Aims. Venous tumour thrombus (VTT) is a rare finding in osteosarcoma. Despite the high rate of VTT in osteosarcoma of the pelvis, there are very few descriptions of VTT associated with extrapelvic primary osteosarcoma. We therefore sought to describe the prevalence and presenting features of VTT in osteosarcoma of both the pelvis and the limbs. Methods. Records from a single institution were retrospectively reviewed for 308 patients with osteosarcoma of the pelvis or limb treated between January 2000 and December 2022. Primary lesions were located in an upper limb (n = 40), lower limb (n = 198), or pelvis (n = 70). Preoperative imaging and operative reports were reviewed to identify patients with thrombi in proximity to their primary lesion. Imaging and histopathology were used to determine presence of tumour within the thrombus. Results. Tumours abutted the blood vessels in 131 patients (43%) and encased the vessels in 30 (10%). Any form of venous thrombus was identified in 31 patients (10%). Overall, 21 of these thrombi were determined to be involved with the tumour based on imaging (n = 9) or histopathology (n = 12). The rate of VTT was 25% for pelvic osteosarcoma and 1.7% for limb osteosarcoma. The most common imaging features associated with histopathologically proven VTT were enhancement with contrast (n = 12; 100%), venous enlargement (n = 10; 83%), vessel encasement (n = 8; 66%), and visible intraluminal osteoid matrix (n = 6; 50%). Disease-specific survival (DSS) for patients with VTT was 95% at 12 months (95% CI 0.87 to 1.00), 50% at three years (95% CI 0.31 to 0.80), and 31% at five years (95% CI 0.14 to 0.71). VTT was associated with worse DSS (hazard ratio 2.3 (95% CI 1.11 to 4.84). Conclusion. VTT is rare with osteosarcoma and occurs more commonly in the pelvis than the limbs. Imaging features suggestive of VTT include enhancement with contrast, venous dilation, and vessel encasement. VTT portends a worse prognosis for patients with osteosarcoma, with a similar survivability to metastatic disease. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):865–870

The October 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome at ten years – how do athletes do?; Venous thromboembolism in patients following total joint replacement: are transfusions to blame?; What changes in pelvic sagittal tilt occur 20 years after total hip arthroplasty?; Can stratified care in hip arthroscopy predict successful and unsuccessful outcomes?; Hip replacement into your nineties; Can large language models help with follow-up?; The most taxing of revisions – proximal femoral replacement for periprosthetic joint infection – what’s the benefit of dual mobility?

Aims. Custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) are increasingly used in the reconstruction of large acetabular defects and have mainly been designed using a triflange approach, requiring extensive soft-tissue dissection. The monoflange design, where primary intramedullary fixation within the ilium combined with a monoflange for rotational stability, was anticipated to overcome this obstacle. The aim of this study was to evaluate the design with regard to functional outcome, complications, and acetabular reconstruction. Methods. Between 2014 and 2023, 79 patients with a mean follow-up of 33 months (SD 22; 9 to 103) were included. Functional outcome was measured using the Harris Hip Score and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). PPR revisions were defined as an endpoint, and subgroups were analyzed to determine risk factors. Results. Implantation was possible in all cases with a 2D centre of rotation deviation of 10 mm (SD 5.8; 1 to 29). PPR revision was necessary in eight (10%) patients. HHS increased significantly from 33 to 72 postoperatively, with a mean increase of 39 points (p < 0.001). Postoperative EQ-5D score was 0.7 (SD 0.3; -0.3 to 1). Risk factor analysis showed significant revision rates for septic indications (p ≤ 0.001) as well as femoral defect size (p = 0.001). Conclusion. Since large acetabular defects are being treated surgically more often, custom-made PPR should be integrated as an option in treatment algorithms. Monoflange PPR, with primary iliac fixation, offers a viable treatment option for Paprosky III defects with promising functional results, while requiring less soft-tissue exposure and allowing immediate full weightbearing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):688–696

