Aims. Surgical site infection (SSI) after soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) resection is a serious complication. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the risk factors for SSI after STS resection, and to develop a nomogram that allows patient-specific risk assessment. Methods. A total of 547 patients with STS who underwent tumour resection between 2005 and 2021 were divided into a development cohort and a validation cohort. In the development cohort of 402 patients, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model was used to screen possible risk factors of SSI. To select risk factors and construct the prediction nomogram, multivariate logistic regression was used. The predictive power of the nomogram was evaluated by receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis in the validation cohort of 145 patients. Results. LASSO regression analysis selected possible risk factors for SSI, including age, diabetes, operating time, skin graft or flap, resected tumour size, smoking, and radiation therapy. Multivariate analysis revealed that age, diabetes, smoking during the previous year, operating time, and radiation therapy were independent risk factors for SSI. A nomogram was developed based on the results of multivariate logistic regression analysis. In the development cohort, the incidence of SSI was 4.5% in the low-risk group (risk score < 6.89) and 26.6% in the high-risk group (risk score ≥ 6.89; p < 0.001). In the validation cohort, the incidence of SSI was 2.0% in the low-risk group and 15.9% in the high-risk group (p = 0.004). Conclusion. Our nomogram will enable surgeons to assess the risk of SSI in patients with STS. In patients with high risk of SSI, frequent monitoring and aggressive interventions should be considered to prevent this. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):492–500

Aims

Malignancy and surgery are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). We undertook a systematic review of the literature concerning the prophylactic management of VTE in orthopaedic oncology patients.

Aims. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical results of operative intervention for femoral metastases which were selected based on expected survival and to discuss appropriate surgical strategies. Methods. From 2002 to 2017, 148 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for femoral metastasis were included in this study. Prognostic risk assessments were performed according to the Katagiri and revised Katagiri scoring system. In general, the low-risk group underwent resection and reconstruction with endoprosthetic replacement (EPR), while the high-risk group underwent internal fixation (IF) and radiation therapy. For the intermediate-risk group, the operative choice depended on the patient’s condition, degree of bone destruction, and radio-sensitivity. Overall survival, local failure, walking ability, and systemic complications were evaluated. Results. A total of 83 patients underwent EPR (low-risk, 23%; intermediate-risk, 60%; high-risk, 17%) and 65 patients underwent IF (low-risk, 0%; intermediate-risk, 32%; high-risk, 68%). The one-year survival rate was 71% for EPR and 15% for IF (p < 0.001). The one-year local failure-free survival was 93% for EPR and 67% for IF, and the two-year and five-year local failure-free survival for EPR were both 88% (p = 0.016). Although the ambulatory rate was 99% for EPR and 60% for IF, the median time to ambulation was shorter in the IF (EPR, 28 days, interquartile range (IQR) 25 to 35; IF, 23 days, IQR 18 to 28; p < 0.001) The cause of non ambulation was mainly due to progression of cancer (89%). The rate of systemic complications was comparable between the two groups (EPR, 18%; IF, 22%; p = 0.598). Conclusion. Selective use of EPR where survival is expected to be good offers correspondingly good long-term results. IF is less invasive with shorter treatment period, which is beneficial for patients with short-term expected survival. Prognosis is an important indicator in selecting operative procedures for femoral metastasis. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):285–292