Aims. Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme. Methods. We used a consensus process consisting of an evidence review to generate items for the guidelines and online consensus questionnaire and virtual face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the guidelines. Results. The consensus panel comprised 21 clinical experts in orthopaedics, primary care, rehabilitation, and healthcare commissioning. The final output from the consensus process was a 14-item guideline. The guidelines make recommendations regarding increased vigilance and monitoring of those at increased risk of infection; diagnosis including strategies to ensure the early recognition of prosthetic infection and referral to orthopaedic teams; treatment, including early use of DAIR and revision strategies; and postoperative management including appropriate physical and psychological support and antibiotic strategies. Conclusion. We believe the implementation of the INFORM guidelines will inform treatment protocols and clinical pathways to improve the treatment and management of periprosthetic hip infection. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(4):226–233

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. The aim of this study was to describe variation in hip fracture treatment in Norway expressed as adherence to international and national evidence-based treatment guidelines, to study factors influencing deviation from guidelines, and to analyze consequences of non-adherence. Methods. International and national guidelines were identified and treatment recommendations extracted. All 43 hospitals routinely treating hip fractures in Norway were characterized. From the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR), hip fracture patients aged > 65 years and operated in the period January 2014 to December 2018 for fractures with conclusive treatment guidelines were included (n = 29,613: femoral neck fractures (n = 21,325), stable trochanteric fractures (n = 5,546), inter- and subtrochanteric fractures (n = 2,742)). Adherence to treatment recommendations and a composite indicator of best practice were analyzed. Patient survival and reoperations were evaluated for each recommendation. Results. Median age of the patients was 84 (IQR 77 to 89) years and 69% (20,427/29,613) were women. Overall, 79% (23,390/29,613) were treated within 48 hours, and 80% (23,635/29,613) by a surgeon with more than three years’ experience. Adherence to guidelines varied substantially but was markedly better in 2018 than in 2014. Having a dedicated hip fracture unit (OR 1.06, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.11) and a hospital hip fracture programme (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27) increased the probability of treatment according to best practice. Surgery after 48 hours increased one-year mortality significantly (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.22; p = 0.001). Alternative treatment to arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs) increased mortality after 30 days (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.62)) and one year (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.72), and also increased the number of reoperations (OR 4.61, 95% CI 3.73 to 5.71). An uncemented stem increased the risk of reoperation significantly (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48; p = 0.030). Conclusion. Our study demonstrates a substantial variation between hospitals in adherence to evidence-based guidelines for treatment of hip fractures in Norway. Non-adherence can be ascribed to in-hospital factors. Poor adherence has significant negative consequences for patients in the form of increased mortality rates at 30 and 365 days post-treatment and in reoperation rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:644–653

Objectives. Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) have been available to the orthopaedic community for more than a decade, with little improvement in service provision to this increasingly large patient group. Improvements in adjuvant and neo-adjuvant treatments have increased both the number and overall survival of patients living with MBD. As a consequence the incidence of complications of MBD presenting to surgeons has increased and is set to increase further. The British Orthopaedic Oncology Society (BOOS) are to publish more revised detailed guidelines on what represents ‘best practice’ in managing patients with MBD. This article is designed to coincide with and publicise new BOOS guidelines and once again champion the cause of patients with MBD. . Methods. A series of short cases highlight common errors frequently being made in managing patients with MBD despite the availability of guidelines. Results. Despite guidelines for the management of patients with MBD being available for more than a decade basic errors in management continue to be made, affecting patient survival and quality of life. Conclusions. It is hoped that by publicising the new BOOS guidelines the management of patients with MBD will improve over the next decade, significantly more than it has over the last decade

Aims

The aim of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) Meniscal Consensus Project was to develop an evidence-based treatment guideline for patients with meniscal lesions of the knee.

The peer review process for the evaluation of manuscripts for publication needs to be better understood by the orthopaedic community. Improving the degree of transparency surrounding the review process and educating orthopaedic surgeons on how to improve their manuscripts for submission will help improve both the review procedure and resultant feedback, with an increase in the quality of the subsequent publications. This article seeks to clarify the peer review process and suggest simple ways in which the quality of submissions can be improved to maximise publication success.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:245–7.

