Aims. Prolonged waits for hip and knee arthroplasty have raised questions about the equity of current approaches to waiting list prioritization for those awaiting surgery. We therefore set out to understand key stakeholder (patient and surgeon) preferences for the prioritization of patients awaiting such surgery, in order to guide future waiting list redesign. Methods. A combined qualitative/quantitative approach was used. This comprised a Delphi study to first inform which factors patients and surgeons designate as important for prioritization of patients on hip and knee arthroplasty waiting lists, followed by a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine how the factors should be weighed against each other. Coefficient values for each included DCE attribute were used to construct a ‘priority score’ (weighted benefit score) that could be used to rank individual patients waiting for surgery based on their respective characteristics. Results. In total, 43 people participated in the initial round of the Delphi study (16 patients and 27 surgeons), with a 91% completion rate across all three rounds. Overall, 73 surgeons completed the DCE. Following the final consensus meeting of the Delphi component, the seven final factors designated for inclusion were Pain, Mobility/Function, Activities of Daily Living, Inability to Work/Care, Length of Time Waited, Radiological Severity, and Mental Wellbeing. Output from the adjusted multinomial regression revealed radiological severity to be the most significant factor (coefficient 2.27 (SD 0.31); p < 0.001), followed by pain (coefficient 1.08 (SD 0.13); p < 0.001) and time waited (coefficient for one month additional wait 0.12 (SD 0.02); p < 0.001). Conclusion. These results present a new robust method for determining comparative priority for those on primary hip and knee hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(1):89–96

Aims

This study aims to define the epidemiology of trauma presenting to a single centre providing all orthopaedic trauma care for a population of ∼ 900,000 over the first 40 days of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to that presenting over the same period one year earlier. The secondary aim was to compare this with population mobility data obtained from Google.

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess orthopaedic oncologic patient morbidity resulting from COVID-19 related institutional delays and surgical shutdowns during the first wave of the pandemic in New York, USA. Methods. A single-centre retrospective observational study was conducted of all orthopaedic oncologic patients undergoing surgical evaluation from March to June 2020. Patients were prioritized as level 0-IV, 0 being elective and IV being emergent. Only priority levels 0 to III were included. Delay duration was measured in days and resulting morbidities were categorized into seven groups: prolonged pain/disability; unplanned preoperative radiation and/or chemotherapy; local tumour progression; increased systemic disease; missed opportunity for surgery due to progression of disease/lost to follow up; delay in diagnosis; and no morbidity. Results. Overall, 25 patients met inclusion criteria. There were eight benign tumours, seven metastatic, seven primary sarcomas, one multiple myeloma, and two patients without a biopsy proven diagnosis. There was no priority level 0, two priority level I, six priority level II, and 17 priority level III cases. The mean duration of delay for priority level I was 114 days (84 to 143), priority level II was 88 days (63 to 133), and priority level III was 77 days (35 to 269). Prolonged pain/disability and delay in diagnosis, affecting 52% and 40%,respectively, represented the two most frequent morbidities. Local tumour progression and increased systemic disease affected 32% and 24% respectively. No patients tested positive for COVID-19. Conclusion. COVID-19 related delays in surgical management led to major morbidity in this studied orthopaedic oncologic patient population. By understanding these morbidities through clearer hindsight, a thoughtful approach can be developed to balance the risk of COVID-19 exposure versus delay in treatment, ensuring optimal care for orthopedic oncologic patients as the pandemic continues with intermittent calls for halting surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(4):236–242

