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. 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. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the mortality, morbidity, and functional outcomes of cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of intracapsular hip fractures, analyzing contemporary and non-contemporary implants separately. Methods. PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched to 2 February 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the primary outcome, mortality, and secondary outcomes of function, quality of life, reoperation, postoperative complications, perioperative outcomes, pain, and length of hospital stay. Relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) were used as summary association measures. Results. A total of 18 studies corresponding to 16 non-overlapping RCTs with a total of 2,819 intracapsular hip fractures were included. Comparing contemporary cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty, RRs (95% CIs) for mortality were 1.32 (0.44 to 3.99) perioperatively, 1.01 (0.48 to 2.10) at 30 days, and 0.90 (0.71 to 1.15) at one year. The use of contemporary cemented hemiarthroplasty reduced the risk of intra- and postoperative periprosthetic fracture. There were no significant differences in the risk of other complications, function, pain, and quality of life. There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes except for increases in operating time and overall anaesthesia for contemporary cemented hemiarthroplasty with mean differences (95% CIs) of 6.67 (2.65 to 10.68) and 4.90 (2.02 to 7.78) minutes, respectively. The morbidity and mortality outcomes were not significantly different between non-contemporary cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Conclusion. There are no differences in the risk of mortality when comparing the use of contemporary cemented with uncemented hemiarthroplasty in the management of intracapsular hip fractures. Contemporary cemented hemiarthroplasty is associated with a substantially lower risk of intraoperative and periprosthetic fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1113–1121

Aims. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the learning curve of semi-active robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), and to compare the accuracy, patient-reported functional outcomes, complications, and survivorship between rTHA and manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA). Methods. Searches of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were performed in April 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “hip”, and “arthroplasty”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical research articles reporting the learning curve for rTHA (robotic arm-assisted only) and those comparing the implantation accuracy, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mTHA. Results. There were 501 articles initially identified from databases and references. Following full text screening, 17 articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. Four studies reported the learning curve of rTHA, 13 studies reported on implant positioning, five on functional outcomes, ten on complications, and four on survivorship. The meta-analysis showed a significantly greater number of cases of acetabular component placement in the safe zone compared with the mTHA group (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.10 to 7.94; p < 0.001) and that rTHA resulted in a significantly better Harris Hip Score compared to mTHA in the short- to mid-term follow-up (95% CI 0.46 to 5.64; p = 0.020). However, there was no difference in infection rates, dislocation rates, overall complication rates, and survival rates at short-term follow-up. Conclusion. The learning curve of rTHA was between 12 and 35 cases, which was dependent on the assessment goal, such as operating time, accuracy, and team working. Robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty was associated with improved accuracy of component positioning and functional outcome, however no difference in complication rates or survival were observed at short- to mid-term follow-up. Overall, there remains an absence of high-quality level I evidence and cost analysis comparing rTHA and mTHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1009–1020

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the prognosis after early functional rehabilitation or traditional immobilization in patients who underwent operative or nonoperative treatment for rupture of the Achilles tendon. Methods. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to 3 June 2020, using keywords related to rupture of the Achilles tendon and rehabilitation. Data extraction was undertaken by independent reviewers and subgroup analyses were performed based on the form of treatment. Risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) were used as summary association measures. Results. We included 19 trials with a total of 1,758 patients. There was no difference between the re-rupture rate (RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.28); p = 0.423), time to return to work (WMD -1.29 (95% CI -2.63 to 0.05); p = 0.060), and sporting activity (WMD -1.50 (95% CI -4.36 to 1.37); p = 0.306) between the early functional rehabilitation and the traditional immobilization treatment strategies. Early rehabilitation up to 12 weeks yielded significantly better Achilles tendon Total Rupture Scores ((ATRS) WMD 5.11 (95% CI 2.10 to 8.12); p < 0.001). Patients who underwent functional rehabilitation had significantly lower limb symmetry index of heel-rise work ((HRW) WMD -4.19 (95% CI -8.20 to 0.17); p = 0.041) at one year. Conclusion. Early functional rehabilitation is safe and provides better early function and the same functional outcome in the longer term. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1021–1030

Aims. This study aimed to answer two questions: what are the best diagnostic methods for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint?; and what are the most commonly used definitions for bacterial arthritis of a native joint?. Methods. We performed a search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries for relevant studies published between January 1980 and April 2020. Of 3,209 identified studies, we included 27 after full screening. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve, and Youden index of diagnostic tests were extracted from included studies. We grouped test characteristics per diagnostic modality. We extracted the definitions used to establish a definitive diagnosis of bacterial arthritis of a native joint per study. Results. Overall, 28 unique diagnostic tests for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint were identified. The following five tests were deemed most useful: serum ESR (sensitivity: 34% to 100%, specificity: 23% to 93%), serum CRP (sensitivity: 58% to 100%, specificity: 0% to 96%), serum procalcitonin (sensitivity: 0% to 100%, specificity: 68% to 100%), the proportion of synovial polymorphonuclear cells (sensitivity: 42% to 100%, specificity: 54% to 94%), and the gram stain of synovial fluid (sensitivity: 27% to 81%, specificity: 99% to 100%). Conclusion. Diagnostic methods with relatively high sensitivities, such as serum CRP, ESR, and synovial polymorphonuclear cells, are useful for screening. Diagnostic methods with a relatively high specificity, such as serum procalcitonin and synovial fluid gram stain, are useful for establishing a diagnosis of bacterial arthritis. This review helps to interpret the value of various diagnostic tests for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint in clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1745–1753

