In recent years, machine learning (ML) and artificial neural networks (ANNs), a particular subset of ML, have been adopted by various areas of healthcare. A number of diagnostic and prognostic algorithms have been designed and implemented across a range of orthopaedic sub-specialties to date, with many positive results. However, the methodology of many of these studies is flawed, and few compare the use of ML with the current approach in clinical practice. Spinal surgery has advanced rapidly over the past three decades, particularly in the areas of implant technology, advanced surgical techniques, biologics, and enhanced recovery protocols. It is therefore regarded an innovative field. Inevitably, spinal surgeons will wish to incorporate ML into their practice should models prove effective in diagnostic or prognostic terms. The purpose of this article is to review published studies that describe the application of neural networks to spinal surgery and which actively compare ANN models to contemporary clinical standards allowing evaluation of their efficacy, accuracy, and relatability. It also explores some of the limitations of the technology, which act to constrain the widespread adoption of neural networks for diagnostic and prognostic use in spinal care. Finally, it describes the necessary considerations should institutions wish to incorporate ANNs into their practices. In doing so, the aim of this review is to provide a practical approach for spinal surgeons to understand the relevant aspects of neural networks. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1442–1448

The recently published Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens In Tumor Surgery (PARITY) trial found no benefit in extending antibiotic prophylaxis from 24 hours to five days after endoprosthetic reconstruction for lower limb bone tumours. PARITY is the first randomized controlled trial in orthopaedic oncology and is a huge step forward in understanding antibiotic prophylaxis. However, significant gaps remain, including questions around antibiotic choice, particularly in the UK, where cephalosporins are avoided due to concerns of Clostridioides difficile infection. We present a review of the evidence for antibiotic choice, dosing, and timing, and a brief description of PARITY, its implication for practice, and the remaining gaps in our understanding.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):850–856.

Stem cells are defined by their potential for self-renewal and the ability to differentiate into numerous cell types, including cartilage and bone cells. Although basic laboratory studies demonstrate that cell therapies have strong potential for improvement in tissue healing and regeneration, there is little evidence in the scientific literature for many of the available cell formulations that are currently offered to patients. Numerous commercial entities and ‘regenerative medicine centres’ have aggressively marketed unproven cell therapies for a wide range of medical conditions, leading to sometimes indiscriminate use of these treatments, which has added to the confusion and unpredictable outcomes. The significant variability and heterogeneity in cell formulations between different individuals makes it difficult to draw conclusions about efficacy. The ‘minimally manipulated’ preparations derived from bone marrow and adipose tissue that are currently used differ substantially from cells that are processed and prepared under defined laboratory protocols. The term ‘stem cells’ should be reserved for laboratory-purified, culture-expanded cells. The number of cells in uncultured preparations that meet these defined criteria is estimated to be approximately one in 10 000 to 20 000 (0.005% to 0.01%) in native bone marrow and 1 in 2000 in adipose tissue. It is clear that more refined definitions of stem cells are required, as the lumping together of widely diverse progenitor cell types under the umbrella term ‘mesenchymal stem cells’ has created confusion among scientists, clinicians, regulators, and our patients. Validated methods need to be developed to measure and characterize the ‘critical quality attributes’ and biological activity of a specific cell formulation. It is certain that ‘one size does not fit all’ – different cell formulations, dosing schedules, and culturing parameters will likely be required based on the tissue being treated and the desired biological target. As an alternative to the use of exogenous cells, in the future we may be able to stimulate the intrinsic vascular stem cell niche that is known to exist in many tissues. The tremendous potential of cell therapy will only be realized with further basic, translational, and clinical research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:361–364

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the current evidence relating to the benefits of virtual reality (VR) simulation in orthopaedic surgical training, and to identify areas of future research. Materials and Methods. A literature search using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar databases was performed. The results’ titles, abstracts, and references were examined for relevance. Results. A total of 31 articles published between 2004 and 2016 and relating to the objective validity and efficacy of specific virtual reality orthopaedic surgical simulators were identified. We found 18 studies demonstrating the construct validity of 16 different orthopaedic virtual reality simulators by comparing expert and novice performance. Eight studies have demonstrated skill acquisition on a simulator by showing improvements in performance with repeated use. A further five studies have demonstrated measurable improvements in operating theatre performance following a period of virtual reality simulator training. Conclusion. The demonstration of ‘real-world’ benefits from the use of VR simulation in knee and shoulder arthroscopy is promising. However, evidence supporting its utility in other forms of orthopaedic surgery is lacking. Further studies of validity and utility should be combined with robust analyses of the cost efficiency of validated simulators to justify the financial investment required for their use in orthopaedic training. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:559–65