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. Restarting planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is a clinical and societal priority, but it is unknown whether it can be done safely and include high-risk or complex cases. We developed a Surgical Prioritization and Allocation Guide (SPAG). Here, we validate its effectiveness and safety in COVID-free sites. Methods. A multidisciplinary surgical prioritization committee developed the SPAG, incorporating procedural urgency, shared decision-making, patient safety, and biopsychosocial factors; and applied it to 1,142 adult patients awaiting orthopaedic surgery. Patients were stratified into four priority groups and underwent surgery at three COVID-free sites, including one with access to a high dependency unit (HDU) or intensive care unit (ICU) and specialist resources. Safety was assessed by the number of patients requiring inpatient postoperative HDU/ICU admission, contracting COVID-19 within 14 days postoperatively, and mortality within 30 days postoperatively. Results. A total of 1,142 patients were included, 47 declined surgery, and 110 were deemed high-risk or requiring specialist resources. In the ten-week study period, 28 high-risk patients underwent surgery, during which 68% (13/19) of Priority 2 (P. 2. , surgery within one month) patients underwent surgery, and 15% (3/20) of P. 3. (< three months) and 16% (11/71) of P. 4. (> three months) groups. Of the 1,032 low-risk patients, 322 patients underwent surgery. Overall, 21 P. 3. and P. 4. patients were expedited to ‘Urgent’ based on biopsychosocial factors identified by the SPAG. During the study period, 91% (19/21) of the Urgent group, 52% (49/95) of P. 2. , 36% (70/196) of P. 3. , and 26% (184/720) of P. 4. underwent surgery. No patients died or were admitted to HDU/ICU, or contracted COVID-19. Conclusion. Our widely generalizable model enabled the restart of planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, without compromising patient safety or excluding high-risk or complex cases. Patients classified as Urgent or P. 2. were most likely to undergo surgery, including those deemed high-risk. This model, which includes assessment of biopsychosocial factors alongside disease severity, can assist in equitably prioritizing the substantial list of patients now awaiting planned orthopaedic surgery worldwide. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):134–140

In 2017, the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children’s orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):422–424

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. Multiligament knee injuries (MLKI) are devastating injuries that can result in significant morbidity and time away from sport. There remains considerable variation in strategies employed for investigation, indications for operative intervention, outcome reporting, and rehabilitation following these injuries. At present no study has yet provided a comprehensive overview evaluating the extent, range, and overall summary of the published literature pertaining to MLKI. Our aim is to perform a methodologically rigorous scoping review, mapping the literature evaluating the diagnosis and management of MLKI. Methods. This scoping review will address three aims: firstly, to map the current extent and nature of evidence for diagnosis and management of MLKI; secondly, to summarize and disseminate existing research findings to practitioners; and thirdly, to highlight gaps in current literature. A three-step search strategy as described by accepted methodology will be employed to identify peer-reviewed literature including reviews, technical notes, opinion pieces, and original research. An initial limited search will be performed to determine suitable search terms, followed by an expanded search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science). Two reviewers will independently screen identified studies for final inclusion. Dissemination. We will map key concepts and evidence, and disseminate existing research findings to the wider orthopaedic and sports medicine community, through both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature, and conference and in-person communications. We will highlight gaps in the current literature and determine future priorities for further research. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):894–897

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. The aim of this study is to determine the effects of the UK lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic on the orthopaedic admissions, operations, training opportunities, and theatre efficiency in a large district general hospital. Methods. The number of patients referred to the orthopaedic team between 1 April 2020 and 30 April 2020 were collected. Other data collected included patient demographics, number of admissions, number and type of operations performed, and seniority of primary surgeon. Theatre time was collected consisting of anaesthetic time, surgical time, time to leave theatre, and turnaround time. Data were compared to the same period in 2019. Results. There was a significant increase in median age of admitted patients during lockdown (70.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 46.25 to 84) vs 57 (IQR 27 to 79.75); p = 0.017) with a 26% decrease in referrals from 303 to 224 patients and 37% decrease in admissions from 177 to 112 patients, with a significantly higher proportion of hip fracture admissions (33% (n = 37) vs 19% (n = 34); p = 0.011). Paediatric admissions decreased by 72% from 32 to nine patients making up 8% of admissions during lockdown compared to 18.1% the preceding year (p = 0.002) with 66.7% reduction in paediatric operations, from 18 to 6. There was a significant increase in median turnaround time (13 minutes (IQR 12 to 33) vs 60 minutes (IQR 41 to 71); p < 0.001) although there was no significant difference in the anaesthetic time or surgical time. There was a 38% (61 vs 38) decrease in trainee-led operations. Discussion. The lockdown resulted in large decreases in referrals and admissions. Despite this, hip fracture admissions were unaffected and should remain a priority for trauma service planning in future lockdowns. As plans to resume normal elective and trauma services begin, hospitals should focus on minimising theatre turnaround time to maximize theatre efficiency while prioritizing training opportunities. Clinical relevance. Lockdown has resulted in decreases in the trauma burden although hip fractures remain unaffected requiring priority. Theatre turnaround times and training opportunities are affected and should be optimised prior to the resumption of normal services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:494–499