The April 2013 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360 . looks at: hip cartilage and magnets; labral repair or resection; who benefits from injection; rotational osteotomy for osteonecrosis; whether ceramic implants risk fracture; dual articulation; and hydroxyapatite

The December 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Total hip arthroplasty after femoral neck fractures versus osteoarthritis at one-year follow-up: a comparative, retrospective study; Excellent mid-term survival of a monoblock conical prosthesis in treating atypical and complex femoral anatomy with total hip arthroplasty; Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement improves sexual function; Fast-track hip arthroplasty does not increase complication rates; Ten-year experience with same-day discharge outpatient total hip arthroplasty: patient demographics changed, but safe outcomes were maintained

The August 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Using machine learning to predict venous thromboembolism and major bleeding events following total joint arthroplasty; Antibiotic length in revision total hip arthroplasty; Preoperative colonization and worse outcomes; Short stem cemented total hip arthroplasty; What are the outcomes of one- versus two-stage revisions in the UK?; To cement or not to cement? The best approach in hemiarthroplasty; Similar re-revisions in cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty; Are hip precautions still needed?

The June 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Machine learning did not outperform conventional competing risk modelling to predict revision arthroplasty; Unravelling the risks: incidence and reoperation rates for femoral fractures post-total hip arthroplasty; Spinal versus general anaesthesia for hip arthroscopy: a COVID-19 pandemic- and opioid epidemic-driven study; Development and validation of a deep-learning model to predict total hip arthroplasty on radiographs; Ambulatory centres lead in same-day hip and knee arthroplasty success; Exploring the impact of smokeless tobacco on total hip arthroplasty outcomes: a deeper dive into postoperative complications

The April 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Do technical errors determine outcomes of operatively managed femoral neck fractures in younger adults?; Single-stage or two-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM); Fixation better than revision in type B periprosthetic fractures of taper slip stems; Can you maximize femoral head size at the expense of liner thickness?; Plasma D-dimer for periprosthetic joint infection?; How important is in vivo oxidation?; Total hip arthroplasty for HIV patients with osteonecrosis

The February 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Total hip arthroplasty or internal fixation for hip fracture?; Significant deterioration in quality of life and increased frailty in patients waiting more than six months for total hip or knee arthroplasty: a cross-sectional multicentre study; Long-term cognitive trajectory after total joint arthroplasty; Costal cartilage grafting for a large osteochondral lesion of the femoral head; Foley catheters not a problem in the short term; Revision hips still a mortality burden?; How to position implants with a robotic arm; Uncemented stems in hip fracture?

The April 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Impaction bone grafting for femoral revision hip arthroplasty with the Exeter stem; Effect of preoperative corticosteroids on postoperative glucose control in total joint replacement; Tranexamic acid in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism; Bisphosphonate use may be associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic hip fracture; A balanced approach: exploring the impact of surgical techniques on hip arthroplasty outcomes; A leap forward in hip arthroplasty: dual-mobility bearings reduce groin pain; A new perspective on complications: the link between blood glucose and joint infection risks

The December 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Early hip fracture surgery is safe for patients on direct oral anticoagulants; Time to return to work by occupational class after total hip or knee arthroplasty; Is there a consensus on air travel following hip and knee arthroplasty?; Predicting whether patients will achieve minimal clinically important differences following hip or knee arthroplasty; High-dose dual-antibiotic-loaded cement for hip hemiarthroplasty in the UK (WHiTE 8): a randomized controlled trial; Vitamin E – a positive thing in your poly?; Hydroxapatite-coated femoral stems: is there a difference in fixation?

