Aims. The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. Methods. The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds. Results. The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively. Conclusion. The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431

Aims. The aim of this study was to gain an agreement on the management of idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV) up to walking age in order to provide a benchmark for practitioners and guide consistent, high-quality care for children with CTEV. Methods. The consensus process followed an established Delphi approach with a predetermined degree of agreement. The process included the following steps: establishing a steering group; steering group meetings, generating statements, and checking them against the literature; a two-round Delphi survey; and final consensus meeting. The steering group members and Delphi survey participants were all British Society of Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) members. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis of the Delphi survey results. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation checklist was followed for reporting of the results. Results. The BSCOS-selected steering group, the steering group meetings, the Delphi survey, and the final consensus meeting all followed the pre-agreed protocol. A total of 153/243 members voted in round 1 Delphi (63%) and 132 voted in round 2 (86%). Out of 61 statements presented to round 1 Delphi, 43 reached ‘consensus in’, no statements reached ‘consensus out’, and 18 reached ‘no consensus’. Four statements were deleted and one new statement added following suggestions from round 1. Out of 15 statements presented to round 2, 12 reached ‘consensus in’, no statements reached ‘consensus out’, and three reached ‘no consensus’ and were discussed and included following the final consensus meeting. Two statements were combined for simplicity. The final consensus document includes 57 statements allocated into six successive stages. Conclusion. We have produced a consensus document for the treatment of idiopathic CTEV up to walking age. This will provide a benchmark for standard of care in the UK and will help to reduce geographical variability in treatment and outcomes. Appropriate dissemination and implementation will be key to its success. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):758–764

Aims. The aim of this study was to gain a consensus for best practice of the assessment and management of children with idiopathic toe walking (ITW) in order to provide a benchmark for practitioners and guide the best consistent care. Methods. An established Delphi approach with predetermined steps and degree of agreement based on a standardized protocol was used to determine consensus. The steering group members and Delphi survey participants included members from the British Society of Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) and the Association of Paediatric Chartered Physiotherapists (APCP). The statements included definition, assessment, treatment indications, nonoperative and operative interventions, and outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis of the Delphi survey results. The AGREE checklist was followed for reporting the results. Results. A total of 227 participants (54% APCP and 46% BSCOS members) completed the first round, and 222 participants (98%) completed the second round. Out of 54 proposed statements included in the first round Delphi, 17 reached ‘consensus in’, no statements reached ‘consensus out’, and 37 reached ‘no consensus’. These 37 statements were then discussed, reworded, amalgamated, or deleted before the second round Delphi of 29 statements. A total of 12 statements reached ‘consensus in’, four ‘consensus out’, and 13 ‘no consensus’. In the final consensus meeting, 13 statements were voted upon. Five were accepted, resulting in a total of 31 approved statements. Conclusion. In the aspects of practice where sufficient evidence is not available, a consensus statement can provide a strong body of opinion that acts as a benchmark for excellence in clinical care. This statement can assist clinicians managing children with ITW to ensure consistent and reliable practice, and reduce geographical variability in practice and outcomes. It will enable those treating ITW to share the published consensus document with both carers and patient groups. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1190–1196

Aims. The aim of this study was to produce clinical consensus recommendations about the non-surgical treatment of children with Perthes’ disease. The recommendations are intended to support clinical practice in a condition for which there is no robust evidence to guide optimal care. Methods. A two-round, modified Delphi study was conducted online. An advisory group of children’s orthopaedic specialists consisting of physiotherapists, surgeons, and clinical nurse specialists designed a survey. In the first round, participants also had the opportunity to suggest new statements. The survey included statements related to ‘Exercises’, ‘Physical activity’, ‘Education/information sharing’, ‘Input from other services’, and ‘Monitoring assessments’. The survey was shared with clinicians who regularly treat children with Perthes’ disease in the UK using clinically relevant specialist groups and social media. A predetermined threshold of ≥ 75% for consensus was used for recommendation, with a threshold of between 70% and 75% being considered as ‘points to consider’. Results. A total of 40 participants took part in the first round, of whom 31 completed the second round. A total of 87 statements were generated by the advisory group and included in the first round, at the end of which 31 achieved consensus and were removed from the survey, and an additional four statements were generated. A total of 60 statements were included in the second round and 45 achieved the threshold for consensus from both rounds, with three achieving the threshold for ‘points to consider’. The recommendations predominantly included self-management, particularly relating to advice about exercise and education for children with Perthes’ disease and their families. Conclusion. Children’s orthopaedic specialists have reached consensus on recommendations for non-surgical treatment in Perthes’ disease. These statements will support decisions made in clinical practice and act as a foundation to support clinicians in the absence of robust evidence. The dissemination of these findings and the best way of delivering this care needs careful consideration, which we will continue to explore. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):501–507