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

Aims. Machine learning (ML), a branch of artificial intelligence that uses algorithms to learn from data and make predictions, offers a pathway towards more personalized and tailored surgical treatments. This approach is particularly relevant to prevalent joint diseases such as osteoarthritis (OA). In contrast to end-stage disease, where joint arthroplasty provides excellent results, early stages of OA currently lack effective therapies to halt or reverse progression. Accurate prediction of OA progression is crucial if timely interventions are to be developed, to enhance patient care and optimize the design of clinical trials. Methods. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on 5 May 2024 for studies utilizing ML to predict OA progression. Titles and abstracts were independently screened, followed by full-text reviews for studies that met the eligibility criteria. Key information was extracted and synthesized for analysis, including types of data (such as clinical, radiological, or biochemical), definitions of OA progression, ML algorithms, validation methods, and outcome measures. Results. Out of 1,160 studies initially identified, 39 were included. Most studies (85%) were published between 2020 and 2024, with 82% using publicly available datasets, primarily the Osteoarthritis Initiative. ML methods were predominantly supervised, with significant variability in the definitions of OA progression: most studies focused on structural changes (59%), while fewer addressed pain progression or both. Deep learning was used in 44% of studies, while automated ML was used in 5%. There was a lack of standardization in evaluation metrics and limited external validation. Interpretability was explored in 54% of studies, primarily using SHapley Additive exPlanations. Conclusion. Our systematic review demonstrates the feasibility of ML models in predicting OA progression, but also uncovers critical limitations that currently restrict their clinical applicability. Future priorities should include diversifying data sources, standardizing outcome measures, enforcing rigorous validation, and integrating more sophisticated algorithms. This paradigm shift from predictive modelling to actionable clinical tools has the potential to transform patient care and disease management in orthopaedic practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1216–1222

Aims. The use of biologics in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in Olympic and professional athletes appears to be increasing. There are no studies which currently map the extent, range, and nature of existing literature concerning the use and efficacy of such therapies in this arena. The objective of this scoping review is to map the available evidence regarding the use of biologics in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in Olympic and professional sport. Methods. Best-practice methodological frameworks suggested by Arksey and O’Malley, Levac et al, and the Joanna Briggs Institute will be used. This scoping review will aim to firstly map the current extent, range, and nature of evidence for biologic strategies to treat injuries in professional and Olympic sport; secondly, to summarize and disseminate existing research findings; and thirdly, to identify gaps in existing literature. A three-step search strategy will identify peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature, including reviews, original research, and both published and unpublished (‘grey’) literature. An initial limited search will identify suitable search terms, followed by a search of five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) using keyword and index terms. Studies will be screened independently by two reviewers for final inclusion. Dissemination. We will chart key concepts and evidence, and disseminate existing research findings to practitioners and clinicians, through both peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature, online platforms (including social media), conference, and in-person communications. We will identify gaps in current literature and priorities for further study

