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

Literature surrounding artificial intelligence (AI)-related applications for hip and knee arthroplasty has proliferated. However, meaningful advances that fundamentally transform the practice and delivery of joint arthroplasty are yet to be realized, despite the broad range of applications as we continue to search for meaningful and appropriate use of AI. AI literature in hip and knee arthroplasty between 2018 and 2021 regarding image-based analyses, value-based care, remote patient monitoring, and augmented reality was reviewed. Concerns surrounding meaningful use and appropriate methodological approaches of AI in joint arthroplasty research are summarized. Of the 233 AI-related orthopaedics articles published, 178 (76%) constituted original research, while the rest consisted of editorials or reviews. A total of 52% of original AI-related research concerns hip and knee arthroplasty (n = 92), and a narrative review is described. Three studies were externally validated. Pitfalls surrounding present-day research include conflating vernacular (“AI/machine learning”), repackaging limited registry data, prematurely releasing internally validated prediction models, appraising model architecture instead of inputted data, withholding code, and evaluating studies using antiquated regression-based guidelines. While AI has been applied to a variety of hip and knee arthroplasty applications with limited clinical impact, the future remains promising if the question is meaningful, the methodology is rigorous and transparent, the data are rich, and the model is externally validated. Simple checkpoints for meaningful AI adoption include ensuring applications focus on: administrative support over clinical evaluation and management; necessity of the advanced model; and the novelty of the question being answered. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1292–1303

Aims. Biofilm-related infection is a major complication that occurs in orthopaedic surgery. Various treatments are available but efficacy to eradicate infections varies significantly. A systematic review was performed to evaluate therapeutic interventions combating biofilm-related infections on in vivo animal models. Methods. Literature research was performed on PubMed and Embase databases. Keywords used for search criteria were “bone AND biofilm”. Information on the species of the animal model, bacterial strain, evaluation of biofilm and bone infection, complications, key findings on observations, prevention, and treatment of biofilm were extracted. Results. A total of 43 studies were included. Animal models used included fracture-related infections (ten studies), periprosthetic joint infections (five studies), spinal infections (three studies), other implant-associated infections, and osteomyelitis. The most common bacteria were Staphylococcus species. Biofilm was most often observed with scanning electron microscopy. The natural history of biofilm revealed that the process of bacteria attachment, proliferation, maturation, and dispersal would take 14 days. For systemic mono-antibiotic therapy, only two of six studies using vancomycin reported significant biofilm reduction, and none reported eradication. Ten studies showed that combined systemic and topical antibiotics are needed to achieve higher biofilm reduction or eradication, and the effect is decreased with delayed treatment. Overall, 13 studies showed promising therapeutic potential with surface coating and antibiotic loading techniques. Conclusion. Combined topical and systemic application of antimicrobial agents effectively reduces biofilm at early stages. Future studies with sustained release of antimicrobial and biofilm-dispersing agents tailored to specific pathogens are warranted to achieve biofilm eradication. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):700–714

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. Clinical management of open fractures is challenging and frequently requires complex reconstruction procedures. The Gustilo-Anderson classification lacks uniform interpretation, has poor interobserver reliability, and fails to account for injuries to musculotendinous units and bone. The Ganga Hospital Open Injury Severity Score (GHOISS) was designed to address these concerns. The major aim of this review was to ascertain the evidence available on accuracy of the GHOISS in predicting successful limb salvage in patients with mangled limbs. Methods. We searched electronic data bases including PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies that employed the GHOISS risk tool in managing complex limb injuries published from April 2006, when the score was introduced, until April 2021. Primary outcome was the measured sensitivity and specificity of the GHOISS risk tool for predicting amputation at a specified threshold score. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, need for plastic surgery, deep infection rate, time to fracture union, and functional outcome measures. Diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis was performed using a random effects bivariate binomial model. Results. We identified 1,304 records, of which six prospective cohort studies and two retrospective cohort studies evaluating a total of 788 patients were deemed eligible for inclusion. A diagnostic test meta-analysis conducted on five cohort studies, with 474 participants, showed that GHOISS at a threshold score of 14 has a pooled sensitivity of 93.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.4 to 98.2) and a specificity of 95% (95% CI 88.7 to 97.9) for predicting primary or secondary amputations in people with complex lower limb injuries. Conclusion. GHOISS is highly accurate in predicting success of limb salvage, and can inform management and predict secondary outcomes. However, there is a need for high-quality multicentre trials to confirm these findings and investigate the effectiveness of the score in children, and in predicting secondary amputations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):21–28

