Aims. Proximal humeral fractures are the third most common fracture among the elderly. Complications associated with fixation include screw perforation, varus collapse, and avascular necrosis of the humeral head. To address these challenges, various augmentation techniques to increase medial column support have been developed. There are currently no recent studies that definitively establish the superiority of augmented fixation over non-augmented implants in the surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation or bone-graft augmentation versus those who underwent locking-plate fixation without augmentation for proximal humeral fractures. Methods. The search was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Articles involving patients with complex proximal humeral fractures treated using open reduction with locking-plate fixation, with or without augmentation, were considered. A meta-analysis of comparative studies comparing locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation or with bone-graft augmentation versus locking-plate fixation without augmentation was performed. Results. A total of 19 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and six comparative studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, 120 patients received locking-plate fixation with bone-graft augmentation, 179 patients received locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation, and 336 patients received locking-plate fixation without augmentation. No statistically relevant differences between the augmented and non-augmented cohorts were found in terms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score and Constant-Murley Score. The cement-augmented group had a significantly lower rate of complications compared to the non-augmented group. Conclusion. While locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation appears to produce a lower complication rate compared to locking-plate fixation alone, functional outcomes seem comparable between augmented and non-augmented techniques. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):646–655

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. Computer-based applications are increasingly being used by orthopaedic surgeons in their clinical practice. With the integration of technology in surgery, augmented reality (AR) may become an important tool for surgeons in the future. By superimposing a digital image on a user’s view of the physical world, this technology shows great promise in orthopaedics. The aim of this review is to investigate the current and potential uses of AR in orthopaedics. Materials and Methods. A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases up to January 2019 using the keywords ‘orthopaedic’ OR ‘orthopedic AND augmented reality’ was performed by two independent reviewers. Results. A total of 41 publications were included after screening. Applications were divided by subspecialty: spine (n = 15), trauma (n = 16), arthroplasty (n = 3), oncology (n = 3), and sports (n = 4). Out of these, 12 were clinical in nature. AR-based technologies have a wide variety of applications, including direct visualization of radiological images by overlaying them on the patient and intraoperative guidance using preoperative plans projected onto real anatomy, enabling hands-free real-time access to operating room resources, and promoting telemedicine and education. Conclusion. There is an increasing interest in AR among orthopaedic surgeons. Although studies show similar or better outcomes with AR compared with traditional techniques, many challenges need to be addressed before this technology is ready for widespread use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1479–1488

Aims. The success of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) depends on osseointegration at the graft-tunnel interface and intra-articular ligamentization. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of clinical and preclinical studies that evaluated biological augmentation of graft healing in ACLR. . Materials and Methods. In all, 1879 studies were identified across three databases. Following assessment against strict criteria, 112 studies were included (20 clinical studies; 92 animal studies). . Results. Seven categories of biological interventions were identified: growth factors, biomaterials, stem cells, gene therapy, autologous tissue, biophysical/environmental, and pharmaceuticals. The methodological quality of animal studies was moderate in 97%, but only 10% used clinically relevant outcome measures. The most interventions in clinical trials target the graft-tunnel interface and are applied intraoperatively. Platelet-rich plasma is the most studied intervention, but the clinical outcomes are mixed, and the methodological quality of studies was suboptimal. Other biological therapies investigated in clinical trials include: remnant-augmented ACLR; bone substitutes; calcium phosphate-hybridized grafts; extracorporeal shockwave therapy; and adult autologus non-cultivated stem cells. Conclusion. There is extensive preclinical research supporting the use of biological therapies to augment ACLR. Further clinical studies that meet the minimum standards of reporting are required to determine whether emerging biological strategies will provide tangible benefits in patients undergoing ACLR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:271–84

Aims

Local antibiotics are used in the surgical management of foot infection in diabetic patients. This systematic review analyzes the available evidence of the use of local antibiotic delivery systems as an adjunct to surgery.