Acute bone and joint infections in children are serious, and misdiagnosis can threaten limb and life. Most young children who present acutely with pain, limping, and/or loss of function have transient synovitis, which will resolve spontaneously within a few days. A minority will have a bone or joint infection. Clinicians are faced with a diagnostic challenge: children with transient synovitis can safely be sent home, but children with bone and joint infection require urgent treatment to avoid complications. Clinicians often respond to this challenge by using a series of rudimentary decision support tools, based on clinical, haematological, and biochemical parameters, to differentiate childhood osteoarticular infection from other diagnoses. However, these tools were developed without methodological expertise in diagnostic accuracy and do not consider the importance of imaging (ultrasound scan and MRI). There is wide variation in clinical practice with regard to the indications, choice, sequence, and timing of imaging. This variation is most likely due to the lack of evidence concerning the role of imaging in acute bone and joint infection in children. We describe the first steps of a large UK multicentre study, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, which seeks to integrate definitively the role of imaging into a decision support tool, developed with the assistance of individuals with expertise in the development of clinical prediction tools. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):227–229

Displaced fractures of the distal radius in children are usually reduced under sedation or general anaesthesia to restore anatomical alignment before the limb is immobilized. However, there is growing evidence of the ability of the distal radius to remodel rapidly, raising doubts over the benefit to these children of restoring alignment. There is now clinical equipoise concerning whether or not young children with displaced distal radial fractures benefit from reduction, as they have the greatest ability to remodel. The Children’s Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial (CRAFFT), funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, aims to definitively answer this question and determine how best to manage severely displaced distal radial fractures in children aged up to ten years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):16–18

Salter-Harris II fractures of the distal tibia affect children frequently, and when they are displaced present a treatment dilemma. Treatment primarily aims to restore alignment and prevent premature physeal closure, as this can lead to angular deformity, limb length difference, or both. Current literature is of poor methodological quality and is contradictory as to whether conservative or surgical management is superior in avoiding complications and adverse outcomes. A state of clinical equipoise exists regarding whether displaced distal tibial Salter-Harris II fractures in children should be treated with surgery to achieve anatomical reduction, or whether cast treatment alone will lead to a satisfactory outcome. Systematic review and meta-analysis has concluded that high-quality prospective multicentre research is needed to answer this question. The Outcomes of Displaced Distal tibial fractures: Surgery Or Casts in KidS (ODD SOCKS) trial, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, aims to provide this high-quality research in order to answer this question, which has been identified as a top-five research priority by the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):471–473

Musculoskeletal diseases are having a growing impact worldwide. It is therefore crucial to have an evidence base to most effectively and efficiently implement future health services across different healthcare systems. International trials are an opportunity to address these challenges and have many potential benefits. They are, however, complex to set up and deliver, which may impact on the efficient and timely delivery of a project. There are a number of models of how international trials are currently being delivered across a range of orthopaedic patient populations, which are discussed here. The examples given highlight that the key to overcoming these challenges is the development of trusted and equal partnerships with collaborators in each country. International trials have the potential to address a global burden of disease, and in turn optimize the benefit to patients in the collaborating countries and those with similar health services and care systems.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):719–722.

Total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) are largely successful procedures; however, both have variable outcomes, resulting in some patients being dissatisfied with the outcome. Surgeons are turning to technologies such as robotic-assisted surgery in an attempt to improve outcomes. Robust studies are needed to find out if these innovations are really benefitting patients. The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and Cost Effectiveness Randomised Controlled Trials (RACER) trials are multicentre, patient-blinded randomized controlled trials. The patients have primary osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. The operation is Mako-assisted THA or TKA and the control groups have operations using conventional instruments. The primary clinical outcome is the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months, and there is a built-in analysis of cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes include early pain, the alignment of the components, and medium- to long-term outcomes. This annotation outlines the need to assess these technologies and discusses the design and challenges when conducting such trials, including surgical workflows, isolating the effect of the operation, blinding, and assessing the learning curve. Finally, the future of robotic surgery is discussed, including the need to contemporaneously introduce and evaluate such technologies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):114–120.

Telehealth has the potential to change the way we approach patient care. From virtual consenting to reducing carbon emissions, costs, and waiting times, it is a powerful tool in our clinical armamentarium. There is mounting evidence that remote diagnostic evaluation and decision-making have reached an acceptable level of accuracy and can safely be adopted in orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, patients’ and surgeons’ satisfaction with virtual appointments are comparable to in-person consultations. Challenges to the widespread use of telehealth should, however, be acknowledged and include the cost of installation, training, maintenance, and accessibility. It is also vital that clinicians are conscious of the medicolegal and ethical considerations surrounding the medium and adhere strictly to the relevant data protection legislation and storage framework. It remains to be seen how organizations harness the full spectrum of the technology to facilitate effective patient care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):843–849.

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

Cell therapies hold significant promise for the treatment of injured or diseased musculoskeletal tissues. However, despite advances in research, there is growing concern about the increasing number of clinical centres around the world that are making unwarranted claims or are performing risky biological procedures. Such providers have been known to recommend, prescribe, or deliver so called ‘stem cell’ preparations without sufficient data to support their true content and efficacy. In this annotation, we outline the current environment of stem cell-based treatments and the strategies of marketing directly to consumers. We also outline the difficulties in the regulation of these clinics and make recommendations for best practice and the identification and reporting of illegitimate providers.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):148–154

Deep infection was identified as a serious complication in the earliest days of total hip arthroplasty. It was identified that airborne contamination in conventional operating theatres was the major contributing factor. As progress was made in improving the engineering of operating theatres, airborne contamination was reduced. Detailed studies were carried out relating airborne contamination to deep infection rates.