Aims. The aim of this study was to report the pooled prevalence of post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) and examine whether the risk of developing PTOA after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury has decreased in recent decades. Methods. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched from 1 January 1980 to 11 May 2022. Patient series, observational studies, and clinical trials having reported the prevalence of radiologically confirmed PTOA after ACL injury, with at least a ten-year follow-up, were included. All studies were analyzed simultaneously, and separate analyses of the operative and nonoperative knees were performed. The prevalence of PTOA was calculated separately for each study, and pooled prevalence was reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using either a fixed or random effects model. To examine the effect of the year of injury on the prevalence, a logit transformed meta-regression analysis was used with a maximum-likelihood estimator. Results from meta-regression analyses were reported with the unstandardized coefficient (β). Results. The pooled prevalence of PTOA was 37.9% (95% CI 32.1 to 44) for operatively treated ACL injuries with a median follow-up of 14.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 10.6 to 16.7). For nonoperatively treated ACL injuries, the prevalence was 40.5% (95% CI 28.9 to 53.3), with a median of follow-up of 15 years (IQR 11.7 to 20.0). The association between the year of operation and the prevalence of PTOA was weak and imprecise and not related to the choice of treatment (operative β -0.038 (95% CI -0.076 to 0.000) and nonoperative β -0.011 (95% CI -0.101 to 0.079)). Conclusion. The initial injury, irrespective of management, has, by the balance of probability, resulted in PTOA within 20 years. In addition, the prevalence of PTOA has only slightly decreased during past decades. Therefore, further research is warranted to develop strategies to prevent the development of PTOA after ACL injuries. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(11):1140–1148

Aims. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather epidemiological information on selected musculoskeletal injuries and to provide pooled injury-specific incidence rates. Methods. PubMed (National Library of Medicine) and Scopus (Elsevier) databases were searched. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they reported incidence rate (or count with population at risk), contained data on adult population, and were written in English language. The number of cases and population at risk were collected, and the pooled incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using either a fixed or random effects model. Results. The screening of titles yielded 206 articles eligible for inclusion in the study. Of these, 173 (84%) articles provided sufficient information to be included in the pooled incidence rates. Incidences of fractures were investigated in 154 studies, and the most common fractures in the whole adult population based on the pooled incidence rates were distal radius fractures (212.0, 95% CI 178.1 to 252.4 per 100,000 person-years), finger fractures (117.1, 95% CI 105.3 to 130.2 per 100,000 person-years), and hip fractures (112.9, 95% CI 82.2 to 154.9 per 100,000 person-years). The most common sprains and dislocations were ankle sprains (429.4, 95% CI 243.0 to 759.0 per 100,000 person-years) and first-time patellar dislocations (32.8, 95% CI 21.6 to 49.7 per 100,000 person-years). The most common injuries were anterior cruciate ligament (17.5, 95% CI 6.0 to 50.2 per 100,000 person-years) and Achilles (13.7, 95% CI 9.6 to 19.5 per 100,000 person-years) ruptures. Conclusion. The presented pooled incidence estimates serve as important references in assessing the global economic and social burden of musculoskeletal injuries. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(11):814–825

Aims. Intra-articular (IA) injection may be used when treating hip osteoarthritis (OA). Common injections include steroids, hyaluronic acid (HA), local anaesthetic, and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Network meta-analysis allows for comparisons between two or more treatment groups and uses direct and indirect comparisons between interventions. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of various IA injections used in the management of hip OA with a follow-up of up to six months. Methods. This systematic review and network meta-analysis used a Bayesian random-effects model to evaluate the direct and indirect comparisons among all treatment options. PubMed, Web of Science, Clinicaltrial.gov, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluate the efficacy of HA, PRP, local anaesthetic, steroid, steroid+anaesthetic, HA+PRP, and physiological saline injection as a placebo, for patients with hip OA were included. Results. In this meta-analysis of 16 RCTs with a total of 1,735 participants, steroid injection was found to be significantly more effective than placebo injection on reported pain at three months, but no significant difference was observed at six months. Furthermore, steroid injection was considerably more effective than placebo injection for functional outcomes at three months, while the combination of HA+PRP injection was substantially more effective at six months. Conclusion. Evidence suggests that steroid injection is more effective than saline injection for the treatment of hip joint pain, and restoration of functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):532–539

