Aims. To explore staff experiences of a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nails and circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures. Methods. A purposeful sample of 19 staff (nine surgeons) involved in the study participated in an interview. Interviews explored participants’ experience and views of the study and the treatments. The interviews drew on phenomenology, were face-to-face or by telephone, and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results. The findings identify that for the treatment of segmental tibial fractures equipoise was a theoretical ideal that was most likely unattainable in clinical practice. This was conveyed through three themes: the ambiguity of equipoise, where multiple definitions of equipoise and a belief in community equipoise were evident; an illusion of equipoise, created by strong treatment preferences and variation in collective surgical skills; and treating the whole patient, where the complexity and severity of the injury required a patient-centred approach and doing the best for the individual patient took priority over trial recruitment. Conclusion. Equipoise can be unattainable for rare injuries such as segmental tibial fractures, where there are substantially different surgical treatments requiring specific expertise, high levels of complexity, and a concern for poor outcomes. Surgeons are familiar with community equipoise. However, a shared understanding of factors that limit the feasibility of RCTs may identify instances where community equipoise is unlikely to translate into practice. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):486–492

Objectives. The number of surgical procedures performed each year to treat femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) continues to rise. Although there is evidence that surgery can improve symptoms in the short-term, there is no evidence that it slows the development of osteoarthritis (OA). We performed a feasibility study to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) comparing operative with non-operative treatment for FAI. Methods. Surgeon opinion was obtained using validated questionnaires at a Specialist Hip Meeting (n = 61, 30 of whom stated that they routinely performed FAI surgery) and patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients with a new diagnosis of FAI (n = 31). Results. Clinical equipoise was demonstrated when surgeons were given clinical scenarios and asked whether they would manage a patient operatively or non-operatively. A total of 23 surgeons (77%) who routinely perform FAI surgery were willing to recruit patients into a RCT, and 28 patients (90%) were willing to participate. 75% of responding surgeons believed it was appropriate to randomise patients to non-operative treatment for ≥ 12 months. Conversely, only eight patients (26%) felt this was acceptable, although 29 (94%) were willing to continue non-operative treatment for six months. More patients were concerned about their risk of developing OA than their current symptoms, although most patients felt that the two were of equal importance. Conclusions. We conclude that a RCT comparing operative and non-operative management of FAI is feasible and should be considered a research priority. An important finding for orthopaedic surgical trials is that patients without life-threatening pathology appear willing to trial a treatment for six months without improvement in their symptoms

After 25 years in orthopaedic oncology the author wishes to set a challenge for the next generation by posing 10 questions which he believes still do not have answers and which may improve outcomes for patients with sarcomas

Why are sarcomas diagnosed so late?

The author suggests ways these questions may be answered.

Aims. A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial. Methods. We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment. Results. Recruiters faced four common obstacles when recruiting to a surgical orthopaedic trial: patient preferences for an intervention; a complex recruitment pathway; various logistical issues; and conflicting views on equipoise. Clinicians expressed concerns that the trial may not show significant differences in the treatments, validating their equipoise. However, they experienced role conflicts due to their own preference and perceived patient preference for an intervention arm. Conclusion. This study provided initial information about barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial. We shared these findings in an all-site investigators’ meeting and encouraged researchers to find solutions to identified barriers; this led to the successful completion of recruitment. Complex trials may benefit for using of a mixed-methods approach to mitigate against recruitment failure, and to improve patient participation and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):631–637

