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.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a difficult complication requiring a comprehensive eradication protocol. Cure rates have essentially stalled in the last two decades, using methods of antimicrobial cement joint spacers and parenteral antimicrobial agents. Functional spacers with higher-dose antimicrobial-loaded cement and antimicrobial-loaded calcium sulphate beads have emphasized local antimicrobial delivery on the premise that high-dose local antimicrobial delivery will enhance eradication. However, with increasing antimicrobial pressures, microbiota have responded with adaptive mechanisms beyond traditional antimicrobial resistance genes. In this review we describe adaptive resistance mechanisms that are relevant to the treatment of PJI. Some mechanisms are well known, but others are new. The objective of this review is to inform clinicians of the known adaptive resistance mechanisms of microbes relevant to PJI. We also discuss the implications of these adaptive mechanisms in the future treatment of PJI.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):575–580.

Non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head is a potentially devastating condition, the prevalence of which is increasing. Many joint-preserving forms of treatment, both medical and surgical, have been developed in an attempt to slow or reverse its progression, as it usually affects young patients. However, it is important to evaluate the best evidence that is available for the many forms of treatment considering the variation in the demographics of the patients, the methodology and the outcomes in the studies that have been published, so that it can be used effectively. . The purpose of this review, therefore, was to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based guide to the management, both non-operative and operative, of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1267–79

Given the growing prevalence of obesity around the world and its association with osteoarthritis of the knee, orthopaedic surgeons need to be familiar with the management of the obese patient with degenerative knee pain. The precise mechanism by which obesity leads to osteoarthritis remains unknown, but is likely to be due to a combination of mechanical, humoral and genetic factors. . Weight loss has clear medical benefits for the obese patient and seems to be a logical way of relieving joint pain associated with degenerative arthritis. There are a variety of ways in which this may be done including diet and exercise, and treatment with drugs and bariatric surgery. Whether substantial weight loss can delay or even reverse the symptoms associated with osteoarthritis remains to be seen. . Surgery for osteoarthritis in the obese patient can be technically more challenging and carries a risk of additional complications. Substantial weight loss before undertaking total knee replacement is advisable. More prospective studies that evaluate the effect of significant weight loss on the evolution of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee are needed so that orthopaedic surgeons can treat this patient group appropriately.

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the first Global Patient Safety Challenge in 2005 and introduced the ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ in 2009 in an attempt to reduce the burden of health care associated infections. Many NHS trusts in England adopted this model of hand hygiene, which prompts health care workers to clean their hands at five distinct stages of caring for the patient. Our review analyses the scientific foundation for the five moments of hand hygiene and explores the evidence, as referenced by WHO, to support these recommendations. We found no strong scientific support for this regime of hand hygiene as a means of reducing health care associated infections. Consensus-based guidelines based on weak scientific foundations should be assessed carefully to prevent shifting the clinical focus from more important issues and to direct limited resources more effectively.

We recommend caution in the universal adoption of the WHO ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ by orthopaedic surgeons and other health care workers and emphasise the need for evidence-based principles when adopting hospital guidelines aimed at promoting excellence in clinical practice.