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the consensus best practice approach for the investigation and management of children (aged 0 to 15 years) in the UK with musculoskeletal infection (including septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, pyomyositis, tenosynovitis, fasciitis, and discitis). This consensus can then be used to ensure consistent, safe care for children in UK hospitals and those elsewhere with similar healthcare systems. Methods. A Delphi approach was used to determine consensus in three core aspects of care: 1) assessment, investigation, and diagnosis; 2) treatment; and 3) service, pathways, and networks. A steering group of paediatric orthopaedic surgeons created statements which were then evaluated through a two-round Delphi survey sent to all members of the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS). Statements were only included (‘consensus in’) in the final agreed consensus if at least 75% of respondents scored the statement as critical for inclusion. Statements were discarded (‘consensus out’) if at least 75% of respondents scored them as not important for inclusion. Reporting these results followed the Appraisal Guidelines for Research and Evaluation. Results. A total of 133 children’s orthopaedic surgeons completed the first survey, and 109 the second. Out of 43 proposed statements included in the initial Delphi, 32 reached ‘consensus in’, 0 ‘consensus out’, and 11 ‘no consensus’. These 11 statements were then reworded, amalgamated, or deleted before the second Delphi round of eight statements. All eight were accepted as ‘consensus in’, resulting in a total of 40 approved statements. Conclusion. In the many aspects of medicine where relevant evidence is not available for clinicians to base their practice, a Delphi consensus can provide a strong body of opinion that acts as a benchmark for good quality clinical care. We would recommend clinicians managing children with musculoskeletal infection follow the guidance in the consensus statements in this article, to ensure care in all medical settings is consistent and safe. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):815–820

Aims. Open lower limb fracture is life-changing, resulting in substantial morbidity and resource demand, while inconsistent outcome-reporting hampers systematic review and meta-analysis. A core outcome set establishes consensus among key stakeholders for the recommendation of a minimum set of outcomes. This study aims to define a core outcome set for adult open lower limb fracture. Methods. Candidate outcomes were identified from a previously published systematic review and a secondary thematic analysis of 25 patient interviews exploring the lived experience of recovery from open lower limb fracture. Outcomes were categorized and sequentially refined using healthcare professional and patient structured discussion groups. Consensus methods included a multi-stakeholder two-round online Delphi survey and a consensus meeting attended by a purposive sample of stakeholders, facilitated discussion, and voting using a nominal group technique. Results. Thematic analysis and systematic review identified 121 unique outcomes, reduced to 68 outcomes following structured discussion groups. Outcomes were presented to 136 participants who completed a two-round online Delphi survey. The Delphi survey resulted in 11 outcomes identified as consensus ‘in’ only. All outcomes were discussed at a consensus meeting attended by 15 patients, 14 healthcare professionals, 11 researchers, and one patient-carer. Consensus was achieved for a four-core outcome set: ‘Walking, gait and mobility’, ‘Being able to return to life roles’, ‘Pain or discomfort’, and ‘Quality of life’. Conclusion. This study used robust consensus methods to establish a core outcome set that should be measured in all future research studies and audits of clinical practice without precluding the measurement of additional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(4):294–305

Aims. Aseptic loosening is the most common cause of failure following cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and has been linked to poor cementation technique. We aimed to develop a consensus on the optimal technique for component cementation in TKA. Methods. A UK-based, three-round, online modified Delphi Expert Consensus Study was completed focusing on cementation technique in TKA. Experts were identified as having a minimum of five years’ consultant experience in the NHS and fulfilling any one of the following criteria: a ‘high volume’ knee arthroplasty practice (> 150 TKAs per annum) as identified from the National joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man; a senior author of at least five peer reviewed articles related to TKA in the previous five years; a surgeon who is named trainer for a post-certificate of comletion of training fellowship in TKA. Results. In total, 81 experts (round 1) and 80 experts (round 2 and 3) completed the Delphi Study. Four domains with a total of 24 statements were identified. 100% consensus was reached within the cement preparation, pressurization, and cement curing domains. 90% consensus was reached within the cement application domain. Consensus was not reached with only one statement regarding the handling of cement during initial application to the tibial and/or femoral bone surfaces. Conclusion. The Cementing Techniques In Knee Surgery (CeTIKS) Delphi consensus study presents comprehensive recommendations on the optimal technique for component cementing in TKA. Expert opinion has a place in the hierarchy of evidence and, until better evidence is available these recommendations should be considered when cementing a TKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):682–688