Aims. Hand trauma, consisting of injuries to both the hand and the wrist, are a common injury seen worldwide. The global age-standardized incidence of hand trauma exceeds 179 per 100,000. Hand trauma may require surgical management and therefore result in significant costs to both healthcare systems and society. Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common following all surgical interventions, and within hand surgery the risk of SSI is at least 5%. SSI following hand trauma surgery results in significant costs to healthcare systems with estimations of over £450 per patient. The World Health Organization (WHO) have produced international guidelines to help prevent SSIs. However, it is unclear what variability exists in the adherence to these guidelines within hand trauma. The aim is to assess compliance to the WHO global guidelines in prevention of SSI in hand trauma. Methods. This will be an international, multicentre audit comparing antimicrobial practices in hand trauma to the standards outlined by WHO. Through the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network (RSTN), hand surgeons across the globe will be invited to participate in the study. Consultant surgeons/associate specialists managing hand trauma and members of the multidisciplinary team will be identified at participating sites. Teams will be asked to collect data prospectively on a minimum of 20 consecutive patients. The audit will run for eight months. Data collected will include injury details, initial management, hand trauma team management, operation details, postoperative care, and antimicrobial techniques used throughout. Adherence to WHO global guidelines for SSI will be summarized using descriptive statistics across each criteria. Discussion. The Hand and Wrist trauma: Antimicrobials and Infection Audit of Clinical Practice (HAWAII ACP) will provide an understanding of the current antimicrobial practice in hand trauma surgery. This will then provide a basis to guide further research in the field. The findings of this study will be disseminated via conference presentations and a peer-reviewed publication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):361–366

Aims. Patients with A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures represent a substantial proportion of trauma caseload, and national guidelines recommend that sliding hip screws (SHS) should be used for these injuries. Despite this, intramedullary nails (IMNs) are routinely implanted in many hospitals, at extra cost and with unproven patient outcome benefit. We have used data from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) to examine the use of SHS and IMN for A1 and A2 hip fractures at a national level, and to define the cost implications of management decisions that run counter to national guidelines. Methods. We used the NHFD to identify all operations for fixation of trochanteric fractures in England and Wales between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2021. A uniform price band from each of three hip fracture implant manufacturers was used to set cost implications alongside variation in implant use. Results. We identified 18,156 A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures in 162 centres. Of these, 13,483 (74.3%) underwent SHS fixation, 2,352 (13.0%) were managed with short IMN, and 2,321 (12.8%) were managed with long IMN. Total cost of IMN added up to £1.89 million in 2021, and the clinical justification for this is unclear since rates of IMN use varied from 0% to 97% in different centres. Conclusion. Most trochanteric hip fractures are managed with SHS, in keeping with national guidelines. There is considerable variance between hospitals for implant choice, despite the lack of evidence for clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of more expensive nailing systems. This suggests either a lack of awareness of national guidelines or a choice not to follow them. We encourage provider units to reassess their practice if outwith the national norm. Funding bodies should examine implant use closely in this population to prevent resource waste at a time of considerable health austerity. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):741–745