In a trial conducted by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC), it was found that the use of ultra-clean air (UCA) operating theatres was associated with a significant reduction in deep infection rates. Deep infection rates were further reduced by the use of a body exhaust system. The MRC trial also included a detailed microbiology study, which confirmed the relationship between airborne contamination and deep infection rates.

Recent observational evidence from joint registries has shown that in contemporary practice, infection rates remain a problem, and may be getting worse. Registry observations have also called into question the value of “laminar flow” operating theatres.

Observational evidence from joint registries provides very limited evidence on the efficacy of UCA operating theatres. Although there have been some changes in surgical practice in recent years, the conclusions of the MRC trial remain valid, and the use of UCA is essential in preventing deep infection.

There is evidence that if UCA operating theatres are not used correctly, they may have poor microbiological performance. Current UCA operating theatres have limitations, and further research is required to update them and improve their microbiological performance in contemporary practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1264–9.

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.

Joint replacement of the hip and knee remain very satisfactory operations. They are, however, expensive. The actual manufacturing of the implant represents only 30% of the final cost, while sales and marketing represent 40%. Recently, the patents on many well established and successful implants have expired. Companies have started producing and distributing implants that purport to replicate existing implants with good long-term results.

The aims of this paper are to assess the legality, the monitoring and cost saving implications of such generic implants. We also assess how this might affect the traditional orthopaedic implant companies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:892–900.

The MAGnetic Expansion Control (MAGEC) system is used increasingly in the management of early-onset scoliosis. Good results have been published, but there have been recent reports identifying implant failures that may be associated with significant metallosis surrounding the implants. This article aims to present the current knowledge regarding the performance of this implant, and the potential implications and strategies that may be employed to identify and limit any problems.

We urge surgeons to apply caution to patient and construct selection; engage in prospective patient registration using a spine registry; ensure close clinical monitoring until growth has ceased; and send all explanted MAGEC rods for independent analysis.

The MAGEC system may be a good instrumentation system for the treatment of early-onset scoliosis. However, it is innovative and like all new technology, especially when deployed in a paediatric population, robust systems to assess long-term outcome are required to ensure that patient safety is maintained.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:708–13.

The Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society was started in an endeavour to answer the difficult problem of obtaining enough patients to perform top-quality research into fractures. By maintaining a high standard, including randomised study design, inclusivity, open discussion among surgeons and excellent long-term follow-up, this group has become a leader in the orthopaedic research community. This annotation describes the short history, important components and spirit necessary to build a research community or team which will function well despite the difficult research environment facing individual surgeons.

Orthopaedic surgery is in an exciting transitional period as modern surgical interventions, implants and scientific developments are providing new therapeutic options. As advances in basic science and technology improve our understanding of the pathology and repair of musculoskeletal tissue, traditional operations may be replaced by newer, less invasive procedures which are more appropriately targeted at the underlying pathophysiology. However, evidence-based practice will remain a basic requirement of care. Orthopaedic surgeons can and should remain at the forefront of the development of novel therapeutic interventions and their application. Progression of the potential of bench research into an improved array of orthopaedic treatments in an effective yet safe manner will require the development of a subgroup of specialists with extended training in research to play an important role in bridging the gap between laboratory science and clinical practice. International regulations regarding the introduction of new biological treatments will place an additional burden on the mechanisms of this translational process, and orthopaedic surgeons who are trained in science, surgery and the regulatory environment will be essential. Training and supporting individuals with these skills requires special consideration and discussion by the orthopaedic community.

In this paper we review some traditional approaches to the integration of orthopaedic science and surgery, the therapeutic potential of current regenerative biomedical science for cartilage repair and ways in which we may develop surgeons with the skills required to translate scientific discovery into effective and properly assessed orthopaedic treatments.

The 2010 Fellows undertook a six-week journey through centres of orthopaedic excellence along the East Coast of Canada and the United States. What we learned and gained from the experience and each other is immeasurable, but five areas particularly stand out; education, research, service delivery, financial insights and professional development.

Since the introduction of the first National Arthroplasty Register in Sweden in 1975, many other countries have tried to adopt the successful Scandinavian system. However, not all have overcome the political and practical difficulties of establishing a working register. We have surveyed the current registries to establish the key factors required for an effective database. We have received detailed information from 15 arthroplasty registers worldwide. The legal conditions under which they operate together with the methods of collection and handling of the data differ widely, but the fulfilment of certain criteria is necessary achieve a high degree of completeness of the data to ensure the provision of statistically relevant information.

Multicentre clinical trials in trauma care are gaining prominence as a means of generating good-quality evidence to inform and influence clinical practice. We believe multicentre trials have an important role to play in supporting evidence-based practice, and further investment in such trials is justified.

Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in the evaluation of outcome of treatment. They are needed because differences between treatment effects have been minimised and observational studies may give a biased estimation of the outcome. However, conducting this kind of trial is challenging. Several methodological issues, including patient or surgeon preference, blinding, surgical standardisation, as well as external validity, have to be addressed in order to lower the risk of bias. Specific tools have been developed in order to take into account the specificity of evaluation of the literature on non-pharmacological intervention. A better knowledge of methodological issues will allow the orthopaedic surgeon to conduct more appropriate studies and to better appraise the limits of his intervention.