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of time to surgical intervention from admission on mortality and morbidity for patients with hip fractures. Methods. MEDLINE and Embase were searched from inception to June 2020. Reference lists were manually assessed to identify additional papers. Primary comparative research studies that recruited patients aged over 60 years, with non-pathological primary proximal femoral fractures that were treated surgically, were included. Studies that did not include a group operated on within 24 hours or which reported time to surgery in calendar days were excluded. Two investigators extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. The pre-defined primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality at other time points. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were aggregated and were grouped by study-level characteristics. Results. This review included 46 studies (January 1991 to June 2020), comprising 521,857 hip fractures with 64,047 postoperative deaths. No randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. In a pooled analysis of 15 studies, RR of mortality at 30 days comparing time to surgery < 24 hours with > 24 hours was 0.86 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.91; I. 2. = 69%; 95% CI 50% to 81%; p-value for heterogeneity < 0.001). The association was stronger in observational studies that did not adjust for confounders than in those that adjusted for multiple covariates. In a pooled analysis of six studies, the RR of mortality at 30 days comparing time to surgery < 24 hours with 24 to 36 hours was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.93; I. 2. = 65%; 95% CI 16% to 85%; p-value for heterogeneity = 0.014). Conclusion. This meta-analysis indicates reduced mortality for patients operated within 24 hours compared with those operated on beyond 24 hours or within 24 to 36 hours. Where resources allow and there is no specific reversible contraindication to early surgery, we recommend that hip fractures should be surgically treated within 24 hours. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1176–1186

Aims. The principle strategies of fracture-related infection (FRI) treatment are debridement, antimicrobial therapy, and implant retention (DAIR) or debridement, antimicrobial therapy, and implant removal/exchange. Increasing the period between fracture fixation and FRI revision surgery is believed to be associated with higher failure rates after DAIR. However, a clear time-related cut-off has never been scientifically defined. This systematic review analyzed the influence of the interval between fracture fixation and FRI revision surgery on success rates after DAIR. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, in PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection, investigating the outcome after DAIR procedures of long bone FRIs in clinical studies published until January 2020. Results. Six studies, comprising 276 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Data from this review showed that with a short duration of infection (up to three weeks) and under strict preconditions, retention of the implant is associated with high success rates of 86% to 100%. In delayed infections with a fracture fixation-FRI revision surgery interval of three to ten weeks, absence of recurrent infection was reported in 82% to 89%. Data on late FRIs, with a fracture fixation-FRI revision surgery interval of more than ten weeks, are scarce and a success rate of 67% was reported. Conclusion. Acute/early FRI, with a short duration of infection, can successfully be treated with DAIR up to ten weeks after osteosynthesis. The limited available data suggest that chronic/late onset FRI treated with DAIR may be associated with a higher rate of recurrence. Successful outcome is dependent on managing all aspects of the infection. Thus, time from fracture fixation is not the only factor that should be considered in treatment planning of FRI. Due to the heterogeneity of the available data, these conclusions have to be interpreted with caution. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):213–221

Aims. To evaluate the rate of dislocation following dual mobility total hip arthroplasty (DM-THA) in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures, and to compare rates of dislocation, surgical-site infection, reoperation, and one-year mortality between DM-THA and bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA). Methods. Studies were selected based on the following criteria: 1) study design (retrospective cohort studies, prospective cohort studies, retrospective comparative studies, prospective comparative studies, and randomized controlled studies (RCTs)); 2) study population (patients with femoral neck fracture); 3) intervention (DM-THA or BHA); and 4) outcomes (complications during postoperative follow-up and clinical results). Pooled meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate the dislocation rate after DM-THA and to compare outcomes between DM-THA and BHA. Results. A total of 17 studies (ten cohort studies on DM-THA and seven comparative studies of DM-THA and BHA) were selected. These studies included 2,793 patients (2,799 hips), made up of 2,263 DM-THA patients (2,269 hips) and 530 BHA patients (530 hips). In all, 16 studies were analyzed to evaluate dislocation rate after DM-THA. The cumulative dislocation rate was 4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3 to 5). Seven studies were analyzed to compare the rates dislocation and surgical-site infection. The rate of dislocation was significantly lower in the DM-THA group than in the BHA group (risk ratio (RR) 0.3; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53, p < 0.001, Z −4.11). There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical-site infection between the two groups (p = 0.580). Six studies reported all-cause reoperations. The rate of reoperation was significantly lower in the DM-THA group than in the BHA group (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.78, p = 0.003, Z −3.01). Five studies reported one-year mortality. The mortality rate was significantly lower in the DM-THA group than in the BHA group (RR 0.58 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75, p < 0.0001, Z −4.2). Conclusion. While the evidence available consisted mainly of non-randomized studies, DM-THA appeared to be a viable option for patients with displaced fractures of the femoral neck, with better reported rates of dislocation, reoperation, and mortality than BHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1457–1466

