Jeys, Lee

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.

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.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):425–429.

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.