Aims. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set of what to measure in all future clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries in adults. Methods. Phase 1 consisted of steps to identify potential outcome domains through systematic review of published studies, and exploration of the patient perspective through qualitative research, consisting of 25 semi-structured interviews and five focus groups. Phase 2 involved key stakeholder groups (patients, hand surgeons, and hand therapists) prioritizing the outcome domains via a three-round international Delphi survey, with a final consensus meeting to agree the final core outcome set. Results. The systematic review of 160 studies identified 74 outcome domains based on the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Overall, 35 domains were generated through thematic analysis of the patient interviews and focus groups. The domains from these elements were synthesised to develop 37 outcome domains as the basis of the Delphi survey, with a further four generated from participant suggestions in Round 1. The Delphi survey identified 20 outcome domains as ‘very important’ for the core outcome set. At the consensus meeting, 27 participants from key stakeholder groups selected seven outcomes for the core outcome set: pain/discomfort with activity, pain/discomfort with rest, fine hand use/dexterity, self-hygiene/personal care, return to usual work/job, range of motion, and patient satisfaction with outcome/result. Conclusion. This set of core outcome domains is recommended as a minimum to be reported in all clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries in adults. While this establishes what to measure, future work will focus on determining how best to measure these outcomes. By adopting this patient-centred core outcome set, consistency and comparability of studies will be improved, aiding meta-analysis and strengthening the evidence base for management of these common and impactful injuries. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):87–95

Aims. The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). Results. The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. Conclusion. The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753–758

Aims. To identify the minimum set of outcomes that should be collected in clinical practice and reported in research related to the care of children with idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV). Methods. A list of outcome measurement tools (OMTs) was obtained from the literature through a systematic review. Further outcomes were collected from patients and families through a questionnaire and interview process. The combined list, as well as the appropriate follow-up timepoint, was rated for importance in a two-round Delphi process that included an international group of orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists, nurse practitioners, patients, and families. Outcomes that reached no consensus during the Delphi process were further discussed and scored for inclusion/exclusion in a final consensus meeting involving international stakeholder representatives of practitioners, families, and patient charities. Results. In total, 39 OMTs were included from the systematic review. Two additional OMTs were identified from the interviews and questionnaires, and four were added after round one Delphi. Overall, 22 OMTs reached ‘consensus in’ during the Delphi and two reached ‘consensus out’; 21 OMTs reached ‘no consensus’ and were included in the final consensus meeting. In all, 21 participants attended the consensus meeting, including a wide diversity of clubfoot practitioners, parent/patient representative, and an independent chair. A total of 21 outcomes were discussed and voted upon; six were voted ‘in’ and 15 were voted ‘out’. The final COS document includes nine OMTs and two existing outcome scores with a total of 31 outcome parameters to be collected after a minimum follow-up of five years. It incorporates static and dynamic clinical findings, patient-reported outcome measures, and a definition of CTEV relapse. Conclusion. We have defined a minimum set of outcomes to draw comparisons between centres and studies in the treatment of CTEV. With the use of these outcomes, we hope to allow more meaningful research and a better clinical management of CTEV. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):98–106

Aims. Hip disease is common in children with cerebral palsy (CP) and can decrease quality of life and function. Surveillance programmes exist to improve outcomes by treating hip disease at an early stage using radiological surveillance. However, studies and surveillance programmes report different radiological outcomes, making it difficult to compare. We aimed to identify the most important radiological measurements and develop a core measurement set (CMS) for clinical practice, research, and surveillance programmes. Methods. A systematic review identified a list of measurements previously used in studies reporting radiological hip outcomes in children with CP. These measurements informed a two-round Delphi study, conducted among orthopaedic surgeons and specialist physiotherapists. Participants rated each measurement on a nine-point Likert scale (‘not important’ to ‘critically important’). A consensus meeting was held to finalize the CMS. Results. Overall, 14 distinct measurements were identified in the systematic review, with Reimer’s migration percentage being the most frequently reported. These measurements were presented over the two rounds of the Delphi process, along with two additional measurements that were suggested by participants. Ultimately, two measurements, Reimer’s migration percentage and femoral head-shaft angle, were included in the CMS. Conclusion. This use of a minimum standardized set of measurements has the potential to encourage uniformity across hip surveillance programmes, and may streamline the development of tools, such as artificial intelligence systems to automate the analysis in surveillance programmes. This core set should be the minimum requirement in clinical studies, allowing clinicians to add to this as needed, which will facilitate comparisons to be drawn between studies and future meta-analyses. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):825–831