Aims. Scapular notching is thought to have an adverse effect on the outcome of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). However, the matter is still controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical impact of scapular notching on outcomes after RTSA. Methods. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Database, and EMBASE) were searched for studies which evaluated the influence of scapular notching on clinical outcome after RTSA. The quality of each study was assessed. Functional outcome scores (the Constant-Murley scores (CMS), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores), and postoperative range of movement (forward flexion (FF), abduction, and external rotation (ER)) were extracted and subjected to meta-analysis. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD). Results. In all, 11 studies (two level III and nine level IV) were included in the meta-analysis. All analyzed variables indicated that scapular notching has a negative effect on the outcome of RTSA . Statistical significance was found for the CMS (WMD –3.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.98 to –1.23), the ASES score (WMD –6.50; 95% CI –10.80 to –2.19), FF (WMD –6.3°; 95% CI –9.9° to –2.6°), and abduction (WMD –9.4°; 95% CI –17.8° to –1.0°), but not for ER (WMD –0.6°; 95% CI –3.7° to 2.5°). Conclusion. The current literature suggests that patients with scapular notching after RTSA have significantly worse results when evaluated by the CMS, ASES score, and range of movement in flexion and abduction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1438–1445

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

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

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.

Aims

As an increasing number of female surgeons are choosing orthopaedics, it is important to recognize the impact of pregnancy within this cohort. The aim of this review was to examine common themes and data surrounding pregnancy, parenthood, and fertility within orthopaedics.

Aims

In the UK, the agricultural, military, and construction sectors have stringent rules about the use of hearing protection due to the risk of noise-induced hearing loss. Orthopaedic staff may also be at risk due to the use of power tools. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have clear standards as to what are deemed acceptable occupational levels of noise on A-weighted and C-weighted scales. The aims of this review were to assess the current evidence on the testing of exposure to noise in orthopaedic operating theatres to see if it exceeds these regulations.

Aims. This study evaluates the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) reported in childhood fracture trials and recommends outcome measures to assess and report physical function, functional capacity, and quality of life using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) standards. Methods. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review of OVID Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to identify all PROMs reported in trials. A search of OVID Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO was performed to identify all PROMs with validation studies in childhood fractures. Development studies were identified through hand-searching. Data extraction was undertaken by two reviewers. Study quality and risk of bias was evaluated by COSMIN guidelines and recorded on standardized checklists. Results. Searches yielded 13,672 studies, which were screened to identify 124 trials and two validation studies. Review of the 124 trials identified 16 reported PROMs, of which two had validation studies. The development papers were retrieved for all PROMs. The quality of the original development studies was adequate for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Mobility and Upper Extremity and doubtful for the EuroQol Five Dimension Youth questionnaire (EQ-5D-Y). All other PROMs were found to have inadequate development studies. No content validity studies were identified. Reviewer-rated content validity was acceptable for six PROMs: Activity Scale for Kids (ASK), Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire, PROMIS Upper Extremity, PROMIS Mobility, EQ-5D-Y, and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL4.0). The Modified Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire was shown to have indeterminate reliability and convergence validity in one study and PROMIS Upper Extremity had insufficient convergence validity in one study. Conclusion. There is insufficient evidence to recommend strongly the use of any single PROM to assess and report physical function or quality of life following childhood fractures. There is a need to conduct validation studies for PROMs. In the absence of these studies, we cautiously recommend the use of the PROMIS or ASK-P for physical function and the PedsQL4.0 or EQ-5D-Y for quality of life. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1599–1607

Aims

To analyze whether the addition of risk-based criteria to clinical examination-based selective ultrasound screening would increase the rates of early detected cases of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and decrease the rate of late detected cases.

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.

Aims

Conventional patient-reported surveys, used for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), are limited by subjectivity and recall bias. Objective functional evaluation, such as gait analysis, to delineate a patient’s functional capacity and customize surgical interventions, may address these shortcomings. This systematic review endeavours to investigate the application of objective functional assessments in appraising individuals undergoing THA.

Aims

To determine whether obesity and malnutrition have a synergistic effect on outcomes from skeletal trauma or elective orthopaedic surgery.