Aims. Research on hip biomechanics has analyzed femoroacetabular contact pressures and forces in distinct hip conditions, with different procedures, and used diverse loading and testing conditions. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize the available evidence in the literature for hip contact pressures and force in cadaver and in vivo studies, and how joint loading, labral status, and femoral and acetabular morphology can affect these biomechanical parameters. Methods. We used the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews for this literature search in three databases. After screening, 16 studies were included for the final analysis. Results. The studies assessed different hip conditions like labrum status, the biomechanical effect of the cam, femoral version, acetabular coverage, and the effect of rim trimming. The testing and loading conditions were also quite diverse, and this disparity limits direct comparisons between the different researches. With normal anatomy the mean contact pressures ranged from 1.54 to 4.4 MPa, and the average peak contact pressures ranged from 2 to 9.3 MPa. Labral tear or resection showed an increase in contact pressures that diminished after repair or reconstruction of the labrum. Complete cam resection also decreased the contact pressure, and acetabular rim resection of 6 mm increased the contact pressure at the acetabular base. Conclusion. To date there is no standardized methodology to access hip contact biomechanics in hip arthroscopy, or with the preservation of the periarticular soft-tissues. A tendency towards improved biomechanics (lower contact pressures) was seen with labral repair and reconstruction techniques as well as with cam correction. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(12):712–721

Aims. Metal allergy in knee arthroplasty patients is a controversial topic. We aimed to conduct a scoping review to clarify the management of metal allergy in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Studies were identified by searching electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase, from their inception to November 2020, for studies evaluating TKA patients with metal hypersensitivity/allergy. All studies reporting on diagnosing or managing metal hypersensitivity in TKA were included. Data were extracted and summarized based on study design, study population, interventions and outcomes. A practical guide is then formulated based on the available evidence. Results. We included 38 heterogeneous studies (two randomized controlled trials, six comparative studies, 19 case series, and 11 case reports). The evidence indicates that metal hypersensitivity is a rare complication with some histopathological features leading to pain and dissatisfaction with no reliable screening tests preoperatively. Hypoallergenic implants are viable alternatives for patients with self-reported/confirmed metal hypersensitivity if declared preoperatively; however, concerns remain over their long-term outcomes with ceramic implants outperforming titanium nitride-coated implants and informed consent is paramount. For patients presenting with painful TKA, metal hypersensitivity is a diagnosis of exclusion where patch skin testing, lymphocyte transformation test, and synovial biopsies are useful adjuncts before revision surgery is undertaken to hypoallergenic implants with shared decision-making and informed consent. Conclusion. Using the limited available evidence in the literature, we provide a practical approach to metal hypersensitivity in TKA patients. Future national/registry-based studies are needed to identify the scale of metal hypersensitivity, agreed diagnostic criteria, and management strategies. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):785–795