Aims. A national screening programme has existed in the UK for the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) since 1969. However, every aspect of screening and treatment remains controversial. Screening programmes throughout the world vary enormously, and in the UK there is significant variation in screening practice and treatment pathways. We report the results of an attempt by the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) to identify a nationwide consensus for the management of DDH in order to unify treatment and suggest an approach for screening. Methods. A Delphi consensus study was performed among the membership of BSCOS. Statements were generated by a steering group regarding aspects of the management of DDH in children aged under three months, namely screening and surveillance (15 questions), the technique of ultrasound scanning (eight questions), the initiation of treatment (19 questions), care during treatment with a splint (ten questions), and on quality, governance, and research (eight questions). A two-round Delphi process was used and a consensus document was produced at the final meeting of the steering group. Results. A total of 60 statements were graded by 128 clinicians in the first round and 132 in the second round. Consensus was reached on 30 out of 60 statements in the first round and an additional 12 in the seond. This was summarized in a consensus statement and distilled into a flowchart to guide clinical practice. Conclusion. We identified agreement in an area of medicine that has a long history of controversy and varied practice. None of the areas of consensus are based on high-quality evidence. This document is thus a framework to guide clinical practice and on which high-quality clinical trials can be developed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):209–214

Aims. To achieve expert clinical consensus in the delivery of hydrodilatation for the treatment of primary frozen shoulder to inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation. Methods. We conducted a two-stage, electronic questionnaire-based, modified Delphi survey of shoulder experts in the UK NHS. Round one required positive, negative, or neutral ratings about hydrodilatation. In round two, each participant was reminded of their round one responses and the modal (or ‘group’) response from all participants. This allowed participants to modify their responses in round two. We proposed respectively mandating or encouraging elements of hydrodilatation with 100% and 90% positive consensus, and respectively disallowing or discouraging with 90% and 80% negative consensus. Other elements would be optional. Results. Between 4 August 2020 and 4 August 2021, shoulder experts from 47 hospitals in the UK completed the study. There were 106 participants (consultant upper limb orthopaedic surgeons, n = 50; consultant radiologists, n = 52; consultant physiotherapist, n = 1; extended scope physiotherapists, n = 3) who completed round one, of whom 97 (92%) completed round two. No elements of hydrodilatation were “mandated” (100% positive rating). Elements that were “encouraged” (≥ 80% positive rating) were the use of image guidance, local anaesthetic, normal saline, and steroids to deliver the injection. Injecting according to patient tolerance, physiotherapy, and home exercises were also “encouraged”. No elements were “discouraged” (≥ 80% negative rating) although using hypertonic saline was rated as being “disallowed” (≥ 90% negative rating). Conclusion. In the absence of rigorous evidence, our Delphi study allowed us to achieve expert consensus about positive, negative, and neutral ratings of hydrodilatation in the management of frozen shoulder in a hospital setting. This should inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):701–709

Aims. The aim of this study is to develop a core set of outcome domains that should be considered and reported in all future trials of childhood limb fractures. Methods. A four-phase study was conducted to agree a set of core outcome domains. Identification of candidate outcome domains were identified through systematic review of trials, and outcome domains relevant to families were identified through semi-structured interviews with 20 families (parent-child pairing or group). Outcome domains were prioritized using an international three-round Delphi survey with 205 panellists and then condensed into a core outcome set through a consensus workshop with 30 stakeholders. Results. The systematic review and interviews identified 85 outcome domains as relevant to professionals or families. The Delphi survey prioritized 30 upper and 29 lower limb outcome domains at first round, an additional 17 upper and 18 lower limb outcomes at second round, and four additional outcomes for upper and lower limb at the third round as important domains. At the consensus workshop, the core outcome domains were agreed as: 1) pain and discomfort; 2) return to physical and recreational activities; 3) emotional and psychosocial wellbeing; 4) complications from the injury and treatment; 5) rturn to baseline activities daily living; 6) participation in learning; 7) appearance and deformity; and 8) time to union. In addition, 9a) recovery of mobility and 9b) recovery of manual dexterity was recommended as a core outcome for lower and upper limb fractures, respectively. Conclusion. This set of core outcome domains is recommended as a minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials. It is not an exhaustive set and further work is required to identify what outcome tools should be used to measure each of these outcomes. Adoption of this outcome set will improve the consistency of research for these children that can be combined for more meaningful meta-analyses and policy development. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1821–1830

