In this paper, we critically appraise the recent publication of the United Kingdom Heel Fracture Trial, which concluded that when patients with an absolute indication for surgery were excluded, there was no advantage of surgical over non-surgical treatment in the management of calcaneal fractures. We believe that selection bias in that study did not permit the authors to reach a firm conclusion that surgery was not justified for most intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:880–2

Polished taper-slip (PTS) cemented stems have an excellent clinical track record and are the most common stem type used in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the UK. Due to low rates of aseptic loosening, they have largely replaced more traditional composite beam (CB) cemented stems. However, there is now emerging evidence from multiple joint registries that PTS stems are associated with higher rates of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) compared to their CB stem counterparts. The risk of both intraoperative and postoperative PFF remains greater with uncemented stems compared to either of these cemented stem subtypes. PFF continues to be a devastating complication following primary THA and is associated with high complication and mortality rates. Recent efforts have focused on identifying implant-related risk factors for PFF in order to guide preventative strategies, and therefore the purpose of this article is to present the current evidence on the effect of cemented femoral stem design on the risk of PFF.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):11–15.

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenging complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is associated with high levels of morbidity, mortality and expense. Guidelines and protocols exist for the management of culture-positive patients. Managing culture-negative patients with a PJI poses a greater challenge to surgeons and the wider multidisciplinary team as clear guidance is lacking.

We recently published a paper comparing the incidence of adverse outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). The conclusion of this study, which was in favour of UKA, was dismissed as “biased” in a review in Bone & Joint 360. Although this study is one of the least biased comparisons of UKA and TKA, this episode highlights the biases that exist both for and against UKA. In this review, we explore the different types of bias, particularly selection, reporting and measurement. We conclude that comparisons between UKA and TKA are open to bias. These biases can be so marked, particularly in comparisons based just on national registry data, that the conclusions can be misleading. For a fair comparison, data from randomised studies or well-matched, prospective observational cohort studies, which include registry data, are required, and multiple outcome measures should be used. The data of this type that already exist suggest that if UKA is used appropriately, compared with TKA, its advantages outweigh its disadvantages. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:12–15

The results of the DRAFFT (distal radius acute fracture fixation trial) study, which compared volar plating with Kirschner (K-) wire fixation for dorsally displaced fractures of the distal radius, were published in August 2014. The use of K-wires to treat these fractures is now increasing, with a concomitant decline in the use of volar locking plates.

We provide a critical appraisal of the DRAFFT study and question whether surgeons have been unduly influenced by its headline conclusions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:298–300.

Aims

To demonstrate, with concrete examples, the value of in-depth exploration and comparison of data published in National Joint Arthroplasty registry reports.

Recently, several high impact randomised controlled trials have been published suggesting no greater benefit from orthopaedic surgery over conservative treatment, or limited surgical intervention. These studies can have profound effects on clinical practice, leading to the abandonment of previously widely-used operations.

How do surgeons who believe these operations are beneficial over conservative treatment rationalise these findings, and justify their use with hospital administrators and health care funders who require evidence for the value and efficacy of surgical treatment?

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1456–7.