The COVID-19 virus is a tremendous burden for the Italian health system. The regionally-based Italian National Health System has been reorganized. Hospitals' biggest challenge was to create new intensive care unit (ICU) beds, as the existing system was insufficient to meet new demand, especially in the most affected areas. Our institution in the Milan metropolitan area of Lombardy, the epicentre of the infection, was selected as one of the three regional hub for major trauma, serving a population of more than three million people. The aims were the increase the ICU beds and the rationalization of human and structural resources available for treating COVID-19 patients. In our hub hospital, the reorganization aimed to reduce the risk of infection and to obtained resources, in terms of beds and healthcare personnel to be use in the COVID-19 emergency. Non-urgent outpatient orthopaedic activity and elective surgery was also suspended. A training programme for healthcare personnel started immediately. Orthopaedic and radiological pathways dedicated to COVID-19 patients, or with possible infection, have been established. In our orthopaedic department, we passed from 70 to 26 beds. Our goal is to treat trauma surgery's patient in the “golden 72 hours” in order to reduce the overall hospital length of stay. We applied an objective priority system to manage the flow of surgical procedures in the emergency room based on clinical outcomes and guidelines. Organizing the present to face the emergency is a challenge, but in the global plan of changes in hospital management one must also think about the near future. We reported the Milan metropolitan area orthopaedic surgery management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our decisions are not based on scientific evidence; therefore, the decision on how reorganize hospitals will likely remain in the hands of individual countries

Aims. As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. Methods. This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. Results. Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). Conclusion. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267–271

Aims. Perthes’ disease is a condition which leads to necrosis of the femoral head. It is most commonly reported in children aged four to nine years, with recent statistics suggesting it affects around five per 100,000 children in the UK. Current treatment for the condition aims to maintain the best possible environment for the disease process to run its natural course. Management typically includes physiotherapy with or without surgical intervention. Physiotherapy intervention often will include strengthening/stretching programmes, exercise/activity advice, and, in some centres, will include intervention, such as hydrotherapy. There is significant variation in care with no consensus on which treatment option is best. The importance of work in this area has been demonstrated by the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery through the James Lind Alliance’s prioritization of work to determine/identify surgical versus non-surgical management of Perthes’ disease. It was identified as the fourth-highest priority for paediatric lower limb surgery research in 2018. Methods. Five UK NHS centres, including those from the NEWS (North, East, West and South Yorkshire) orthopaedic group, contributed to this case review, with each entre providing clinical data from a minimum of five children. Information regarding both orthopaedic and physiotherapeutic management over a two-year post-diagnosis period was reviewed. Results. Data were extracted from the clinical records of 32 children diagnosed with Perthes’ disease; seven boys and 25 girls. The mean age of the children at diagnosis was 6.16 years (standard deviation (SD) 3.001). In all, 26 children were referred for physiotherapy. In the two-year period following diagnosis, children were seen a median of 7.5 times (interquartile range (IQR) 4.25 to 11) by an orthopaedic surgeon, and a median of 9.5 times (IQR 8 to 18.25) by a physiotherapist. One centre had operated on all of their children, while another had operated on none. Overall, 17 (53%) of the children were managed conservatively in the two-year follow-up period, and 15 (47%) of the children underwent surgery in the two-year follow-up period. Conclusion. The results of this case review demonstrate a variation of care provided to children in the UK with Perthes’ disease. Further national and international understanding of current care is required to underpin the rationale for different treatment options in children with Perthes’ disease. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:691–695

