Purpose: To compare the ability of margin classification systems to determine local recurrence (LR) risk after soft tissue sarcoma (STS) resection. Methods: Two thousand two hundred seventeen patients with nonmetastatic extremity and truncal STS treated with surgical resection and multidisciplinary consideration of perioperative radiotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. Margins were coded by residual tumor (R) classification (in which microscopic tumor at inked margin defines R1), the R+1mm classification (in which microscopic tumor within 1 mm of ink defines R1), and the Toronto Margin Context Classification (TMCC; in which positive margins are separated into planned close but positive at critical structures, positive after whoops re-excision, and inadvertent positive margins). Multivariate competing risk regression models were created. Results: By R classification, LR rates at 10-year follow-up were 8%, 21%, and 44% in R0, R1, and R2, respectively. R+1mm classification resulted in increased R1 margins (726 v 278, P < .001), but led to decreased LR for R1 margins without changing R0 LR; for R0, the 10-year LR rate was 8% (range, 7% to 10%); for R1, the 10-year LR rate was 12% (10% to 15%) . The TMCC also showed various LR rates among its tiers ( P < .001). LR rates for positive margins on critical structures were not different from R0 at 10 years (11% v 8%, P = .18), whereas inadvertent positive margins had high LR (5-year, 28% [95% CI, 19% to 37%]; 10-year, 35% [95% CI, 25% to 46%]; P < .001). Conclusion: The R classification identified three distinct risk levels for LR in STS. An R+1mm classification reduced LR differences between R1 and R0, suggesting that a negative but < 1-mm margin may be adequate with multidisciplinary treatment. The TMCC provides additional stratification of positive margins that may aid in surgical planning and patient education.

Background: The femur is the most common site of metastasis in the appendicular skeleton, and metastatic bone disease negatively influences quality of life. Orthopaedic surgeons are often faced with deciding whether to prophylactically stabilize an impending fracture, and it is unclear if prophylactic fixation increases the likelihood of survival. Questions/purposes: Is prophylactic femur stabilization in patients with metastatic disease associated with different overall survival than fixation of a complete pathologic fracture? Methods: We performed a retrospective, comparative study using the national Veterans Administration database. All patient records from September 30, 2010 to October 1, 2015 were queried. Only nonarthroplasty procedures were included. The final study sample included 950 patients (94% males); 362 (38%) received prophylactic stabilization of a femoral lesion, and 588 patients (62%) underwent fixation of a pathologic femur fracture. Mean followup duration was 2 years (range, 0-7 years). We created prophylactic stabilization and pathologic fracture fixation groups for comparison using Common Procedural Terminology and ICD-9 codes. The primary endpoint of the analysis was overall survival. Univariate survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method; between-group differences were compared using the log-rank test. Covariate data were used to create a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model for survival to adjust for confounders in the two groups, including Gagne comorbidity score and cancer type. Results: After adjusting for comorbidities and cancer type, we found that patients treated with prophylactic stabilization had a lower risk of death than did patients treated for pathologic femur fracture (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.62–0.89; p = 0.002). Conclusions: In the national Veterans Administration database, we found greater overall survival between patients undergoing prophylactic stabilization of metastatic femoral lesions and those with fixation of complete pathologic fractures. We could not determine the cause of this association, and it is possible, if not likely, that patients treated for fracture had more aggressive disease causing the fracture than did those undergoing prophylactic stabilization. Currently, most orthopaedic surgeons who treat pathological fractures stabilize the fracture prophylactically when reasonable to do so. We may be improving survival in addition to preventing a pathological fracture; further study is needed to determine whether the association is cause-and-effect and whether additional efforts to identify and treat at-risk lesions improves patient outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Aims Intercalary allografts following resection of a primary diaphyseal tumour have high rates of complications and failures. At our institution intercalary allografts are augmented with intramedullary cement and fixed using compression plating. Our aim was to evaluate their long-term outcomes. Patients and Methods A total of 46 patients underwent reconstruction with an intercalary allograft between 1989 and 2014. The patients had a mean age of 32.8 years (14 to 77). The most common diagnoses were osteosarcoma (n = 16) and chondrosarcoma (n = 9). The location of the tumours was in the femur in 21, the tibia in 16 and the humerus in nine. Function was assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). The survival of the graft and the overall survival were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results The median follow-up was 92 months (4 to 288). The mean MSTS 87 score was 29.1 (19 to 35), the mean MSTS 93 score was 82.2 (50 to 100) and the mean TESS score was 81.2 (43 to 100). Overall survival of the allograft was 84.8%. A total of 15 patients (33%) had a complication. Five allografts were revised for complications and one for local recurrence. Conclusion Intercalary allografts augmented with intramedullary cement and compression plate fixation provide a reliable and durable method of reconstruction after the excision of a primary diaphyseal bone tumour, with high levels of function and satisfaction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:973–8.

Y 2003 through April 2006 at a single academic orthopaedic surgery institution in Massachusetts were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients diagnosed with a meniscal tear and to determine whether surgery had been performed within six months after the diagnosis. Six categories of insurance were identified: private insurance, Workers’ Compensation, Medicare, Medicaid, Uncompensated Care Pool, and self pay. A comparison of the proportions of insured and uninsured patients who underwent surgery was the primary outcome measure. Results: A total of 1127 patients were identified, and 446 (40%) of them underwent surgery within six months after an office visit. The patients with and without surgery had similar age and sex distributions. When patients were divided, according to their insurance status, into insured and uninsured groups, no significant difference was found in the rate of surgery (p = 0.23). However, subgroup analysis revealed significant differences among the six insurance categories. Logistic regression analysis showed that patients in the self-pay group had a lower rate of surgery than those with private insurance (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.14 to 0.75; p = 0.008), whereas patients receiving Workers’ Compensation (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 3.55; p = 0.034) and those receiving Medicaid (odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 2.42; p = 0.016) had higher surgical rates than those with private insurance. Conclusions: The rate of elective arthroscopic knee surgery for meniscal tears varied significantly for some insurance categories at this single academic institution in Massachusetts. Further work is necessary to clarify the patient and surgeon factors influencing these disparities in clinical decision-making. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence....