Aims

A systematic literature review focusing on how long before surgery concurrent viral or bacterial infections (respiratory and urinary infections) should be treated in hip fracture patients, and if there is evidence for delaying this surgery.

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of home-based prehabilitation on pre- and postoperative outcomes in participants awaiting total knee (TKA) and hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prehabilitation interventions for TKA and THA. MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to October 2022. Evidence was assessed by the PEDro scale and the Cochrane risk-of-bias (ROB2) tool. Results. A total of 22 RCTs (1,601 patients) were identified with good overall quality and low risk of bias. Prehabilitation significantly improved pain prior to TKA (mean difference (MD) -1.02: p = 0.001), with non-significant improvements for function before (MD -0.48; p = 0.06) and after TKA (MD -0.69; p = 0.25). Small preoperative improvements were observed for pain (MD -0.02; p = 0.87) and function (MD -0.18; p = 0.16) prior to THA, but no post THA effect was found for pain (MD 0.19; p = 0.44) and function (MD 0.14; p = 0.68). A trend favouring usual care for improving quality of life (QoL) prior to TKA (MD 0.61; p = 0.34), but no effect on QoL prior (MD 0.03; p = 0.87) or post THA (MD -0.05; p = 0.83) was found. Prehabilitation significantly reduced hospital length of stay (LOS) for TKA (MD -0.43 days; p < 0.001) but not for THA (MD, -0.24; p = 0.12). Compliance was only reported in 11 studies and was excellent with a mean value of 90.5% (SD 6.82). Conclusion. Prehabilitation interventions improve pain and function prior to TKA and THA and reduce hospital LOS, though it is unclear if these effects enhance outcomes postoperatively. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):315–328

Aims. The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results. Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion. The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350

Aims

Intra-articular (IA) injection may be used when treating hip osteoarthritis (OA). Common injections include steroids, hyaluronic acid (HA), local anaesthetic, and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Network meta-analysis allows for comparisons between two or more treatment groups and uses direct and indirect comparisons between interventions. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of various IA injections used in the management of hip OA with a follow-up of up to six months.

Aims

Return to sport following undergoing total (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been researched with meta-analyses and systematic reviews of varying quality. The aim of this study is to create an umbrella review to consolidate the data into consensus guidelines for returning to sports following TKA and UKA.

A balanced inflammatory response is important for successful fracture healing. The response of osteoporotic fracture healing is deranged and an altered inflammatory response can be one underlying cause. The objectives of this review were to compare the inflammatory responses between normal and osteoporotic fractures and to examine the potential effects on different healing outcomes. A systematic literature search was conducted with relevant keywords in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science independently. Original preclinical studies and clinical studies involving the investigation of inflammatory response in fracture healing in ovariectomized (OVX) animals or osteoporotic/elderly patients with available full text and written in English were included. In total, 14 articles were selected. Various inflammatory factors were reported; of those tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin (IL)-6 are two commonly studied markers. Preclinical studies showed that OVX animals generally demonstrated higher systemic inflammatory response and poorer healing outcomes compared to normal controls (SHAM). However, it is inconclusive if the local inflammatory response is higher or lower in OVX animals. As for clinical studies, they mainly examine the temporal changes of the inflammatory stage or perform comparison between osteoporotic/fragility fracture patients and normal subjects without fracture. Our review of these studies emphasizes the lack of understanding that inflammation plays in the altered fracture healing response of osteoporotic/elderly patients. Taken together, it is clear that additional studies, preclinical and clinical, are required to dissect the regulatory role of inflammatory response in osteoporotic fracture healing.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(7):368–385.

Aims

Patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) are known to be at increased risk of postoperative complications, but it is unclear whether MetS is also associated with complications after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Here, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis linking MetS to postoperative complications in THA and TKA.

This systematic review examines the current literature regarding surgical techniques for restoring articular cartilage in the hip, from the older microfracture techniques involving perforation to the subchondral bone, to adaptations of this technique using nanofractures and scaffolds. This review discusses the autologous and allograft transfer systems and the autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) technique, as well as a summary of the previously discussed techniques, which could become common practice for restoring articular cartilage, thus reducing the need for total hip arthroplasty. Using the British Medical Journal Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (BMJ GRADE) system and Grade system. Comparison of the studies discussed shows that microfracture has the greatest quantity and quality of research, whereas the newer AMIC technique requires more research, but shows promise.

Cite this article: W. E. Hotham, A. Malviya. A systematic review of surgical methods to restore articular cartilage in the hip. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:336–342. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.75.BJR-2017-0331.

Despite its intrinsic ability to regenerate form and function after injury, bone tissue can be challenged by a multitude of pathological conditions. While innovative approaches have helped to unravel the cascades of bone healing, this knowledge has so far not improved the clinical outcomes of bone defect treatment. Recent findings have allowed us to gain in-depth knowledge about the physiological conditions and biological principles of bone regeneration. Now it is time to transfer the lessons learned from bone healing to the challenging scenarios in defects and employ innovative technologies to enable biomaterial-based strategies for bone defect healing. This review aims to provide an overview on endogenous cascades of bone material formation and how these are transferred to new perspectives in biomaterial-driven approaches in bone regeneration.

Cite this article: T. Winkler, F. A. Sass, G. N. Duda, K. Schmidt-Bleek. A review of biomaterials in bone defect healing, remaining shortcomings and future opportunities for bone tissue engineering: The unsolved challenge. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:232–243. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.73.BJR-2017-0270.R1.