A modified Delphi consensus on periprosthetic infection in orthopaedic oncology

dc.contributor.authorJeys, Lee
dc.contributor.authorBotello, Eduardo
dc.contributor.authorBoyle, Richard A.
dc.contributor.authorEbeid, Walid
dc.contributor.authorHoudek, Matthew T.
dc.contributor.authorKurisunkal, Vineet J.
dc.contributor.authorMorgan-Jones, Rhidian
dc.contributor.authorMorris, Guy V.
dc.contributor.authorPuri, Ajay
dc.contributor.authorRuggieri, Pietro
dc.contributor.authorLaitinen, Minna K.
dc.contributor.authorBOOM Consensus Meeting Participants
dc.contributor.organizationfi=ortopedia ja traumatologia|en=Orthopaedics and Traumatology|
dc.contributor.organizationfi=tyks, vsshp|en=tyks, varha|
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.90281651480
dc.converis.publication-id505851612
dc.converis.urlhttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/Publication/505851612
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-21T12:36:09Z
dc.date.available2026-01-21T12:36:09Z
dc.description.abstract<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to achieve consensus for important topics related to periprosthetic infection (PJI) in orthopaedic oncology, and to identify areas for future research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) held in Birmingham, UK, gathered 309 delegates from 53 countries to debate 20 consensus statements on PJI in orthopaedic oncology using a modified Delphi process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 20 questions and statements on PJI in orthopaedic oncology, none achieved unanimous consensus, 18 achieved strong consensus, one achieved moderate consensus, and one achieved weak consensus. The statements that reached consensus with notable agreement were on the prophylaxis of infection, management of leaking wounds, and surgical strategies for the treatment of PJI. Short-duration antibiotic prophylaxis was deemed as effective as longer courses for lower-risk reconstructions, and aggressive management was recommended for wounds draining beyond five to seven days to prevent deep infection. Furthermore, single-stage, two-stage, and 1.5-stage revision were recognized as valid strategies, with two-stage revision remaining the most reliable. The statements that did not achieve consensus were on the role of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention and prolonged antibiotic use post-revision.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The BOOM meeting achieved consensus for important topics on periprosthetic infection in orthopaedic oncology, but highlighted the low quality of the underlying evidence. This study has provided recommendations for the treatment of leaky wounds, duration of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, and choice of revision strategy.</p>
dc.format.pagerange1352
dc.format.pagerange1359
dc.identifier.eissn2049-4408
dc.identifier.jour-issn2049-4394
dc.identifier.olddbid212722
dc.identifier.oldhandle10024/195740
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/11111/53242
dc.identifier.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.107b12.bjj-2024-1039.r4
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe202601216086
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorEkman, Elina
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorDataimport, tyks, vsshp
dc.okm.discipline3121 Internal medicineen_GB
dc.okm.discipline3121 Sisätauditfi_FI
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationinternational co-publication
dc.okm.internationalityInternational publication
dc.okm.typeA1 ScientificArticle
dc.publisherBritish Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
dc.publisher.countryUnited Kingdomen_GB
dc.publisher.countryBritanniafi_FI
dc.publisher.country-codeGB
dc.relation.doi10.1302/0301-620X.107B12.BJJ-2024-1039.R4
dc.relation.ispartofjournalBone and Joint Journal
dc.relation.issue12
dc.relation.volume107-B
dc.source.identifierhttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/195740
dc.titleA modified Delphi consensus on periprosthetic infection in orthopaedic oncology
dc.year.issued2025

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
0301-620X.107B12.BJJ-2024-1039.R4.pdf
Size:
507.61 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format