Aims. The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. Methods. The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds. Results. The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively. Conclusion. The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431

The 2020 London International Hamstring Consensus meeting was convened to improve our understanding and treatment of hamstring injuries. The multidisciplinary consensus panel included 14 International specialists on the management of hamstring injuries. The Delphi consensus process consisted of two rounds of surveys which were completed by 19 surgeons from a total of 106 participants. Consensus on individual statements was regarded as over 70% agreement between panel members. The consensus group agreed that the indications for operative intervention included the following: gapping at the zone of injury (86.9%); high functional demands of the patient (86.7%); symptomatic displaced bony avulsions (74.7%); and proximal free tendon injuries with functional compromise refractory to non-operative treatment (71.4%). Panel members agreed that surgical intervention had the capacity to restore anatomy and function, while reducing the risk of injury recurrence (86.7%). The consensus group did not support the use of corticosteroids or endoscopic surgery without further evidence. These guidelines will help to further standardise the treatment of hamstring injuries and facilitate decision-making in the surgical treatment of these injuries

Aims

To develop a core outcome set of measurements from postoperative radiographs that can be used to assess technical skill in performing dynamic hip screw (DHS) and hemiarthroplasty, and to validate these against Van der Vleuten’s criteria for effective assessment.