Aim. Pelvic osteomyelitis following pressure ulceration results in substantial patient morbidity. Previous studies have reported a heterogenous approach to diagnosis and medical management by physicians, suggesting equipoise on key clinical questions. This study hypothesised that the same equipoise exists amongst Orthopaedic surgeons. Method. An 18-question multiple-choice questionnaire was designed through an iterative feedback process until the final version was agreed by all authors. Likert-type scale responses were used with graded responses (e.g., never/fewer than half of patients/around half of patients/more than half of patients/every patient). The online survey was sent to members of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS), the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), and the ESCMID Study Group for Implant-Associated Infections (ESGIAI). No incentive for participation was provided. Results. Amongst respondents, 22/41 were based in Europe and 10/41 from the USA. The majority (29/41) had been in clinical practice between 5—24 years. There was a high priority placed on bone biopsy histology, culture-positive bone sampling, and palpable bone without periosteal covering for diagnosis. Multidisciplinary team approach with plastic surgery involvement at the index procedure was advocated. The strongest indications for surgical intervention were source control for sepsis, presence of an abscess/collection, and prevention of local osteomyelitis progression. Physiological/psychological optimisation and control of acute infection were the primary determinants of surgical timing. There was low utilisation of adjunctive surgical therapies. Local/regional primary tissue transfer or secondary healing with/without VAC were the preferred techniques for wound closure. Recurrent osteomyelitis was the most common reason for prolonged antimicrobial therapy. The majority received bedside advice from an infectious disease-specialist but a quarter of respondents preferred telephone advice. Conclusions. Amongst an international cohort of Orthopaedic Surgeons there was a heterogenous diagnostic and therapeutic approach to pressure-related pelvic osteomyelitis

Background and Purpose. The UK's NIHR and Australia's NHMRC have funded two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if lumbar fusion surgery (LFS) is more effective than best conservative care (BCC) for adults with persistent, severe low back pain (LBP) attributable to lumbar spine degeneration. We aimed to describe clinicians’ decision-making regarding suitability of patient cases for LFS or BCC and level of equipoise to randomise participants in the RCTs. Methods. Two online cross-sectional surveys distributed via UK and Australian professional networks to clinicians involved in LBP care, collected data on clinical discipline, practice setting and preferred care of five patient cases (ranging in age, pain duration, BMI, imaging findings, neurological signs/symptoms). Clinicians were also asked about willingness to randomise each patient case. Results. Of 174 responses (73 UK, 101 Australia), 70 were orthopaedic surgeons, 34 neurosurgeons, 65 allied health professionals (AHPs), 5 others. Most worked in public health services only (92% UK, 45% Australia), or a mix of public/private (36% Australia). Most respondents chose BCC as their first-choice management option for all five cases (81–93% UK, 83–91% Australia). For LFS, UK surgeons preferred TLIF (36.4%), whereas Australian surgeons preferred ALIF (54%). Willingness to randomise cases ranged from 37–60% (UK mean 50.7%), and 47–55% (Australian mean 51.9%); orthopaedic and neuro-surgeons were more willing than AHPs. Conclusion. Whilst BCC was preferred for all five patient cases, just over half of survey respondents in both the UK and Australia were willing to randomise cases to either LFS or BCC, indicating clinical equipoise (collective uncertainty) needed for RCT recruitment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No specific funding obtained for the surveys. DB, SA, AG and NEF have funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK (FORENSIC-UK NIHR134859); NEF, DB and SA have funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC FORENSIC-Australia GA268233). AG has funding from Orthopaedic Research UK (combined with British Association of Spine Surgeons and British Scoliosis Society) and Innovate UK. NEF is funded through an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (ID: 2018182)

Aims. People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). Methods. An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials. Results. There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%). Conclusion. This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):612–620

Salter-Harris II fractures of the distal tibia affect children frequently, and when they are displaced present a treatment dilemma. Treatment primarily aims to restore alignment and prevent premature physeal closure, as this can lead to angular deformity, limb length difference, or both. Current literature is of poor methodological quality and is contradictory as to whether conservative or surgical management is superior in avoiding complications and adverse outcomes. A state of clinical equipoise exists regarding whether displaced distal tibial Salter-Harris II fractures in children should be treated with surgery to achieve anatomical reduction, or whether cast treatment alone will lead to a satisfactory outcome. Systematic review and meta-analysis has concluded that high-quality prospective multicentre research is needed to answer this question. The Outcomes of Displaced Distal tibial fractures: Surgery Or Casts in KidS (ODD SOCKS) trial, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, aims to provide this high-quality research in order to answer this question, which has been identified as a top-five research priority by the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):471–473