The June 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Machine learning to identify surgical candidates for hip and knee arthroplasty: a viable option?; Poor outcome after debridement and implant retention; Can you cement polyethylene liners into well-fixed acetabular shells in hip revision?; Revision stem in primary arthroplasties: the Exeter 44/0 125 mm stem; Depression and anxiety: could they be linked to infection?; Does where you live affect your outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasties?; Racial disparities in outcomes after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty are substantially mediated by socioeconomic disadvantage both in black and white patients

The October 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Does the primary surgical approach matter when choosing the approach for revision total hip arthroplasty?; Time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference in primary total hip arthroplasty: comparison of anterior and posterior surgical approaches; To scope or not to scope: arthroscopy as an adjunct to PAO does not provide better clinical outcomes at one year than PAO alone; Re-exploring horizons in hip resurfacing: two-year results of a ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing; Association between tranexamic acid and decreased periprosthetic joint infection risk in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty; Octogenarians fare well: in revision for infection age is not a bar

The August 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Understanding perceived leg length discrepancy post-total hip arthroplasty: the role of pelvic obliquity; Influence of femoral stem design on revision rates in total hip arthroplasty; Outcomes of arthroscopic labral treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in adolescents; Characteristics and quality of online searches for direct anterior versus posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty; Rapid return to braking after anterior and posterior approach total hip arthroplasty; How much protection does a collar provide?; Timing matters: reducing infection risk in total hip arthroplasty with corticosteroid injection intervals; Identifying pain recovery patterns in total hip arthroplasty using PROMIS data

The February 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Trial of vancomycin and cefazolin as surgical prophylaxis in arthroplasty; Is preoperative posterior femoral neck tilt a risk factor for fixation failure? Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip; Periprosthetic fractures in larger hydroxyapatite-coated stems: are collared stems a better alternative for total hip arthroplasty?; Postoperative periprosthetic fracture following hip arthroplasty with a polished taper slip versus composite beam stem; Is oral tranexamic acid as good as intravenous?; Stem design and the risk of early periprosthetic femur fractures following THA in elderly patients; Does powered femoral broaching compromise patient safety in total hip arthroplasty?

The December 2022 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Fix and replace: simultaneous fracture fixation and hip arthroplasty for acetabular fractures in older patients; Is the revision rate for femoral neck fracture lower for total hip arthroplasty than for hemiarthroplasty?; Femoral periprosthetic fractures: data from the COMPOSE cohort study; Dual-mobility cups and fracture of the femur; What’s the deal with outcomes for hip and knee arthroplasty outcomes internationally?; Osteochondral lesions of the femoral head: is costal cartilage the answer?

Aims. Traditionally, total hip arthroplasty (THA) templating has been performed on anteroposterior (AP) pelvis radiographs. Recently, additional AP hip radiographs have been recommended for accurate measurement of the femoral offset (FO). To verify this claim, this study aimed to establish quantitative data of the measurement error of the FO in relation to leg position and X-ray source position using a newly developed geometric model and clinical data. Methods. We analyzed the FOs measured on AP hip and pelvis radiographs in a prospective consecutive series of 55 patients undergoing unilateral primary THA for hip osteoarthritis. To determine sample size, a power analysis was performed. Patients’ position and X-ray beam setting followed a standardized protocol to achieve reproducible projections. All images were calibrated with the KingMark calibration system. In addition, a geometric model was created to evaluate both the effects of leg position (rotation and abduction/adduction) and the effects of X-ray source position on FO measurement. Results. The mean FOs measured on AP hip and pelvis radiographs were 38.0 mm (SD 6.4) and 36.6 mm (SD 6.3) (p < 0.001), respectively. Radiological view had a smaller effect on FO measurement than inaccurate leg positioning. The model showed a non-linear relationship between projected FO and femoral neck orientation; at 30° external neck rotation (with reference to the detector plane), a true FO of 40 mm was underestimated by up to 20% (7.8 mm). With a neutral to mild external neck rotation (≤ 15°), the underestimation was less than 7% (2.7 mm). The effect of abduction and adduction was negligible. Conclusion. For routine THA templating, an AP pelvis radiograph remains the gold standard. Only patients with femoral neck malrotation > 15° on the AP pelvis view, e.g. due to external rotation contracture, should receive further imaging. Options include an additional AP hip view with elevation of the entire affected hip to align the femoral neck more parallel to the detector, or a CT scan in more severe cases. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):795–803