Antibiotic resistance represents a threat to human health. It has been suggested that by 2050, antibiotic-resistant infections could cause ten million deaths each year. In orthopaedics, many patients undergoing surgery suffer from complications resulting from implant-associated infection. In these circumstances secondary surgery is usually required and chronic and/or relapsing disease may ensue. The development of effective treatments for antibiotic-resistant infections is needed. Recent evidence shows that bacteriophage (phages; viruses that infect bacteria) therapy may represent a viable and successful solution. In this review, a brief description of bone and joint infection and the nature of bacteriophages is presented, as well as a summary of our current knowledge on the use of bacteriophages in the treatment of bacterial infections. We present contemporary published in vitro and in vivo data as well as data from clinical trials, as they relate to bone and joint infections. We discuss the potential use of bacteriophage therapy in orthopaedic infections. This area of research is beginning to reveal successful results, but mostly in nonorthopaedic fields. We believe that bacteriophage therapy has potential therapeutic value for implant-associated infections in orthopaedics.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):234–244.

Upper limb amputations, ranging from transhumeral to partial hand, can be devastating for patients, their families, and society. Modern paradigm shifts have focused on reconstructive options after upper extremity limb loss, rather than considering the amputation an ablative procedure. Surgical advancements such as targeted muscle reinnervation and regenerative peripheral nerve interface, in combination with technological development of modern prosthetics, have expanded options for patients after amputation. In the near future, advances such as osseointegration, implantable myoelectric sensors, and implantable nerve cuffs may become more widely used and may expand the options for prosthetic integration, myoelectric signal detection, and restoration of sensation. This review summarizes the current advancements in surgical techniques and prosthetics for upper limb amputees.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):430–439.

Injuries to the hamstring muscle complex are common in athletes, accounting for between 12% and 26% of all injuries sustained during sporting activities. Acute hamstring injuries often occur during sports that involve repetitive kicking or high-speed sprinting, such as American football, soccer, rugby, and athletics. They are also common in watersports, including waterskiing and surfing. Hamstring injuries can be career-threatening in elite athletes and are associated with an estimated risk of recurrence in between 14% and 63% of patients. The variability in prognosis and treatment of the different injury patterns highlights the importance of prompt diagnosis with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in order to classify injuries accurately and plan the appropriate management.

Low-grade hamstring injuries may be treated with nonoperative measures including pain relief, eccentric lengthening exercises, and a graduated return to sport-specific activities. Nonoperative management is associated with highly variable times for convalescence and return to a pre-injury level of sporting function. Nonoperative management of high-grade hamstring injuries is associated with poor return to baseline function, residual muscle weakness and a high-risk of recurrence. Proximal hamstring avulsion injuries, high-grade musculotendinous tears, and chronic injuries with persistent weakness or functional compromise require surgical repair to enable return to a pre-injury level of sporting function and minimize the risk of recurrent injury.

This article reviews the optimal diagnostic imaging methods and common classification systems used to guide the treatment of hamstring injuries. In addition, the indications and outcomes for both nonoperative and operative treatment are analyzed to provide an evidence-based management framework for these patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1281–1288.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. Orthopaedic departments have adopted business continuity models and guidelines for essential and non-essential surgeries to preserve hospital resources as well as protect patients and staff. These guidelines broadly encompass reduction of ambulatory care with a move towards telemedicine, redeployment of orthopaedic surgeons/residents to the frontline battle against COVID-19, continuation of education and research through web-based means, and cancellation of non-essential elective procedures. However, if containment of COVID-19 community spread is achieved, resumption of elective orthopaedic procedures and transition plans to return to normalcy must be considered for orthopaedic departments. The COVID-19 pandemic also presents a moral dilemma to the orthopaedic surgeon considering elective procedures. What is the best treatment for our patients and how does the fear of COVID-19 influence the risk-benefit discussion during a pandemic? Surgeons must deliberate the fine balance between elective surgery for a patient’s wellbeing versus risks to the operating team and utilization of precious hospital resources. Attrition of healthcare workers or Orthopaedic surgeons from restarting elective procedures prematurely or in an unsafe manner may render us ill-equipped to handle the second wave of infections. This highlights the need to develop effective screening protocols or preoperative COVID-19 testing before elective procedures in high-risk, elderly individuals with comorbidities. Alternatively, high-risk individuals should be postponed until the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection is minimal. In addition, given the higher mortality and perioperative morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery, the decision to operate must be carefully deliberated. As we ramp-up elective services and get “back to business” as orthopaedic surgeons, we have to be constantly mindful to proceed in a cautious and calibrated fashion, delivering the best care, while maintaining utmost vigilance to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19 during this critical transition period.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:222–228.