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the epidemiology and treatment of Perthes’ disease of the hip. Methods. This was an anonymized comprehensive cohort study of Perthes’ disease, with a nested consented cohort. A total of 143 of 144 hospitals treating children’s hip disease in the UK participated over an 18-month period. Cases were cross-checked using a secondary independent reporting network of trainee surgeons to minimize those missing. Clinician-reported outcomes were collected until two years. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected for a subset of participants. Results. Overall, 371 children (396 hips) were newly affected by Perthes’ disease arising from 63 hospitals, with a median of two patients (interquartile range 1.0 to 5.5) per hospital. The annual incidence was 2.48 patients (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.20 to 2.76) per 100,000 zero- to 14-year-olds. Of these, 117 hips (36.4%) were treated surgically. There was considerable variation in the treatment strategy, and an optimized decision tree identified joint stiffness and age above eight years as the key determinants for containment surgery. A total of 348 hips (88.5%) had outcomes to two years, of which 227 were in the late reossification stage for which a hip shape outcome (Stulberg grade) was assigned. The independent predictors of a poorer radiological outcome were female sex (odds ratio (OR) 2.27 (95% CI 1.19 to 4.35)), age above six years (OR 2.62 (95% CI (1.30 to 5.28)), and over 50% radiological collapse at inclusion (OR 2.19 (95% CI 0.99 to 4.83)). Surgery had no effect on radiological outcomes (OR 1.03 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.96)). PROMs indicated the marked effect of the disease on the child, which persisted at two years. Conclusion. Despite the frequency of containment surgery, we found no evidence of improved outcomes. There appears to be a sufficient case volume and community equipoise among surgeons to embark on a randomized clinical trial to definitively investigate the effectiveness of containment surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):510–518

Studies have shown that 10–30% patients do not achieve optimal function outcomes after total hip replacement (THR). High quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of techniques to improve functional outcomes after THR are lacking. We performed this study to evaluate the feasibility of a RCT comparing patient-reported functional outcomes after hybrid or fully cemented THR (ISRCTN11097021). Patients were recruited from two centres and randomised to receive either a fully cemented or hybrid THR. Data collection included Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), non-serious adverse events of special interest (AESI), serious adverse device effects (SADE) and NHS resource use. Qualitative interviews were undertaken to understand a) patient experiences of study processes and their reasons for taking part or not, and b) to understand surgeons’ perceptions of the study, factors affecting willingness to participate, and barriers to implementation of the future RCT findings. The target of 40 patients were successfully recruited for the feasibility RCT; the ratio of successful recruitment to eligible patients was 0.61 across both sites. Treatment crossovers occurred in four patients, all related to bone quality. Four patients were withdrawn due to not undergoing surgery within the study window because of the pandemic. Follow-up was 100% and PROMs were completed by all patients at all time points. The feasibility of conducting a within-trial cost-utility analysis was demonstrated. Interviews were conducted with 27 patients and 16 surgeons. Patients and surgeons generally found the study procedures acceptable and workable. Some declined participation because they did not want treatment allocated at random, or because blinding was off-putting. Surgeons’ perceptions of equipoise varied, and implementation of findings from the future RCT would need to recognise the ‘craft’ nature of surgery and the issue of training. We conclude that a full RCT with economic analysis will be both feasible and practicable, although mechanisms to safely implement potential changes to practice because of RCT findings may need consideration by the wider arthroplasty community