Aims. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the evidence for the use of intraoperative cell salvage in patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty, and specifically to analyze the available data in order to quantify any associated reduction in the use of allogenic blood transfusion, and the volume which is used. Methods. An electronic search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was completed from the date of their inception to 24 February 2022, using a search strategy and protocol created in conjunction with the PRISMA statement. Inclusion criteria were patients aged > 18 years who underwent revision hip arthroplasty when cell salvage was used. Studies in which pre-donated red blood cells were used were excluded. A meta-analysis was also performed using a random effects model with significance set at p = 0.05. Results. Of the 283 studies which were identified, 11 were included in the systematic review, and nine in the meta-analysis. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the proportion of patients requiring allogenic transfusion between groups, with an odds ratio of 0.331 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.165 to 0.663) associated with the use of cell salvage. For a total of 561 patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty who were treated with cell salvage, 247 (44.0%) required allogenic transfusion compared with 418 of 643 patients (65.0%) who were treated without cell salvage. For those treated with cell salvage, the mean volume of allogenic blood which was required was 1.95 units (390 ml) per patient (0.7 to 4.5 units), compared with 3.25 units (650 ml) per patient (1.2 to 7.0 units) in those treated without cell salvage. The mean difference of -1.91 units (95% CI -4.0 to 0.2) in the meta-analysis was also significant (p = 0.003). Conclusion. We found a a significant reduction in the need for allogenic blood transfusion when cell salvage was used in patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty, supporting its routine use in these patients. Further research is required to determine whether this effect is associated with types of revision arthroplasty of differing complexity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1038–1044

Aims. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA) in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries, regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and risk of secondary surgery. The aim was to conclusively determine the best available treatment based on the most complete and recent evidence available. Methods. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus. Additionally, ongoing trial registers and reference lists of included articles were screened. Risk of bias (RoB) and level of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The random and fixed-effect models were used for the statistical analysis. Results. A total of 20 studies were selected for this review, of which 12 were comparative studies fit for meta-analysis, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This resulted in a total analyzed population of 392 patients treated with ORIF and 249 patients treated with PA. The mean differences between the two groups in American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), VAS, and SF-36 scores were -7.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) -13.31 to -1.51), 0.77 (95% CI -0.85 to 2.39), and -1.20 (95% CI -3.86 to 1.46), respectively. Conclusion. This is the first study to find a statistically significant difference in PROMs, as measured by the AOFAS score, in favour of PA for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, this difference may not be clinically relevant, and therefore drawing a definitive conclusion requires confirmation by a large prospective high-quality RCT. Such a study should also assess cost-effectiveness, as cost considerations might be decisive in decision-making. Level of Evidence: I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):842–849

Aims. The effect of the gut microbiota (GM) and its metabolite on bone health is termed the gut-bone axis. Multiple studies have elucidated the mechanisms but findings vary greatly. A systematic review was performed to analyze current animal models and explore the effect of GM on bone. Methods. Literature search was performed on PubMed and Embase databases. Information on the types and strains of animals, induction of osteoporosis, intervention strategies, determination of GM, assessment on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone quality, and key findings were extracted. Results. A total of 30 studies were included, of which six studies used rats and 24 studies used mice. Osteoporosis or bone loss was induced in 14 studies. Interventions included ten with probiotics, three with prebiotics, nine with antibiotics, two with short-chain fatty acid (SCFA), six with vitamins and proteins, two with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and one with neuropeptide Y1R antagonist. In general, probiotics, prebiotics, nutritional interventions, and TCM were found to reverse the GM dysbiosis and rescue bone loss. Conclusion. Despite the positive therapeutic effect of probiotics, prebiotics, and nutritional or pharmaceutical interventions on osteoporosis, there is still a critical knowledge gap regarding the role of GM in rescuing bone loss and its related pathways. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(1):51–59

Background. Due to the overwhelming demand for trauma services, resulting from increasing emergency department attendances over the past decade, virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) have become the fashion to keep up with the demand and help comply with the BOA Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guidelines. In this article, we perform a systematic review asking, “How useful are VFCs?”, and what injuries and conditions can be treated safely and effectively, to help decrease patient face to face consultations. Our primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, clinical efficiency and cost analysis, and clinical outcomes. Methods. We performed a systematic literature search of all papers pertaining to VFCs, using the search engines PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Searches were carried out and screened by two authors, with final study eligibility confirmed by the senior author. Results. In total, 21 records were relevant to our research question. Six orthopaedic injuries were identified as suitable for VFC review, with a further four discussed in detail. A reduction of face to face appointments of up to 50% was reported with greater compliance to BOAST guidelines (46.4%) and cost saving (up to £212,000). Conclusions. This systematic review demonstrates that the VFC model can help deliver a safe, more cost-effective, and more efficient arm of the trauma service to patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:683–690