Aims. Machine-learning (ML) prediction models in orthopaedic trauma hold great promise in assisting clinicians in various tasks, such as personalized risk stratification. However, an overview of current applications and critical appraisal to peer-reviewed guidelines is lacking. The objectives of this study are to 1) provide an overview of current ML prediction models in orthopaedic trauma; 2) evaluate the completeness of reporting following the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement; and 3) assess the risk of bias following the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool. Methods. A systematic search screening 3,252 studies identified 45 ML-based prediction models in orthopaedic trauma up to January 2023. The TRIPOD statement assessed transparent reporting and the PROBAST tool the risk of bias. Results. A total of 40 studies reported on training and internal validation; four studies performed both development and external validation, and one study performed only external validation. The most commonly reported outcomes were mortality (33%, 15/45) and length of hospital stay (9%, 4/45), and the majority of prediction models were developed in the hip fracture population (60%, 27/45). The overall median completeness for the TRIPOD statement was 62% (interquartile range 30 to 81%). The overall risk of bias in the PROBAST tool was low in 24% (11/45), high in 69% (31/45), and unclear in 7% (3/45) of the studies. High risk of bias was mainly due to analysis domain concerns including small datasets with low number of outcomes, complete-case analysis in case of missing data, and no reporting of performance measures. Conclusion. The results of this study showed that despite a myriad of potential clinically useful applications, a substantial part of ML studies in orthopaedic trauma lack transparent reporting, and are at high risk of bias. These problems must be resolved by following established guidelines to instil confidence in ML models among patients and clinicians. Otherwise, there will remain a sizeable gap between the development of ML prediction models and their clinical application in our day-to-day orthopaedic trauma practice. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(1):9–19

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. 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. Methods. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses written between 2010 and 2020 were systematically searched. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers and methodology quality was assessed. Variables for analysis included objective classification of which sports are safe to participate in postoperatively, time to return to sport, prognostic indicators of returning, and reasons patients do not. Results. A total of 410 articles were found, including 58 duplicates. Seven articles meeting inclusion criteria reported that 34% to 100% of patients who underwent TKA or UKA were able to return to sports at 13 weeks and 12 weeks respectively, with UKA patients more likely to do so. Prior experience with the sport was the most significant prognostic indicator for return. These patients were likely to participate in low-impact sports, particularly walking, cycling, golf, and swimming. Moderate-impact sport participation, such as doubles tennis and skiing, may be considered on a case-by-case basis considering the patient’s prior experience. There is insufficient long-term data on the risks to return to high-impact sport, such as decreased implant survivorship. Conclusion. There is a consensus that patients can return to low-impact sports following TKA or UKA. Return to moderate-impact sport was dependent on a case-by-case basis, with emphasis on the patient’s prior experience in the sport. Return to high-impact sports was not supported. Patients undergoing UKA return to sport one week sooner and with more success than TKA. Future studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes following return to high-impact sports to establish evidence-based recommendations. This review summarizes all available data for the most up-to-date and evidence-based guidelines for returning to sport following TKA and UKA to replace guidelines based on subjective physician survey data. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):245–251

Aims. Treatment of end-stage anteromedial osteoarthritis (AMOA) of the knee is commonly approached using one of two surgical strategies: medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In this study we aim to investigate if there is any difference in outcome for patients undergoing UKA or TKA, when treated by high-volume surgeons, in high-volume centres, using two different clinical guidelines. The two strategies are ‘UKA whenever possible’ vs TKA for all patients with AMOA. Methods. A total of 501 consecutive AMOA patients (301 UKA) operated on between 2013 to 2016 in two high-volume centres were included. Centre One employed clinical guidelines for the treatment of AMOA allowing either UKA or TKA, but encouraged UKA wherever possible. Centre Two used clinical guidelines that treated all patients with a TKA, regardless of wear pattern. TKA patients were included if they had isolated AMOA on preoperative radiographs. Data were collected from both centres’ local databases. The primary outcome measure was change in Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and the proportion of patients achieving the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) at one-year follow-up. The data were 1:1 propensity score matched before regression models were used to investigate potential differences. Results. The matched cohort included 400 patients (mean age 67 years (SD 9.55), 213 (53%) female, mean BMI 30.2 kg/m. 2. , 337 (84%) American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≤ 2). We found a mean adjusted difference in change score of 3.02 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 4.63; p < 0.001) and a significantly larger likeliness of achieving PASS (odds ratio 3.67 (95% CI 1.73 to 8.45); p = 0.001) both in favour of the UKA strategy. Conclusion. UKA and TKA are both good strategies for treating end-stage AMOA. However, when compared as a strategy, UKA achieved larger improvements in OKS, and were more likely to reach the PASS value at one-year follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):441–447

