Aims. Weightbearing instructions after musculoskeletal injury or orthopaedic surgery are a key aspect of the rehabilitation pathway and prescription. The terminology used to describe the weightbearing status of the patient is variable; many different terms are used, and there is recognition and evidence that the lack of standardized terminology contributes to confusion in practice. Methods. A consensus exercise was conducted involving all the major stakeholders in the patient journey for those with musculoskeletal injury. The consensus exercise primary aim was to seek agreement on a standardized set of terminology for weightbearing instructions. Results. A pre-meeting questionnaire was conducted. The one-day consensus meeting, including patient representatives, identified three agreed terms only to be used in defining the weightbearing status of the patient: 1) non-weightbearing; 2) limited weightbearing; and 3) unrestricted weightbearing. Conclusion. This study represents the first and only exercise in standardizing rehabilitation terminology in orthopaedics, as agreed by all major stakeholders in the patient pathway and the patients themselves. The standardization of language allows for higher-quality and more accurate research to be conducted, and is one small part of the bigger picture in increasing the mobility of patients after orthopaedic injury or surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):1016–1020

The ability of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) to differentiate in vitro into chondrocytes, osteocytes and myocytes holds great promise for tissue engineering. Skeletal defects are emerging as key targets for treatment using MSCs due to the high responsiveness of bone to interventions in animal models. Interest in MSCs has further expanded in recognition of their ability to release growth factors and to adjust immune responses.

Despite their increasing application in clinical trials, the origin and role of MSCs in the development, repair and regeneration of organs have remained unclear. Until recently, MSCs could only be isolated in a process that requires culture in a laboratory; these cells were being used for tissue engineering without understanding their native location and function. MSCs isolated in this indirect way have been used in clinical trials and remain the reference standard cellular substrate for musculoskeletal engineering. The therapeutic use of autologous MSCs is currently limited by the need for ex vivo expansion and by heterogeneity within MSC preparations. The recent discovery that the walls of blood vessels harbour native precursors of MSCs has led to their prospective identification and isolation. MSCs may therefore now be purified from dispensable tissues such as lipo-aspirate and returned for clinical use in sufficient quantity, negating the requirement for ex vivo expansion and a second surgical procedure.

In this annotation we provide an update on the recent developments in the understanding of the identity of MSCs within tissues and outline how this may affect their use in orthopaedic surgery in the future.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:291–8.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in high-risk orthopaedic patients. A total of 58 patients had a retrievable inferior vena cava filter placed as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, most commonly for a history of previous deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, polytrauma, or expected prolonged immobilisation. In total 56 patients (96.6%) had an uncomplicated post-operative course. Two patients (3.4%) died in the peri-operative period for unrelated reasons.

Of the 56 surviving patients, 50 (89%) were available for follow-up. A total of 32 filters (64%) were removed without complication at a mean of 37.8 days (4 to 238) after placement. There were four filters (8%) which were retained because of thrombosis at the filter site, and four (8%) were retained because of incorporation of the filter into the wall of the inferior vena cava. In ten cases (20%) the retrievable filter was left in place to continue as primary prophylaxis. No patient had post-removal thromboembolic complications.

A retrievable inferior vena cava filter, as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, was a safe and effective means of reducing the acute risk of pulmonary embolism in this high-risk group of patients. Although most filters were removed without complications, thereby avoiding the long-term complications that have plagued permanent indwelling filters, a relatively high percentage of filters had to be left in situ.