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. 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. 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

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.