To assess the accuracy of patient-specific instruments (PSIs) CT scans were obtained from five female cadaveric pelvises. Five osteotomies were designed using Mimics software: sacroiliac, biplanar supra-acetabular, two parallel iliopubic and ischial. For cases of the left hemipelvis, PSIs were designed to guide standard oscillating saw osteotomies and later manufactured using 3D printing. Osteotomies were performed using the standard manual technique in cases of the right hemipelvis. Post-resection CT scans were quantitatively analysed. Student’s Objectives
Methods
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. 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.Objectives
Methods
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. 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.Objectives
Materials and Methods
Clinical studies of patients with bone sarcomas have been challenged
by insufficient numbers at individual centres to draw valid conclusions.
Our objective was to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive
multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether
a five-day regimen of post-operative antibiotics, in comparison
to a
24-hour regimen, decreases surgical site infections in patients
undergoing endoprosthetic reconstruction for lower extremity primary
bone tumours. We performed a pilot international multi-centre RCT. We used
central randomisation to conceal treatment allocation and sham antibiotics
to blind participants, surgeons, and data collectors. We determined
feasibility by measuring patient enrolment, completeness of follow-up,
and protocol deviations for the antibiotic regimens. Objective
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
