Aims. Osseous invasion exhibited in soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) is recognized as a prognostic risk factor. Achieving a wide margin is the default surgical approach for local control. However, for STSs where the tumour is in contact with the adjacent cortex but without clear evidence of osseous invasion, such as medullary invasion, the question of whether bone resection can provide better local control or survival than more conservative sub-periosteal excision remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess whether bone resection for thigh STS with cortical contact of the adjacent bone results in better local control and survival compared to sub-periosteal dissection, and to investigate the prognostic factors for clinical outcomes in STS. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 142 patients with thigh STS exhibiting cortical contact but without medullary invasion, from May 2000 to May 2020. Patients underwent either composite bone resection or sub-periosteal excision. Demographics, clinical outcomes, and functional outcomes were compared between the two groups. Additionally, Cox regression analysis was used to analyze risk factors for local recurrence. Results. The five-year overall survival, local recurrence-free survival, and metastasis-free survival among patients with bone resection was 74.0%, 65.9%, and 74.1%, respectively, compared to 72.9%, 68.3%, and 72.0%, respectively, among patients with sub-periosteal excision. The cumulative incidence of recurrence was 33.1% for patients who underwent bone and 36.4% for those with sub-periosteal excision (p = 0.681). In multivariate analysis, STS with high Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre Le Cancer (FNCLCC) grade, invasion involving posterior intermuscular septum, medial intermuscular septum, and adductor brevis were found to be associated with poorer prognosis. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score in the bone resection group was 24.7, significantly lower than the 28.3 in the sub-periosteal group (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Routine bone resection failed to improve local control or survival in STS patients with cortical bone contact, but resulted in significantly impaired postoperative function. A more conservative sub-periosteal excision approach may be preferable for these cases. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(2):215–226

Aims. The proximal tibia (PT) is the anatomical site most frequently affected by primary bone tumours after the distal femur. Reconstruction of the PT remains challenging because of the poor soft-tissue cover and the need to reconstruct the extensor mechanism. Reconstructive techniques include implantation of massive endoprosthesis (megaprosthesis), osteoarticular allografts (OAs), or allograft-prosthesis composites (APCs). Methods. This was a retrospective analysis of clinical data relating to patients who underwent proximal tibial arthroplasty in our regional bone tumour centre from 2010 to 2018. Results. A total of 76 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Mean age at surgery was 43.2 years (12 to 86 (SD 21)). The mean follow-up period was 60.1 months (5.4 to 353). In total 21 failures were identified, giving an overall failure rate of 27.6%. Prosthesis survival at five years was 75.5%, and at ten years was 59%. At last follow-up, mean knee flexion was 89.8° (SD 36°) with a mean extensor lag of 18.1° (SD 24°). In univariate analysis, factors associated with better survival of the prosthesis were a malignant or metastatic cancer diagnosis (versus benign), with a five- and ten-year survival of 78.9% and 65.7% versus 37.5% (p = 0.045), while in-hospital length of stay longer than nine days was also associated with better prognosis with five- and ten-year survival rates at 84% and 84% versus 60% and 16% (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, only in-hospital length of stay was associated with longer survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.66). Conclusion. We have shown that proximal tibial arthroplasty with endoprosthesis is a safe and reliable method for reconstruction in patients treated for orthopaedic oncological conditions. Either modular or custom implants in this series performed well. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):733–740