked at 12 weeks. The primary covariate of interest was SAT, which was analyzed as a time-varying covariate. Patients who experienced treatment failure or were lost to follow-up within 12 weeks were excluded from the analysis. Results The study included 510 patients with 66 treatment failures with a median follow-up of 801 days. We did not find a statistically significant association between SAT and treatment failure (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, .79–2.39; P = .27). Subgroup analyses for joint, country cohort, and type of infection (early or late acute) did not show benefit for SAT. Secondary analysis of country cohorts showed a trend toward benefit for the US cohort (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, .11–1.15; P = .09), which also had the highest risk of treatment failure. Conclusions The utility of routine SAT as a strategy for enhancing DAIR's success in acute PJI remains uncertain. Our results suggest that SAT's benefits might be restricted to specific groups of patients, underscoring the need for randomized controlled trials. Identifying patients most likely to benefit from SAT should be a priority in future studies.