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

Previous classification systems of failure of limb salvage focused primarily on endoprosthetic failures and lacked sufficient depth for the effective study of the causes of failure. In order to address these inadequacies, the International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) formed a committee to recommend revisions of the previous systems. The purpose of this study was to report on their recommendations. The modifications were prepared using an earlier, evidence-based model with subclassification based on the existing medical literature. Subclassification for all five primary types of failure of limb salvage following endoprosthetic reconstruction were formulated and a complementary system was derived for the failure of biological reconstruction. An additional classification of failure in paediatric patients was also described. . Limb salvage surgery presents a complex array of potential mechanisms of failure, and a complete and precise classification of types of failure is required. Earlier classification systems lacked specificity, and the evidence-based system outlined here is designed to correct these weaknesses and to provide a means of reporting failures of limb salvage in order to allow the interpretation of outcome following reconstructive surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1436–40

Aims

A single-centre prospective randomized trial was conducted to investigate whether a less intensive follow-up protocol would not be inferior to a conventional follow-up protocol, in terms of overall survival, in patients who have undergone surgery for sarcoma of the limb. Initial short-term results were published in 2014.

It is important to be able to identify patients with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in order to minimise the risk of an event. We investigated the incidence and risk factors for post-operative VTE in 168 consecutive patients with a malignancy of the lower limb. The period of study included ten months before and 12 months after the introduction of chemical thromboprophylaxis. All data about the potential risk factors were identified and classified into three groups (patient-, surgery- and tumour-related). The outcome measure was a thromboembolic event within 90 days of surgery.

Of the 168 patients, eight (4.8%) had a confirmed symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis and one (0.6%) a fatal pulmonary embolism. Of the 28 variables tested, age > 60 years, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grade and metastatic tumour were independent risk factors for VTE. The overall rate of symptomatic VTE was not significantly different between patients who received chemical thromboprophylaxis and those who did not. Knowledge of these risk factors may be of value in improving the surgical outcome of patients with a malignancy of the lower limb.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:558–62.

The current indications for functional restoration of extension of the knee following quadriceps resection or loss require reappraisal. The contribution of pedicled and free functional muscle transfer is likely to be over-emphasised in many studies, with good functional outcomes predominantly reported only in the context of cases with residual quadriceps function. In cases with total quadriceps resection or loss, all forms of reconstruction perform poorly. Furthermore, in smaller resections with loss of two or fewer components of the quadriceps, minimal impairment of function occurs in the absence of functional reconstruction, suggesting that functional restoration may not be warranted. Thus there is a paradox in the current approach to quadriceps reconstruction, in that small resections are likely to be over-treated and large resections remain under-treated.

This review suggests a shift is required in the approach and rationale for reconstructing functional extension of the knee after quadriceps resection or loss. A classification based on current evidence is suggested that emphasises more clearly the indications and rationale for functional transfers.