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
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
The aim of this study was to assess orthopaedic oncologic patient morbidity resulting from COVID-19 related institutional delays and surgical shutdowns during the first wave of the pandemic in New York, USA. A single-centre retrospective observational study was conducted of all orthopaedic oncologic patients undergoing surgical evaluation from March to June 2020. Patients were prioritized as level 0-IV, 0 being elective and IV being emergent. Only priority levels 0 to III were included. Delay duration was measured in days and resulting morbidities were categorized into seven groups: prolonged pain/disability; unplanned preoperative radiation and/or chemotherapy; local tumour progression; increased systemic disease; missed opportunity for surgery due to progression of disease/lost to follow up; delay in diagnosis; and no morbidity.Aims
Methods
Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic bone
disease (MBD) have been available to the orthopaedic community for
more than a decade, with little improvement in service provision
to this increasingly large patient group. Improvements in adjuvant
and neo-adjuvant treatments have increased both the number and overall
survival of patients living with MBD. As a consequence the incidence
of complications of MBD presenting to surgeons has increased and
is set to increase further. The British Orthopaedic Oncology Society
(BOOS) are to publish more revised detailed guidelines on what represents
‘best practice’ in managing patients with MBD. This article is designed
to coincide with and publicise new BOOS guidelines and once again
champion the cause of patients with MBD. A series of short cases highlight common errors frequently being
made in managing patients with MBD despite the availability of guidelines.Objectives
Methods