The wrist is a complex joint involving many small bones and complicated kinematics. It has, therefore, been traditionally difficult to image and ascertain information about kinematics when making a diagnosis. Although MRI and fluoroscopy have been used, they both have limitations. Recently, there has been interest in the use of 4D-CT in imaging the wrist. This review examines the literature regarding the use of 4D-CT in imaging the wrist to assess kinematics and its ability to diagnose pathology. Some questions remain about the description of normal ranges, the most appropriate method of measuring intercarpal stability, the accuracy compared with established standards, and the place of 4D-CT in postoperative assessment.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1325–1330.

Aims

In 2013, we introduced a specialized, centralized, and interdisciplinary team in our institution that applied a standardized diagnostic and treatment algorithm for the management of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The hypothesis for this study was that the outcome of treatment would be improved using this approach.

Abstract

Nerve transfer has become a common and often effective reconstructive strategy for proximal and complex peripheral nerve injuries of the upper limb. This case-based discussion explores the principles and potential benefits of nerve transfer surgery and offers in-depth discussion of several established and valuable techniques including: motor transfer for elbow flexion after musculocutaneous nerve injury, deltoid reanimation for axillary nerve palsy, intrinsic re-innervation following proximal ulnar nerve repair, and critical sensory recovery despite non-reconstructable median nerve lesions.

Non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head is a potentially devastating condition, the prevalence of which is increasing. Many joint-preserving forms of treatment, both medical and surgical, have been developed in an attempt to slow or reverse its progression, as it usually affects young patients.

However, it is important to evaluate the best evidence that is available for the many forms of treatment considering the variation in the demographics of the patients, the methodology and the outcomes in the studies that have been published, so that it can be used effectively.

The purpose of this review, therefore, was to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based guide to the management, both non-operative and operative, of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1267–79.

Primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a reliable procedure with reproducible long-term results. Nevertheless, there are conditions related to the type of patient or local conditions of the knee that can make it a difficult procedure. The most common scenarios that make it difficult are discussed in this review. These include patients with many previous operations and incisions, and those with severe coronal deformities, genu recurvatum, a stiff knee, extra-articular deformities and those who have previously undergone osteotomy around the knee and those with chronic dislocation of the patella.

Each condition is analysed according to the characteristics of the patient, the pre-operative planning and the reported outcomes.

When approaching the difficult primary TKA surgeons should use a systematic approach, which begins with the review of the existing literature for each specific clinical situation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):30–9.

The surgical community is plagued with a reputation for both failing to engage and to deliver on clinical research. This is in part due to the absence of a strong research culture, however it is also due to a multitude of barriers encountered in clinical research; particularly those involving surgical interventions. ‘Trauma’ amplifies these barriers, owing to the unplanned nature of care, unpredictable work patterns, the emergent nature of treatment and complexities in the consent process. This review discusses the barriers to clinical research in surgery, with a particular emphasis on trauma. It considers how barriers may be overcome, with the aim to facilitate future successful clinical research.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:123–9.

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the first Global Patient Safety Challenge in 2005 and introduced the ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ in 2009 in an attempt to reduce the burden of health care associated infections. Many NHS trusts in England adopted this model of hand hygiene, which prompts health care workers to clean their hands at five distinct stages of caring for the patient. Our review analyses the scientific foundation for the five moments of hand hygiene and explores the evidence, as referenced by WHO, to support these recommendations. We found no strong scientific support for this regime of hand hygiene as a means of reducing health care associated infections. Consensus-based guidelines based on weak scientific foundations should be assessed carefully to prevent shifting the clinical focus from more important issues and to direct limited resources more effectively.

We recommend caution in the universal adoption of the WHO ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ by orthopaedic surgeons and other health care workers and emphasise the need for evidence-based principles when adopting hospital guidelines aimed at promoting excellence in clinical practice.