Aims. The current global pandemic due to COVID-19 is generating significant burden on the health service in the UK. On 23 March 2020, the UK government issued requirements for a national lockdown. The aim of this multicentre study is to gain a greater understanding of the impact lockdown has had on the rates, mechanisms and types of injuries together with their management across a regional trauma service. Methods. Data was collected from an adult major trauma centre, paediatric major trauma centre, district general hospital, and a regional hand trauma unit. Data collection included patient demographics, injury mechanism, injury type and treatment required. Time periods studied corresponded with the two weeks leading up to lockdown in the UK, two weeks during lockdown, and the same two-week period in 2019. Results. There was a 55.7% (12,935 vs 5,733) reduction in total accident and emergency (A&E) attendances with a 53.7% (354 vs 164) reduction in trauma admissions during lockdown compared to 2019. The number of patients with fragility fractures requiring admission remained constant (32 patients in 2019 vs 31 patients during lockdown; p > 0.05). Road traffic collisions (57.1%, n = 8) were the commonest cause of major trauma admissions during lockdown. There was a significant increase in DIY related-hand injuries (26% (n = 13)) lockdown vs 8% (n = 11 in 2019, p = 0.006) during lockdown, which resulted in an increase in nerve injuries (12% (n = 6 in lockdown) vs 2.5% (n = 3 in 2019, p = 0.015) and hand infections (24% (n = 12) in lockdown vs 6.2% (n = 8) in 2019, p = 0.002). Conclusion. The national lockdown has dramatically reduced orthopaedic trauma admissions. The incidence of fragility fractures requiring surgery has not changed. Appropriate provision in theatres should remain in place to ensure these patients can be managed as a surgical priority. DIY-related hand injuries have increased which has led to an increased in nerve injuries requiring intervention

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. Materials and Methods. A formal consensus process was undertaken applying nominal group, Delphi, and appropriateness methods. Consensus was first reached on the terminology relating to the definition, investigation, and classification of meniscal lesions. A series of simulated clinical scenarios was then created and the appropriateness of arthroscopic meniscal surgery or nonoperative treatment in each scenario was rated by the group. The process was informed throughout by the latest published, and previously unpublished, clinical and epidemiological evidence. Scenarios were then grouped together based upon the similarity of clinical features and ratings to form the guideline for treatment. Feedback on the draft guideline was sought from the entire membership of BASK before final revisions and approval by the consensus group. Results. A total of 45 simulated clinical scenarios were refined to five common clinical presentations and six corresponding treatment recommendations. The final guideline stratifies patients based upon a new, standardized classification of symptoms, signs, radiological findings, duration of symptoms, and previous treatment. Conclusion. The 2018 BASK Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery Treatment Guidance will facilitate the consistent identification and treatment of patients with meniscal lesions. It is hoped that this guidance will be adopted nationally by surgeons and help inform healthcare commissioning guidance. Validation in clinical practice is now required and several areas of uncertainty in relation to treatment should be a priority for future high-quality prospective studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:652–659

Objectives. The annual incidence of hip fracture is 620 000 in the European Union. The cost of this clinical problem has been estimated at 1.75 million disability-adjusted life years lost, equating to 1.4% of the total healthcare burden in established market economies. Recent guidance from The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) states that research into the clinical and cost effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) as a treatment for hip fracture is a priority. We asked the question: can a trial investigating THA for hip fracture currently be delivered in the NHS?. Methods. We performed a contemporaneous process evaluation that provides a context for the interpretation of the findings of WHiTE Two – a randomised study of THA for hip fracture. We developed a mixed methods approach to situate the trial centre within the context of wider United Kingdom clinical practice. We focused on fidelity, implementation, acceptability and feasibility of both the trial processes and interventions to stakeholder groups, such as healthcare providers and patients. Results. We have shown that patients are willing to participate in this type of research and that surgeons value being part of a team that has a strong research ethos. However, surgical practice does not currently reflect NICE guidance. Current models of service delivery for hip fractures are unlikely to be able to provide timely total hip arthroplasty for suitable patients. Conclusions. Further observational research should be conducted to define the population of interest before future interventional studies are performed. Cite this article: C. Huxley, J. Achten, M. L. Costa, F. Griffiths, X. L. Griffin. A process evaluation of the WHiTE Two trial comparing total hip arthroplasty with and without dual mobility component in the treatment of displaced intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur: Can a trial investigating total hip arthroplasty for hip fracture be delivered in the NHS? Bone Joint Res 2016;5:444–452. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.510.BJR-2015-0008.R1