Aims. Due to their radiolucency and favourable mechanical properties, carbon fibre nails may be a preferable alternative to titanium nails for oncology patients. We aim to compare the surgical characteristics and short-term results of patients who underwent intramedullary fixation with either a titanium or carbon fibre nail for pathological long-bone fracture. Methods. This single tertiary-institutional, retrospectively matched case-control study included 72 patients who underwent prophylactic or therapeutic fixation for pathological fracture of the humerus, femur, or tibia with either a titanium (control group, n = 36) or carbon fibre (case group, n = 36) intramedullary nail between 2016 to 2020. Patients were excluded if intramedullary fixation was combined with any other surgical procedure/fixation method. Outcomes included operating time, blood loss, fluoroscopic time, and complications. Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results. Patients receiving carbon nails as compared to those receiving titanium nails had higher blood loss (median 150 ml (interquartile range (IQR) 100 to 250) vs 100 ml (IQR 50 to 150); p = 0.042) and longer fluoroscopic time (median 150 seconds (IQR 114 to 182) vs 94 seconds (IQR 58 to 124); p = 0.001). Implant complications occurred in seven patients (19%) in the titanium group versus one patient (3%) in the carbon fibre group (p = 0.055). There were no notable differences between groups with regard to operating time, surgical wound infection, or survival. Conclusion. This pilot study demonstrates a non-inferior surgical and short-term clinical profile supporting further consideration of carbon fibre nails for pathological fracture fixation in orthopaedic oncology patients. Given enhanced accommodation of imaging methods important for oncological surveillance and radiation therapy planning, as well as high tolerances to fatigue stress, carbon fibre implants possess important oncological advantages over titanium implants that merit further prospective investigation. Level of evidence: III, Retrospective study. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):648–655

Aims

The standard of surgical treatment for lower limb neoplasms had been characterized by highly interventional techniques, leading to severe kinetic impairment of the patients and incidences of phantom pain. Rotationplasty had arisen as a potent limb salvage treatment option for young cancer patients with lower limb bone tumours, but its impact on the gait through comparative studies still remains unclear several years after the introduction of the procedure. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of rotationplasty on gait parameters measured by gait analysis compared to healthy individuals.

Objectives. As tumours of bone and soft tissue are rare, multicentre prospective collaboration is essential for meaningful research and evidence-based advances in patient care. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators encountered in large-scale collaborative research by orthopaedic oncological surgeons involved or interested in prospective multicentre collaboration. Methods. All surgeons who were involved, or had expressed an interest, in the ongoing Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial were invited to participate in a focus group to discuss their experiences with collaborative research in this area. The discussion was digitally recorded, transcribed and anonymised. The transcript was analysed qualitatively, using an analytic approach which aims to organise the data in the language of the participants with little theoretical interpretation. Results. The 13 surgeons who participated in the discussion represented orthopaedic oncology practices from seven countries (Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Denmark, United States and Canada). Four categories and associated themes emerged from the discussion: the need for collaboration in the field of orthopaedic oncology due to the rarity of the tumours and the need for high level evidence to guide treatment; motivational factors for participating in collaborative research including establishing proof of principle, learning opportunity, answering a relevant research question and being part of a collaborative research community; barriers to participation including funding, personal barriers, institutional barriers, trial barriers, and administrative barriers and facilitators for participation including institutional facilitators, leadership, authorship, trial set-up, and the support of centralised study coordination. Conclusions. Orthopaedic surgeons involved in an ongoing international randomised controlled trial (RCT) were motivated by many factors to participate. There were a number of barriers to and facilitators for their participation. There was a collective sense of fatigue experienced in overcoming these barriers, which was mirrored by a strong collective sense of the importance of, and need for, collaborative research in this field. The experiences were described as essential educational first steps to advance collaborative studies in this area. Knowledge gained from this study will inform the development of future large-scale collaborative research projects in orthopaedic oncology. Cite this article: J. S. Rendon, M. Swinton, N. Bernthal, M. Boffano, T. Damron, N. Evaniew, P. Ferguson, M. Galli Serra, W. Hettwer, P. McKay, B. Miller, L. Nystrom, W. Parizzia, P. Schneider, A. Spiguel, R. Vélez, K. Weiss, J. P. Zumárraga, M. Ghert. Barriers and facilitators experienced in collaborative prospective research in orthopaedic oncology: A qualitative study. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–314. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2016-0192.R1