Ruggieri, Pietro

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.

Previous classification systems of failure of limb salvage focused primarily on endoprosthetic failures and lacked sufficient depth for the effective study of the causes of failure. In order to address these inadequacies, the International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) formed a committee to recommend revisions of the previous systems. The purpose of this study was to report on their recommendations. The modifications were prepared using an earlier, evidence-based model with subclassification based on the existing medical literature. Subclassification for all five primary types of failure of limb salvage following endoprosthetic reconstruction were formulated and a complementary system was derived for the failure of biological reconstruction. An additional classification of failure in paediatric patients was also described. Limb salvage surgery presents a complex array of potential mechanisms of failure, and a complete and precise classification of types of failure is required. Earlier classification systems lacked specificity, and the evidence-based system outlined here is designed to correct these weaknesses and to provide a means of reporting failures of limb salvage in order to allow the interpretation of outcome following reconstructive surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1436–40.