Aims. Prophylactic antibiotic regimens for elective primary total hip and knee arthroplasty vary widely across hospitals and trusts in the UK. This study aimed to identify antibiotic prophylaxis regimens currently in use for elective primary arthroplasty across the UK, establish variations in antibiotic prophylaxis regimens and their impact on the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the first-year post-index procedure, and evaluate adherence to current international consensus guidance. Methods. The guidelines for the primary and alternative recommended prophylactic antibiotic regimens in clean orthopaedic surgery (primary arthroplasty) for 109 hospitals and trusts across the UK were sought by searching each trust and hospital’s website (intranet webpages), and by using the MicroGuide app. The mean cost of each antibiotic regimen was calculated using price data from the British National Formulary (BNF). Regimens were then compared to the 2018 Philadelphia Consensus Guidance, to evaluate adherence to international guidance. Results. The primary choice and dosing of the prophylactic antimicrobial regimens varied widely. The two most used regimens were combined teicoplanin and gentamicin, and cefuroxime followed by two or three doses of cefuroxime eight-hourly, recommended by 24 centres (22.02%) each. The alternative choice and dosing of the prophylactic antimicrobial regimen also varied widely across the 83 centres with data available. Prophylaxis regimens across some centres fail to cover the likeliest causes of surgical site infection (SSI). Five centres (4.59%) recommend co-amoxiclav, which confers no Staphylococcus coverage, while 33 centres (30.28%) recommend cefuroxime, which confers no Enterococcus coverage. Limited adherence to 2018 Philadelphia Consensus Guidance was observed, with 67 centres (61.50%) not including a cephalosporin in their guidance. Conclusion. This analysis of guidance on antimicrobial prophylaxis in primary arthroplasty across 109 hospitals and trusts in the UK has identified widespread variation in primary and alternative antimicrobial regimens currently recommended. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):742–749

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

Aims. During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. Methods. The PAtellar Resurfacing Trial (PART) is a patient- and assessor-blinded multicentre, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary TKR for primary osteoarthritis at NHS hospitals in England, with an embedded internal pilot phase (ISRCTN 33276681). Participants will be randomly allocated intraoperatively on a 1:1 basis (stratified by centre and implant type (cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-sacrificing)) to always resurface or selectively resurface the patella, once the surgeon has confirmed sufficient patellar thickness for resurfacing and that constrained implants are not required. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures at three months, six months, and one year (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, OKS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and costs). Cost-effectiveness will be measured for the lifetime of the patient. Overall, 530 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a four-point difference in OKS between the groups one year after surgery, assuming up to 40% resurfacing in the selective group. Conclusion. The trial findings will provide evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. This will inform future NICE guidelines on primary TKR and the role of selective patellar resurfacing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):464–478

Aims. Fracture-related infection (FRI) is commonly classified based on the time of onset of symptoms. Early infections (< two weeks) are treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). For late infections (> ten weeks), guidelines recommend implant removal due to tolerant biofilms. For delayed infections (two to ten weeks), recommendations are unclear. In this study we compared infection clearance and bone healing in early and delayed FRI treated with DAIR in a rabbit model. Methods. Staphylococcus aureus was inoculated into a humeral osteotomy in 17 rabbits after plate osteosynthesis. Infection developed for one week (early group, n = 6) or four weeks (delayed group, n = 6) before DAIR (systemic antibiotics: two weeks, nafcillin + rifampin; four weeks, levofloxacin + rifampin). A control group (n = 5) received revision surgery after four weeks without antibiotics. Bacteriology of humerus, soft-tissue, and implants was performed seven weeks after revision surgery. Bone healing was assessed using a modified radiological union scale in tibial fractures (mRUST). Results. Greater bacterial burden in the early group compared to the delayed and control groups at revision surgery indicates a retraction of the infection from one to four weeks. Infection was cleared in all animals in the early and delayed groups at euthanasia, but not in the control group. Osteotomies healed in the early group, but bone healing was significantly compromised in the delayed and control groups. Conclusion. The duration of the infection from one to four weeks does not impact the success of infection clearance in this model. Bone healing, however, is impaired as the duration of the infection increases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(3):127–135

