Aims. Giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB) treatment changed since the introduction of denosumab from purely surgical towards a multidisciplinary approach, with recent concerns of higher recurrence rates after denosumab. We evaluated oncological, surgical, and functional outcomes for distal radius GCTB, with a critically appraised systematic literature review. Methods. We included 76 patients with distal radius GCTB in three sarcoma centres (1990 to 2019). Median follow-up was 8.8 years (2 to 23). Seven patients underwent curettage, 38 curettage with adjuvants, and 31 resection; 20 had denosumab. Results. Recurrence rate was 71% (5/7) after curettage, 32% (12/38) after curettage with adjuvants, and 6% (2/31) after resection. Median time to recurrence was 17 months (4 to 77). Recurrences were treated with curettage with adjuvants (11), resection (six), or curettage (two). Overall, 84% (38/45) was cured after one to thee intralesional procedures. Seven patients had 12 months neoadjuvant denosumab (5 to 15) and sixmonths adjuvant denosumab; two recurred (29%). Twelve patients had six months neoadjuvant denosumab (4 to 10); five recurred (42%). Two had pulmonary metastases (2.6%), both stable after denosumab. Complication rate was 18% (14/76, with 11 requiring surgery). At follow-up, median MusculoSkeletal Tumour Society score was 28 (18 to 30), median Short Form-36 Health Survey was 86 (41 to 95), and median Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand was 7.8 (0 to 58). Conclusion. Distal radius GCTB treatment might deviate from general GCTB treatment because of complexity of wrist anatomy and function. Novel insights on surgical treatment are presented in this multicentre study and systematic review. Intralesional surgery resulted in high recurrence-rate for distal radius GCTB, also with additional denosumab. The large majority of patients however, were cured after repeated curettage. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):515–528

Aims. The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results. Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion. The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350