Displaced acetabular fractures in the older patient present significant treatment challenges. There is evidence the morbidity and mortality associated is similar to the fractured neck of femur cohort. Despite growing literature, there remains significant controversy regarding treatment algorithms; varying between conservative management, to fracture fixation and finally surgical fixation and simultaneous THA to allow immediate full weight bearing. £250k NIHR, Research for Patient Benefit (Ref: PB-PG-0815-20054). Trial ethical approval (17/EE/0271). After national consultation, 3 arms included; conservative management, fracture fixation and simultaneous fracture fixation with THA. Statistical analysis required minimum 12 patients/3 arms to show feasibility, with an optimum 20/arm. Inclusion criteria; patients >60 years & displaced acetabular fracture. Exclusion criteria: open fracture, THA in situ, pre-injury immobility, polytrauma. Primary outcome measure - ability recruit & EQ-5D-5L at 6 months. Secondary outcome measures (9 months); OHS, Disability Rating Index, radiographs, perioperative physiological variables including surgery duration, blood loss, complications and health economics. 11 UK level 1 major trauma centres enrolled into the trial, commenced December 2017. Failure surgical equipoise was identified as an issue regarding recruitment. Full trial recruitment (60 patients) achieved; 333 patients screened. 66% male, median age 76 (range 63–93), median BMI 25 (range 18–37), 87% full mental capacity, 77% admitted from own home. 75% fall from standing height. 60% fractures; anterior column posterior hemi-transverse. Trial feasibility confirmed December 2020. Presented data- secondary outcomes that are statistically significant in improvement from baseline for only the fix and replace arm, with acceptable trial complications. Issues are highlighted with conservative management in this patient cohort. Our unique RCT informs design and sample size calculation for a future RCT. It represents the first opportunity to understand the intricacies of these treatment modalities. This RCT provides clinicians with information on how best to provide management for this medically complex patient cohort

Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) produce the most reliable evidence about the effects of clinical care. In surgical trials, lack of surgeons’ individual equipoise (state of genuine uncertainty about treatment arms) appears to be one of the greatest obstacles. Collective equipoise based on present or imminent controversy in the expert medical community has been proposed as a solution (Freedman, 1987), but could be applied only at the beginning of a trial to a general trial question. We developed a system that quantifies collective uncertainty among a group of surgeons for an individual clinical case. After a successful pilot study the system was introduced as an independent project within the UK Heel Fracture Trial. The expert panel included 10 surgeons from 8 hospitals. Anonymous clinical data of potentially eligible consecutive cases including CT and X-ray images was published on a secure online forum after 6 weeks follow up clinic to avoid interference with clinical course. Surgeons registered in the panel estimated the probability that the patient would be better or worse by various degrees with operative treatment. 30 clinical cases have been analysed, including 6 bilateral fractures (otherwise excluded). 86.7% could be recommended for inclusion in the trial, compared to 43.3% recruited out of this series in the actual trial. Lack of individual uncertainty within the panel was present in every case. The system not only has a potential to improve recruitment in surgical RCTs, but provides ethically sound grounds to offer or otherwise a patient participation in a trial. Surgeon’s individual equipoise dilemma and responsibility is shared with colleagues. Cases that otherwise will be excluded can be evaluated with broader inclusion criteria. The system is easy to use, cheap and reliable. Limitations include surgeons’ compliance and time lapse (at least 48 hours) for voting to be completed

Considerable debate exists regarding which agent(s) should be preferred for venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemical prophylaxis following joint replacement. We assessed the practice of surgeons regarding VTE chemical prophylaxis for primary THR and TKR, pre and post issuing of updated NICE guidance in 2018. A survey, circulated through the British Hip Society and regional trainee networks/collaboratives, was completed by 306 UK surgeons at 187 units. VTE chemical prophylaxis prescribing patterns for surgeons carrying out primary THR (n=258) and TKR (n=253) in low-risk patients were assessed post publication of 2018 NICE recommendations. Prescribing patterns before and after the NICE publication were subsequently explored. Questions were also asked about surgeon equipoise for participation in future RCTs. Following the new guidance, 34% (n=87) used low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) alone, 33% (n=85) aspirin (commonly preceded by LMWH), and 31% (n=81) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: with/without preceding LMWH) for THR. For TKR, 42% (n=105) used aspirin (usually monotherapy), 31% (n=78) LMWH alone, and 27% (n=68) DOAC (with/without preceding LMWH). NICE guidance changed the practice of 34% of hip and 41% of knee surgeons, with significantly increased use of aspirin preceded by LMWH for THR (before=25% vs. after=73%;p<0.001), and aspirin for TKR (before=18% vs. after=84%;p<0.001). Significantly more regimens were NICE guidance compliant after the 2018 update for THR (before=85.7% vs. after=92.6%;p=0.011) and TKR (before=87.0% vs. after=98.8%;p<0.001). Support from surgeons for future RCTs was dependent on the clinical question, ranging from 48% participation in trials (effectiveness of aspirin vs. a DOAC) to 79% (effectiveness of 14 days LMWH vs. 28 days LMWH). Over one-third of surveyed surgeons changed their VTE chemical prophylaxis in response to 2018 NICE recommendations, with more THR and TKR surgeons now compliant with latest NICE guidance. The major change in practice was an increased use of aspirin for VTE chemical prophylaxis. Furthermore, there is an appetite amongst UK surgeons for participating in future RCTs, with a trial comparing standard versus extended duration LMWH likely feasible in current practice

