Previous standards for assessing the reliability of a measurement tool have lacked consistency. We reviewed the most current American Society for Testing and Materials and International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) recommendations, and propose an algorithm for orthopaedic surgeons. When assessing a measurement tool, conditions of the experimental set-up and clear formulae used to compile the results should be strictly reported. According to these recent guidelines, accuracy is a confusing word with an overly broad meaning and should therefore be abandoned. Depending on the experimental conditions, one should be referring to bias (when the study protocol involves accepted reference values), and repeatability (sr, r) or reproducibility (SR, R). In the absence of accepted reference values, only repeatability (sr, r) or reproducibility (SR, R) should be provided. Take home message: Assessing the reliability of a measurement tool involves reporting bias, repeatability and/or reproducibility depending on the defined conditions, instead of precision or accuracy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B2:166–72

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.

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.

Evidence suggests that the alleviation of pain is enhancedby a strong patient-clinician relationship and attending to a patient’s social and mental health. There is a limited role for medication, opioids in particular.

Orthopaedic surgeons can use comprehensive biopsychosocial strategies to help people recover and can work with colleagues who have the appropriate expertise in order to maximize pain alleviation with optimal opioid stewardship.

Preparing patients for elective surgery and caring for them after unplanned injury or surgery can benefit from planned and practiced strategies based in communication science.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1122–1127.

Abstract

The medial malleolus, once believed to be the primary stabilizer of the ankle, has been the topic of conflicting clinical and biomechanical data for many decades. Despite the relevant surgical anatomy being understood for almost 40 years, the optimal treatment of medial malleolar fractures remains unclear, whether the injury occurs in isolation or as part of an unstable bi- or trimalleolar fracture configuration. Traditional teaching recommends open reduction and fixation of medial malleolar fractures that are part of an unstable injury. However, there is recent evidence to suggest that nonoperative management of well-reduced fractures may result in equivalent outcomes, but without the morbidity associated with surgery. This review gives an update on the relevant anatomy and classification systems for medial malleolar fractures and an overview of the current literature regarding their management, including surgical approaches and the choice of implants.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:512–521.

Intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to be effective in reducing blood loss and the need for transfusion after joint replacement. Recently, there has been interest in applying it topically before the closure of surgical wounds. This has the advantages of ease of application, maximum concentration at the site of bleeding, minimising its systemic absorption and, consequently, concerns about possible side-effects.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included 14 randomised controlled trials (11 in knee replacement, two in hip replacement and one in both) which investigated the effect of topical TXA on blood loss and rates of transfusion. Topical TXA significantly reduced the rate of blood transfusion (total knee replacement: risk ratio (RR) 4.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.02 to 6.72; p < 0.001 (nine trials, I² = 0%); total hip replacement: RR 2.56; 95% CI: 1.32 to 4.97, p = 0.004 (one trial)). The rate of thromboembolic events with topical TXA were similar to those found with a placebo. Indirect comparison of placebo-controlled trials of topical and intravenous TXA indicates that topical administration is superior to the intravenous route.

In conclusion, topical TXA is an effective and safe method of reducing the need for blood transfusion after total knee and hip replacement. Further research is required to find its optimum dose for topical use.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1005–15.