Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in incidence, and typically occur in frail elderly patients. They are similar to pathological fractures in many ways. The aims of treatment are the same, including 'getting it right first time' with a single operation, which allows immediate unrestricted weightbearing, with a low risk of complications, and one that avoids the creation of stress risers locally that may predispose to further peri-implant fracture. The surgical approach to these fractures, the associated soft-tissue handling, and exposure of the fracture are key elements in minimizing the high rate of complications. This annotation describes the approaches to the femur that can be used to facilitate the surgical management of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur at all levels using either modern methods of fixation or revision arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):593–601

The Unified Classification System (UCS), or Vancouver system, is a validated and widely used classification system to guide the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures. It suggests that well-fixed stems (type B1) can be treated with fixation but that loose stems (types B2 and B3) should be revised. Determining whether a stem is loose can be difficult and some authors have questioned how to apply this classification system to polished taper slip stems which are, by definition, loose within their cement mantle. Recent evidence has challenged the common perception that revision surgery is preferable to fixation surgery for UCS-B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished taper slip stems. Indications for fixation include an anatomically reducible fracture and cement mantle, a well-fixed femoral bone-cement interface, and a well-functioning acetabular component. However, not all type B fractures can or should be managed with fixation due to the risk of early failure. This annotation details specific fracture patterns that should not be managed with fixation alone.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):481–486.

Hip fractures pose a major global health challenge, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality, particularly among the elderly. With an ageing population, the incidence of these injuries is rising, exerting significant pressure on healthcare systems worldwide. Despite substantial research aimed at establishing best practice, several key areas remain the subject of ongoing debate. This article examines the latest evidence on the place of arthroplasty in the surgical treatment of hip fractures, with a particular focus on the choice of implant, the use of cemented versus uncemented fixation, and advances in perioperative care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1372–1376.

Paediatric bone sarcomas are a dual challenge for orthopaedic surgeons in terms of tumour resection and reconstruction, as it is important to minimize functional and growth problems without compromising survival rates. Cañadell’s technique consists of a Type I epiphysiolysis performed using continuous distraction by an external fixator prior to resection. It was designed to achieve a safe margin due to the ability of the physeal cartilage to be a barrier to tumour spread in some situations, avoiding the need for articular reconstruction, and preserving the growth capacity most of the times. Despite initial doubts raised in the scientific community, this technique is now widely used in many countries for the treatment of metaphyseal paediatric bone sarcomas. This annotation highlights the importance of Cañadell’s work and reviews the experience of applying it to bone sarcoma patients over the last 40 years.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):11–16.

Understanding spinopelvic mechanics is important for the success of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite significant advancements in appreciating spinopelvic balance, numerous challenges remain. It is crucial to recognize the individual variability and postoperative changes in spinopelvic parameters and their consequential impact on prosthetic component positioning to mitigate the risk of dislocation and enhance postoperative outcomes. This review describes the integration of advanced diagnostic approaches, enhanced technology, implant considerations, and surgical planning, all tailored to the unique anatomy and biomechanics of each patient. It underscores the importance of accurately predicting postoperative spinopelvic mechanics, selecting suitable imaging techniques, establishing a consistent nomenclature for spinopelvic stiffness, and considering implant-specific strategies. Furthermore, it highlights the potential of artificial intelligence to personalize care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1206–1215.

The transition from shutdown of elective orthopaedic services to the resumption of pre-COVID-19 activity presents many challenges. These include concerns about patient safety, staff safety, and the viability of health economies. Careful planning is necessary to allow patients to benefit from orthopaedic care in a safe and sustainable manner.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):807–810.

The posterior malleolus of the ankle is the object of increasing attention, with considerable enthusiasm for CT scanning and surgical fixation, as expressed in a recent annotation in The Bone & Joint Journal. Undoubtedly, fractures with a large posterior malleolar fragment that allow posterior talar subluxation from the mortise are served better by fixation. However, in all other situations, the existing literature does not support this widespread change in practice. The available biomechanical evidence shows that the posterior malleolus has little part to play in the stability or contact stresses of the ankle joint. Radiographic studies have not shown that CT scanning offers helpful information on pathoanatomical classification, case selection, or prognosis, or that scanning improves the likelihood of an adequate surgical reduction. Clinical studies have not shown any improvement in patient outcome after surgical fixation, and have confirmed that the inevitable consequence of increased intervention is an increased rate of complications. A careful and thoughtful evaluation of indications, risks, and benefits of this fashionable concept is required to ensure that we are deploying valuable resources with efficacy, and that we do no harm. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:566–9

Obesity is a worldwide epidemic that has both economic and health implications of enormous consequence. The obese patients tend to have earlier symptoms related to osteoarthritis, more peri-operative medical problems, higher rates of infection and more technical difficulties intra-operatively following hip and knee arthroplasty. Nevertheless, these patients have good long-term clinical outcomes and implant survival rates and are often some of the most satisfied patients after joint arthroplasty. Therefore, obese patients should not be denied surgery based on their weight alone.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):3–5.

Rupture of the tendo Achillis is a common injury with a rising incidence. Traditionally the key question following this injury has been whether or not to operate. However a contemporary Cochrane review highlighted that the method of rehabilitation may also have an important contribution to the outcome. Since this review, various early weight-bearing rehabilitation protocols have been described. Currently evidence points to the use of early functional rehabilitation, regardless of operative or non-operative management. However, there is no consensus on which exact functional rehabilitation protocol should be used. Future research should be directed towards improving our understanding of how the different rehabilitative components interact in the tendo Achillis as it heals.

We review the history and literature of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Resurfacing and the science behind it continues to evolve. Recent results, particularly from the national arthroplasty registers, have spread disquiet among both surgeons and patients. A hip resurfacing arthroplasty is not a total hip replacement, but should perhaps be seen as a means of delaying it. The time when hip resurfacing is offered to a patient may be different from that for a total hip replacement. The same logic can apply to the timing of revision surgery. Consequently, the comparison of resurfacing with total hip replacement may be a false one. Nevertheless, the need for innovative solutions for young arthroplasty patients is clear. Total hip replacement can be usefully delayed in many of these patients by the use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.