Introduction. There is an ever increasing demand for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) in Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery. Patient recruitment is often challenging. Among other factors, individual surgeon's preference is often quoted as a major obstacle. Collective equipoise based on present or imminent controversy in the expert medical community has been proposed as a solution, but could not help in everyday running of a trial. We wanted to develop a new trial eligibility assessment tool using the Collective Equipoise Principle. Methods. We developed an online system that quantifies collective uncertainty among a group of surgeons for an individual clinical case in real time. This data was collected for patients in the UK Heel Fracture Trial (UK HeFT) as an independent research project. Both patients who agreed or not to take part in the trial were approached in six weeks follow up clinic to avoid interference with clinical course. For those who agreed, anonymous clinical data together with images (Xrays and CT) was published on a secure on line forum and registered surgeons were alerted via email and SMS. Surgeons submitted their opinion instantly via specially designed interactive voting scale. 80:20 ethical uncertainty distribution limit was applied using Subjective Logic to calculate an Uncertainty Index (UnIx) for every patient. This approach was evaluated as an eligibility assessment tool for RCTs. Results. 70 consecutive patients (77 calcaneal fractures) were assessed by a panel of 12 Consultant Trauma surgeons from hospitals acros the UK. All patients were eligible for the UK HeFT according to standard eligibility criteria approach. UnIx demonstrated reliable correlation with level of uncertainty and confidence about treatment choice expressed by surgeons. The panel was certain about treatment for 9 (13%) patients. The assesment results were available within 48 hours from a case submission to the panel. Discussion and Conclusion. UnIx is an effective and ethical eligibility assessment tool based on surgeon's opinion. It can be calculated for every patient in Randomised Controlled Trials. This protects patients when there is no controversy about treatment choice. UnIx can potentially increase patient recruitment by including more patients for eligibility assessment and more sceptical surgeons in clinical trials. Patient's perception that his/her condition was assessed by surgical panel may also be important

Introduction and Aims: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are frequently presented as the best design for studies of treatment effect because they minimise bias from unknown confounders. But, very few have been performed in orthopaedic and trauma surgery in comparison to other areas of medicine. This study investigated the perceived obstacles to performing RCTs, in order to identify areas where novel aspects of study design may facilitate randomisation in orthopaedic research. Method: A qualitative study was performed using a deliberate maximum variation sample of 24 orthopaedic surgeons from four countries, involved in all aspects of practice, teaching, research, research funding, ethical approval and publication. A semi-structured interview was used to explore surgeons’ perceptions of obstacles to performing RCTs. A computer-assisted framework approach was used to analyse transcripts of these interviews, and to identify consistent themes and connections between them. Results: Thirty-four discrete obstacles to performing RCTs in trauma and orthopaedic surgery were identified and classified. Many of these fell into six main themes:. A non-evaluative culture;. Misunderstanding of the scientific basis of trial design;. Lack of individual equipoise;. The complexity of the relationship between patient and surgeon;. Inadequate measures of outcome;. Practical problems associated with long follow-up, clinical work load and lack of funding. Conclusion: A complex set of perceived problems were identified. None of these problems is insurmountable. The performance of RCTs would be encouraged by development of a more evaluative culture, collaboration between surgeons and epidemiologists, and greater resources for, and commitment to, clinical research. Novel study designs to address lack of individual equipoise are possible and offer the prospect of much greater use of randomisation

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(6):372–374.