Aims. Ankle fractures are common injuries and the third most common fragility fracture. In all, 40% of ankle fractures in the frail are open and represent a complex clinical scenario, with morbidity and mortality rates similar to hip fracture patients. They have a higher risk of complications, such as wound infections, malunion, hospital-acquired infections, pressure sores, veno-thromboembolic events, and significant sarcopaenia from prolonged bed rest. Methods. A modified Delphi method was used and a group of experts with a vested interest in best practice were invited from the British Foot and Ankle Society (BOFAS), British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), Orthopaedic Trauma Society (OTS), British Association of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgeons (BAPRAS), British Geriatric Society (BGS), and the British Limb Reconstruction Society (BLRS). Results. In the first stage, there were 36 respondents to the survey, with over 70% stating their unit treats more than 20 such cases per year. There was a 50:50 split regarding if the timing of surgery should be within 36 hours, as per the hip fracture guidelines, or 72 hours, as per the open fracture guidelines. Overall, 75% would attempt primary wound closure and 25% would utilize a local flap. There was no orthopaedic agreement on fixation, and 75% would permit weightbearing immediately. In the second stage, performed at the BLRS meeting, experts discussed the survey results and agreed upon a consensus for the management of open elderly ankle fractures. Conclusion. A mutually agreed consensus from the expert panel was reached to enable the best practice for the management of patients with frailty with an open ankle fracture: 1) all units managing lower limb fragility fractures should do so through a cohorted multidisciplinary pathway. This pathway should follow the standards laid down in the "care of the older or frail orthopaedic trauma patient" British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guideline. These patients have low bone density, and we should recommend full falls and bone health assessment; 2) all open lower limb fragility fractures should be treated in a single stage within 24 hours of injury if possible; 3) all patients with fragility fractures of the lower limb should be considered for mobilisation on the day following surgery; 4) all patients with lower limb open fragility fractures should be considered for tissue sparing, with judicious debridement as a default; 5) all patients with open lower limb fragility fractures should be managed by a consultant plastic surgeon with primary closure wherever possible; and 6) the method of fixation must allow for immediate unrestricted weightbearing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):236–242

Aims. The aim of this study is to define a core outcome set (COS) to allow consistency in outcome reporting amongst studies investigating the management of orthopaedic treatment in children with spinal dysraphism (SD). Methods. Relevant outcomes will be identified in a four-stage process from both the literature and key stakeholders (patients, their families, and clinical professionals). Previous outcomes used in clinical studies will be identified through a systematic review of the literature, and each outcome will be assigned to one of the five core areas, defined by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT). Additional possible outcomes will be identified through consultation with patients affected by SD and their families. Results. Outcomes identified in these stages will be included in a two-round Delphi process that will involve key stakeholders in the management of SD. A final list including the identified outcomes will then be summarized in a consensus meeting attended by representatives of the key stakeholders groups. Conclusion. The best approach to provision of orthopaedic care in patients with SD is yet to be decided. The reporting of different outcomes to define success among studies, often based on personal preferences and local culture, has made it difficult to compare the effect of treatments for this condition. The development of a COS for orthopaedic management in SD will enable meaningful reporting and facilitate comparisons in future clinical trials, thereby assisting complex decision-making in the clinical management of these children. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):54–60

