Aims. The primary objective of this study was to compare the postoperative infection rate between negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and conventional dressings for closed incisions following soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) surgery. Secondary objectives were to compare rates of adverse wound events and functional scores. Methods. In this prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial (RCT), patients were randomized to either NPWT or conventional sterile occlusive dressings. A total of 17 patients, with a mean age of 54 years (21 to 81), were successfully recruited and none were lost to follow-up. Wound reviews were undertaken to identify any surgical site infection (SSI) or adverse wound events within 30 days. The Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score were recorded as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Results. There were two out of seven patients in the control group (28.6%), and two out of ten patients in the intervention group (20%) who were diagnosed with a SSI (p > 0.999), while one additional adverse wound event was identified in the control group (p = 0.593). No significant differences in PROMs were identified between the groups at either 30 days (TESS, p = 0.987; MSTS, p = 0.951) or six-month (TESS, p = 0.400) follow-up. However, neoadjuvant radiotherapy was significantly associated with a SSI within 30 days of surgery, across all patients (p = 0.029). The mean preoperative modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) was also significantly higher among patients who developed a postoperative adverse wound event (p = 0.028), including a SSI (p = 0.008), across both groups. Conclusion. This is the first RCT comparing NPWT with conventional dressings following musculoskeletal tumour surgery. Postoperative wound complications are common in this group of patients and we observed an overall SSI rate of 23.5%. We propose proceeding to a multicentre trial, which will help more clearly define the role of closed incision NPWT in STS surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1049–1056

Aims. Surgery is often indicated in patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) to improve pain and maximize function. Few studies are available which report on clinically meaningful outcomes such as quality of life, function, and pain relief after surgery for MBD. This is the published protocol for the Bone Metastasis Audit — Patient Reported Outcomes (BoMA-PRO) multicentre MBD study. The primary objective is to ascertain patient-reported quality of life at three to 24 months post-surgery for MBD. Methods. This will be a prospective, longitudinal study across six UK orthopaedic centres powered to identify the influence of ten patient variables on quality of life at three months after surgery for MBD. Adult patients managed for bone metastases will be screened by their treating consultant and posted out participant materials. If they opt in to participate, they will receive questionnaire packs at regular intervals from three to 24 months post-surgery and their electronic records will be screened until death or five years from recruitment. The primary outcome is quality of life as measured by the European Organisation for Research and the Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ) C30 questionnaire. The protocol has been approved by the Newcastle & North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (REC ref 19/NE/0303) and the study is funded by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow (RCPSG) and the Association for Cancer Surgery (BASO-ACS). Discussion. This will be the first powered study internationally to investigate patient-reported outcomes after orthopaedic treatment for bone metastases. We will assess quality of life, function, and pain relief at three to 24 months post-surgery and identify which patient variables are significantly associated with a good outcome after MBD treatment. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):79–85

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

Objectives. The diagnosis of surgical site infection following endoprosthetic reconstruction for bone tumours is frequently a subjective diagnosis. Large clinical trials use blinded Central Adjudication Committees (CACs) to minimise the variability and bias associated with assessing a clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to determine the level of inter-rater and intra-rater agreement in the diagnosis of surgical site infection in the context of a clinical trial. Materials and Methods. The Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial CAC adjudicated 29 non-PARITY cases of lower extremity endoprosthetic reconstruction. The CAC members classified each case according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) criteria for surgical site infection (superficial, deep, or organ space). Combinatorial analysis was used to calculate the smallest CAC panel size required to maximise agreement. A final meeting was held to establish a consensus. Results. Full or near consensus was reached in 20 of the 29 cases. The Fleiss kappa value was calculated as 0.44 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.53), or moderate agreement. The greatest statistical agreement was observed in the outcome of no infection, 0.61 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.72, substantial agreement). Panelists reached a full consensus in 12 of 29 cases and near consensus in five of 29 cases when CDC criteria were used (superficial, deep or organ space). A stable maximum Fleiss kappa of 0.46 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.35) at CAC sizes greater than three members was obtained. Conclusions. There is substantial agreement among the members of the PARITY CAC regarding the presence or absence of surgical site infection. Agreement on the level of infection, however, is more challenging. Additional clinical information routinely collected by the prospective PARITY trial may improve the discriminatory capacity of the CAC in the parent study for the diagnosis of infection. Cite this article: J. Nuttall, N. Evaniew, P. Thornley, A. Griffin, B. Deheshi, T. O’Shea, J. Wunder, P. Ferguson, R. L. Randall, R. Turcotte, P. Schneider, P. McKay, M. Bhandari, M. Ghert. The inter-rater reliability of the diagnosis of surgical site infection in the context of a clinical trial. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:347–352. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.58.BJR-2016-0036.R1

Objectives

To assess the accuracy of patient-specific instruments (PSIs) versus standard manual technique and the precision of computer-assisted planning and PSI-guided osteotomies in pelvic tumour resection.