Aims. Lower limb fractures are common in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and represent a significant burden to the existing orthopaedic surgical infrastructure. In high income country (HIC) settings, internal fixation is the standard of care due to its superior outcomes. In LMICs, external fixation is often the surgical treatment of choice due to limited supplies, cost considerations, and its perceived lower complication rate. The aim of this systematic review protocol is identifying differences in rates of infection, nonunion, and malunion of extra-articular femoral and tibial shaft fractures in LMICs treated with either internal or external fixation. Methods. This systematic review protocol describes a broad search of multiple databases to identify eligible papers. Studies must be published after 2000, include at least five patients, patients must be aged > 16 years or treated as skeletally mature, and the paper must describe a fracture of interest and at least one of our primary outcomes of interest. We did not place restrictions on language or journal. All abstracts and full texts will be screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias and quality of evidence will be analyzed using standardized appraisal tools. A random-effects meta-analysis followed by a subgroup analysis will be performed, given the anticipated heterogeneity among studies, if sufficient data are available. Conclusion. The lack of easily accessible LMIC outcome data, combined with international clinical guidelines that are often developed by HIC surgeons for use in HIC environments, makes the clinical decision-making process infinitely more difficult for surgeons in LMICs. This protocol will guide research on surgical management, outcomes, and complications of lower limb shaft fractures in LMICs, and can help guide policy development for better surgical intervention delivery and improve global surgical care. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(11):1020–1026

Aims. To identify factors influencing clinicians’ decisions to undertake a nonoperative hip fracture management approach among older people, and to determine whether there is global heterogeneity regarding these factors between clinicians from high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Methods. A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was electronically distributed to clinicians around the world through the Fragility Fracture Network (FFN)’s Perioperative Special Interest Group and clinicians’ personal networks between 24 May and 25 July 2021. Analyses were performed using Excel and STATA v16.0. Between-group differences were determined using independent-samples t-tests and chi-squared tests. Results. A total of 406 respondents from 51 countries answered the questionnaire, of whom 225 came from HIC and 180 from LMIC. Clinicians from HIC reported a greater median and mean estimated proportion of admitted patients with hip fracture undergoing surgery (median 96% (interquartile range (IQR) 95% to 99%); mean 94% (SD 8%)) than those from LMIC (median 85% (IQR 75% to 95%); mean 81% (SD 16%); p < 0.001). Global heterogeneity seems to exist regarding factors such as anticipated life expectancy, insufficient resources, ability to pay, treatment costs, and perception of risk in hip fracture management decision-making. Conclusion. This study represents the first international sampling of clinician perspectives regarding nonoperative hip fracture management. Several factors seemed to influence the clinician decision-making process. Further research is needed to inform the development of best practice guidelines to improve decision-making and the quality of hip fracture care among older people. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):766–775

Aims. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and bias evaluation of the current literature to create an overview of risk factors for re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). Methods. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The studies were required to include a population of index rTKAs. Primary or secondary outcomes had to be re-revision. The association between preoperative factors and the effect on the risk for re-revision was also required to be reported by the studies. Results. The search yielded 4,847 studies, of which 15 were included. A majority of the studies were retrospective cohorts or registry studies. In total, 26 significant risk factors for re-revision were identified. Of these, the following risk factors were consistent across multiple studies: age at the time of index revision, male sex, index revision being partial revision, and index revision due to infection. Modifiable risk factors were opioid use, BMI > 40 kg/m. 2. , and anaemia. History of one-stage revision due to infection was associated with the highest risk of re-revision. Conclusion. Overall, 26 risk factors have been associated with an increased risk of re-revision following rTKA. However, various levels of methodological bias were found in the studies. Future studies should ensure valid comparisons by including patients with identical indications and using clear definitions for accurate assessments. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):644–651