Aims. This study aims to define a set of core outcomes (COS) to allow consistent reporting in order to compare results and assist in treatment decisions for idiopathic clubfoot. Methods. A list of outcomes will be obtained in a three-stage process from the literature and from key stakeholders (patients, parents, surgeons, and healthcare professionals). Important outcomes for patients and parents will be collected from a group of children with idiopathic clubfoot and their parents through questionnaires and interviews. The outcomes identified during this process will be combined with the list of outcomes previously obtained from a systematic review, with each outcome assigned to one of the five core areas defined by the Outcome Measures Recommended for use in Randomized Clinical Trials (OMERACT). This stage will be followed by a two round Delphi survey aimed at key stakeholders in the management of idiopathic clubfoot. The final outcomes list obtained will then be discussed in a consensus meeting of representative key stakeholders. Conclusion. The inconsistency in outcomes reporting in studies investigating idiopathic clubfoot has made it difficult to define the success rate of treatments and to compare findings between studies. The development of a COS seeks to define a minimum standard set of outcomes to collect in all future clinical trials for this condition, to facilitate comparisons between studies and to aid decisions in treatment. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(4):255–260

Aims. High-quality clinical research in children’s orthopaedic surgery has lagged behind other surgical subspecialties. This study used a consensus-based approach to identify research priorities for clinical trials in children’s orthopaedics. Methods. A modified Delphi technique was used, which involved an initial scoping survey, a two-round Delphi process and an expert panel formed of members of the British Society of Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery. The survey was conducted amongst orthopaedic surgeons treating children in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Results. A total of 86 clinicians contributed to both rounds of the Delphi process, scoring priorities from one (low priority) to five (high priority). Elective topics were ranked higher than those relating to trauma, with the top ten elective research questions scoring higher than the top question for trauma. Ten elective, and five trauma research priorities were identified, with the three highest ranked questions relating to the treatment of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (mean score 4.6/ 5), Perthes’ disease (4.5) and bone infection (4.5). Conclusion. This consensus-based research agenda will guide surgeons, academics and funders to improve the evidence in children’s orthopaedic surgery and encourage the development of multicentre clinical trials. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:680–4

Aims. Perthes’ disease is an idiopathic avascular necrosis of the developing femoral head, often causing deformity that impairs physical function. Current treatments aim to optimize the joint reaction force across the hip by enhancing congruency between the acetabulum and femoral head. Despite a century of research, there is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment. The aim of this study was to describe the experiences of children, their families, and clinicians when considering the treatment of Perthes’ disease. Methods. A qualitative study gathered information from children and their families affected by Perthes’ disease, along with treating clinicians. Interviews followed a coding framework, with the interview schedule informed by behavioural theory and patient and public involvement. Transcripts were analyzed using the framework method. Results. A total of 24 interviews took place, with 12 child/family dyads and 12 clinicians from UK NHS centres. Interviews identified widespread variation of routine care. Children/their families recounted positive experiences when included in the decision-making process for treatment. There is a strong desire from clinicians and children/families for consistent guidance from everyone involved in care, which should be based on clinical consensus. Conclusion. This is the first study to describe how children/families and clinicians experienced receiving or providing treatment in Perthes’ disease. The results indicate the need for robust evidence to support treatment decisions. Children and families valued feeling involved in the clinical decision-making process. Clinicians acknowledged the central importance of providing patient-centred care, particularly in the absence of robust evidence to guide the optimal treatment decisions. This study will inform a future Delphi project to develop clinical consensus guidelines for the treatment of Perthes’ disease. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):735–741

Aims. Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT). Methods. Data was retrospectively analyzed from a single centre. In all, 29 consecutive joints prior to the implementation of an infection MDT in November 2016 were compared with 29 consecutive joints subsequent to the MDT conception. All individuals who underwent a debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure, a one-stage revision, or a two-stage revision for an acute or chronic PJI in this time period were included. The definition of successfully treated PJI was based on the Delphi international multidisciplinary consensus. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics or comorbidities between the groups. There was also no significant difference in length of overall hospital stay (p = 0.530). The time taken for formal microbiology advice was significantly shorter in the post MDT group (p = 0.0001). There was a significant difference in failure rates between the two groups (p = 0.001), with 12 individuals (41.38%) pre-MDT requiring further revision surgery compared with one individual (6.67%) post-MDT inception. Conclusion. Our standardized multidisciplinary approach for periprosthetic knee and hip joint infection shows a significant reduction in failure rates following revision surgery. Following implementation of our MDT, our success rate in treating PJI is 96.55%, higher than what current literature suggests. We advocate the role of a specialist infection MDT in the management of patients with a PJI to allow an individualized patient-centred approach and care plan, thereby reducing postoperative complications and failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):509–514