Aims. Gender bias and sexual discrimination (GBSD) have been widely recognized across a range of fields and are now part of the wider social consciousness. Such conduct can occur in the medical workplace, with detrimental effects on recipients. The aim of this review was to identify the prevalence and impact of GBSD in orthopaedic surgery, and to investigate interventions countering such behaviours. Methods. A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline, EMCARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library Database in April 2020, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to which we adhered. Original research papers pertaining to the prevalence and impact of GBSD, or mitigating strategies, within orthopaedics were included for review. Results. Of 570 papers, 27 were eligible for inclusion. These were published between 1998 and 2020. A narrative review was performed in light of the significant heterogeneity displayed by the eligible studies. A total of 13 papers discussed the prevalence of GBSD, while 13 related to the impact of these behaviours, and six discussed mitigating strategies. GBSD was found to be common in the orthopaedic workplace, with all sources showing women to be the subjects. The impact of this includes poor workforce representation, lower salaries, and less career success, including in academia, for women in orthopaedics. Mitigating strategies in the literature are focused on providing female role models, mentors, and educational interventions. Conclusion. GBSD is common in orthopaedic surgery, with a substantial impact on sufferers. A small number of mitigating strategies have been tested but these are limited in their scope. As such, the orthopaedic community is obliged to participate in more thoughtful and proactive strategies that mitigate against GBSD, by improving female recruitment and retention within the specialty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1446–1456

Aims. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate differences in functional outcomes and complications between single- (SI) and double-incision (DI) techniques for the treatment of distal biceps tendon rupture. Methods. A comprehensive search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central databases was conducted to identify studies reporting comparative results of the SI versus the DI approach. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was used for search strategy. Of 606 titles, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria; methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Random- and fixed-effects models were used to find differences in outcomes between the two surgical approaches. The range of motion (ROM) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores, as well as neurological and non-neurological complications, were assessed. Results. A total of 2,622 patients were identified. No significant differences in DASH score were detected between the techniques. The SI approach showed significantly greater ROM in flexion (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.508; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.904 to -0.112) and pronation (SMD -0.325, 95% CI -0.637 to -0.012). The DI technique was associated with significantly less risk of lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve damage (odds ratio (OR) 4.239, 95% CI 2.171 to 8.278), but no differences were found for other nerves evaluated. The SI group showed significantly fewer events of heterotopic ossification (OR 0.430, 95% CI 0.226 to 0.816) and a lower reoperation rate (OR 0.503, 95% CI 0.317 to 0.798). Conclusion. No significant differences in functional scores can be expected between the SI and DI approaches after distal biceps tendon repair. The SI approach showed greater flexion and pronation ROM and a lower risk of heterotopic ossification and reoperation. The DI approach was favourable in terms of lower risk of neurological complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1608–1617

Aims. Whether to perform hybrid surgery (HS) in contrast to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when treating patients with multilevel cervical disc degeneration remains a controversial subject. To resolve this we have undertaken a meta-analysis comparing the outcomes from HS with ACDF in this condition. Methods. Seven databases were searched for studies of HS and ACDF from inception of the study to 1 September 2019. Both random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to evaluate the overall effect of the C2-C7 range of motion (ROM), ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), heterotopic ossification (HO), complications, neck disability index (NDI) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Odom’s criteria, blood loss, and operating and hospitalization time. To obtain more credible results contour-enhanced funnel plots, Egger’s and Begg’s tests, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results. In total, 17 studies involving 861 patients were included in the analysis. HS was found to be superior to ACDF in maintaining C2-C7 ROM and ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, but HS did not reduce the incidence of associated level ASD. Also, HS did not cause a higher rate of HO than ACDF. The frequency of complications was similar between the two techniques. HS failed to achieve more favourable outcomes than ACDF using the NDI, VAS, JOA, and Odom’s scores. HS did not show any more advantages in operating or hospitalization time but did show reduction in blood loss. Conclusion. Although HS maintained cervical kinetics, it failed to reduce the incidence of ASD. This finding differs from previous reports. Moreover, patients did not show more benefits from HS with respect to symptom improvement, prevention of complications, and clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):981–996