Background. Clavicle development occurs before the age of 9 in females and 12 in males. Children below the age of 10 with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures recover well with conservative management. However adolescents are more demanding of function and satisfaction following clavicle fractures and may benefit from operative management. Study aims: 1) Perform a systematic review of the current evidence supporting intramedullary fixation of adolescent clavicle fractures. 2) Review current management in a major trauma center (MTC) with a view to assess feasibility for a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and AMED databases were searched in October 2014 to identify all English language studies evaluating intramedullary fixation in children aged 10–18 years using MeSH terms. Data was extracted using a standardised data collection sheet and studies were critically appraised by aid of the PRISMA checklist. All patients aged 9–15 attending an MTC receiving clavicle radiographs in 2014 were retrospectively reviewed for type of fracture, management and outcome. Results. Literature search identified 54 articles. After application of exclusion criteria 3 studies were selected for final review. 47 adolescent patients received intramedullary clavicle fixation from a prospective and two retrospective case series. 61 adolescents presented to our unit with a clavicle fracture in 2014, 2 were lost to follow-up, 54 were managed non-operatively, 3 received titanium-elastic nailing, 1 plate osteosynthesis and 1 bone suture. 0 and 19 patients reported a palpable lump, mean time to pain resolution was 4 and 6 weeks and time to full range of motion was 4 and 5 weeks following operative and conservative management respectively. All patients reached radiographic union. Conclusion. Current evidence supporting intramedullary fixation of clavicle fractures in adolescents is poor. There remains clinical equipoise on the best management of these patients, however they are predominantly treated conservatively. A future multi-center RCT may be feasible. Level of Evidence. 1

Cementless stem fixation is a widely used method of stem revision in North America and elsewhere in the world. There is abundant literature in its support. Most of the reports from 1985 to 2005 related to proximally or extensively porocoated designs, the former falling into disfavor with time because of unpredictable outcomes. With few exceptions (e.g. S-ROM) the modularity of these designs was limited to the head/neck junction. But this generation of designs was associated with some issues such as insertional fractures, limited control of anteversion (and risk of dislocation), limited applicability in the setting of severe bone loss (Paprosky Type 4 osteolysis or Vancouver Type B3 periprosthetic fracture), as well as ongoing concern relating to severe proximal stress shielding. In the past decade we have seen the mounting use of a new design concept: tapered fluted titanium stems (TFTS), which incorporate the advantages of titanium (for less flexural rigidity), conical taper (for vertical taper-lock stability), longitudinal ribs or flutes (for rotational stability), and surface preparation which attracts bone ongrowth for long term fixation. Four consecutive reports from our center have documented the superiority of the TFTS in our hands, with encouraging outcomes even when dealing with severe bone loss or periprosthetic fractures. There is an increasing body of other literature which reports a similar experience. Furthermore, with increasing experience and confidence in this design concept, we now use a monoblock or non-modular design in the majority of cases in which a TFTS is indicated. This circumvents the potential drawbacks of stem modularity, including taper corrosion and taper junction fracture. Our recent report of this concept in 104 cases with a 2-year minimum follow-up supports the use of this concept in many if not most stem revisions. The question remains as to which should be favored? Because of equipoise in the outcomes of the two fundamental stem designs, at least in our hands, clearly the surgeon needs to ask other, more practical questions:. Am I familiar enough with the TFTS technique so as to bypass the potential versatility of the modular stem for the simplicity and potential cost savings of the non-modular?. Is this a case in which modularity will offer me distinct advantages (periprosthetic fracture, and severe bone loss as examples). Should I introduce the nonmodular TFTS to my practice, choosing straightforward cases first; ones in which I would comfortably and with confidence use an extensively porocoated stem?