Aims. Controversy exists as to what should be considered a safe resection margin to minimize local recurrence in high-grade pelvic chondrosarcomas (CS). The aim of this study is to quantify what is a safe margin of resection for high-grade CS of the pelvis. Methods. We retrospectively identified 105 non-metastatic patients with high-grade pelvic CS of bone who underwent surgery (limb salvage/amputations) between 2000 and 2018. There were 82 (78%) male and 23 (22%) female patients with a mean age of 55 years (26 to 84). The majority of the patients underwent limb salvage surgery (n = 82; 78%) compared to 23 (22%) who had amputation. In total, 66 (64%) patients were grade 2 CS compared to 38 (36%) grade 3 CS. All patients were assessed for stage, pelvic anatomical classification, type of resection and reconstruction, margin status, local recurrence, distant recurrence, and overall survival. Surgical margins were stratified into millimetres: < 1 mm; > 1 mm but < 2 mm; and > 2 mm. Results. The disease-­specific survival (DSS) at five years was 69% (95% confidence interval (CI) 56% to 81%) and 51% (95% CI 31% to 70%) for grade 2 and 3 CS, respectively (p = 0.092). The local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) at five years was 59% (95% CI 45% to 72%) for grade 2 CS and 42% (95% CI 21% to 63%) for grade 3 CS (p = 0.318). A margin of more than 2 mm was a significant predictor of increased LRFS (p = 0.001). There was a tendency, but without statistical significance, for a > 2 mm margin to be a predictor of improved DSS. Local recurrence (LR) was a highly significant predictor of DSS, analyzed in a competing risk model (p = 0.001). Conclusion. Obtaining wide margins in the pelvis remains challenging for high-grade pelvic CS. On the basis of our study, we conclude that it is necessary to achieve at least a 2 mm margin for optimal oncological outcomes in patients with high-grade CS of the pelvis. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1150–1154

Aims. It is uncertain whether instrumented spinal fixation in nonambulatory children with neuromuscular scoliosis should finish at L5 or be extended to the pelvis. Pelvic fixation has been shown to be associated with up to 30% complication rates, but is regarded by some as the standard for correction of deformity in these conditions. The incidence of failure when comparing the most caudal level of instrumentation, either L5 or the pelvis, using all-pedicle screw instrumentation has not previously been reported. In this retrospective study, we compared nonambulatory patients undergoing surgery at two centres: one that routinely instrumented to L5 and the other to the pelvis. Methods. In all, 91 nonambulatory patients with neuromuscular scoliosis were included. All underwent surgery using bilateral, segmental, pedicle screw instrumentation. A total of 40 patients underwent fusion to L5 and 51 had their fixation extended to the pelvis. The two groups were assessed for differences in terms of clinical and radiological findings, as well as complications. Results. The main curve (MC) was a mean of 90° (40° to 141°) preoperatively and 46° (15° to 82°) at two-year follow-up in the L5 group, and 82° (33° to 116°) and 19° (1° to 60°) in the pelvic group (p < 0.001 at follow-up). Correction of MC and pelvic obliquity (POB) were statistically greater in the pelvic group (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the operating time, blood loss, or complications. Loss of MC correction (> 10°) was more common in patients fixated to the pelvis (23% vs 3%; p = 0.032), while loss of pelvic obliquity correction was more frequent in the L5 group (25% vs 0%; p = 0.007). Risk factors for loss of correction (either POB or MC) included preoperative coronal imbalance (> 50 mm, odds ratio (OR) 11.5, 95%confidence interval (CI) 2.0 to 65; p = 0.006) and postoperative sagittal imbalance (> 25 mm, OR 11.0, 95% CI1.9 to 65; p = 0.008). Conclusion. We found that patients undergoing pelvic fixation had a greater correction of MC and POB. The rate of complications was not different. Preoperative coronal and postoperative sagittal imbalance were associated with increased risks of loss of correction, regardless of extent of fixation. Therefore, we recommend pelvic fixation in all nonambulatory children with neuromuscular scoliosis where coronal or sagittal imbalance are present preoperatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):261–267