Deep gluteal syndrome is an increasingly recognized disease entity, caused by compression of the sciatic or pudendal nerve due to non-discogenic pelvic lesions. It includes the piriformis syndrome, the gemelli-obturator internus syndrome, the ischiofemoral impingement syndrome, and the proximal hamstring syndrome. The concept of the deep gluteal syndrome extends our understanding of posterior hip pain due to nerve entrapment beyond the traditional model of the piriformis syndrome. Nevertheless, there has been terminological confusion and the deep gluteal syndrome has often been undiagnosed or mistaken for other conditions. Careful history-taking, a physical examination including provocation tests, an electrodiagnostic study, and imaging are necessary for an accurate diagnosis. After excluding spinal lesions, MRI scans of the pelvis are helpful in diagnosing deep gluteal syndrome and identifying pathological conditions entrapping the nerves. It can be conservatively treated with multidisciplinary treatment including rest, the avoidance of provoking activities, medication, injections, and physiotherapy. Endoscopic or open surgical decompression is recommended in patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms after conservative treatment or in those who may have masses compressing the sciatic nerve. Many physicians remain unfamiliar with this syndrome and there is a lack of relevant literature. This comprehensive review aims to provide the latest information about the epidemiology, aetiology, pathology, clinical features, diagnosis, and treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):556–567

Aims. A systematic literature review focusing on how long before surgery concurrent viral or bacterial infections (respiratory and urinary infections) should be treated in hip fracture patients, and if there is evidence for delaying this surgery. Methods. A total of 11 databases were examined using the COre, Standard, Ideal (COSI) protocol. Bibliographic searches (no chronological or linguistic restriction) were conducted using, among other methods, the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) template. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for flow diagram and checklist. Final reading of the complete texts was conducted in English, French, and Spanish. Classification of papers was completed within five levels of evidence (LE). Results. There were a total of 621 hits (526 COre; 95 Standard, Ideal) for screening identification, and 107 records were screened. Overall 67 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 21 articles were included for the study question. A total of 46 full-text articles were excluded with reasons. No studies could be included in quantitative synthesis (meta-analyses), and there were many confounding variables including surgeons’ experience, prosthesis models used, and surgical technique. Conclusion. Patients with hip fracture and with a viral infection in the upper respiratory tract or without major clinical symptoms should be operated on as soon as possible (LE: I-III). There is no evidence that patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) should be treated differently. In relation to pneumonia, its prevention is a major issue. Antibiotics should be administered if surgery is delayed by > 72 hours or if bacterial infection is present in the lower respiratory tract (LE: III-V). In patients with hip fracture and urinary tract infection (UTI), delaying surgery may provoke further complications (LE: I). However, diabetic or immunocompromised patients may benefit from immediate antibiotic treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(12):884–893

Aims. We performed a meta-analysis investigating the association between preoperative psychological distress and postoperative pain and function after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Materials and Methods. Pubmed/Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane library were searched for studies on the influence of preoperative psychological distress on postoperative pain and physical function after TKA. Two blinded reviewers screened for eligibility and assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence. We used random effects models to pool data for the meta-analysis. Results. Six prospective cohort studies, with a total of 1525 patients, were included. The random effects models showed significantly poorer outcomes in patients who preoperatively had elevated scores on the pain catastrophizing scale, worse 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) mental health score, symptoms of anxiety and/or depression, and somatization dysfunction. After 12 months, the standard mean difference for pain was −0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) −1.04 to −0.44) and −0.56 (95% CI −0.80 to −0.32) for function. Conclusion. Preoperative pain catastrophizing, mental distress, symptoms of anxiety and/or depression, and somatoform disorders appear to adversely affect pain and function after TKA. Some patients undergoing TKA may therefore need psychological support to improve the outcome and quality of life

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.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is mainly caused by ageing, strain, trauma, and congenital joint abnormalities, resulting in articular cartilage degeneration. During the pathogenesis of OA, the changes in subchondral bone (SB) are not only secondary manifestations of OA, but also an active part of the disease, and are closely associated with the severity of OA. In different stages of OA, there were microstructural changes in SB. Osteocytes, osteoblasts, and osteoclasts in SB are important in the pathogenesis of OA. The signal transduction mechanism in SB is necessary to maintain the balance of a stable phenotype, extracellular matrix (ECM) synthesis, and bone remodelling between articular cartilage and SB. An imbalance in signal transduction can lead to reduced cartilage quality and SB thickening, which leads to the progression of OA. By understanding changes in SB in OA, researchers are exploring drugs that can regulate these changes, which will help to provide new ideas for the treatment of OA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(9):536–545.