Aims. Aseptic loosening is the most common cause of failure following cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and has been linked to poor cementation technique. We aimed to develop a consensus on the optimal technique for component cementation in TKA. Methods. A UK-based, three-round, online modified Delphi Expert Consensus Study was completed focusing on cementation technique in TKA. Experts were identified as having a minimum of five years’ consultant experience in the NHS and fulfilling any one of the following criteria: a ‘high volume’ knee arthroplasty practice (> 150 TKAs per annum) as identified from the National joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man; a senior author of at least five peer reviewed articles related to TKA in the previous five years; a surgeon who is named trainer for a post-certificate of comletion of training fellowship in TKA. Results. In total, 81 experts (round 1) and 80 experts (round 2 and 3) completed the Delphi Study. Four domains with a total of 24 statements were identified. 100% consensus was reached within the cement preparation, pressurization, and cement curing domains. 90% consensus was reached within the cement application domain. Consensus was not reached with only one statement regarding the handling of cement during initial application to the tibial and/or femoral bone surfaces. Conclusion. The Cementing Techniques In Knee Surgery (CeTIKS) Delphi consensus study presents comprehensive recommendations on the optimal technique for component cementing in TKA. Expert opinion has a place in the hierarchy of evidence and, until better evidence is available these recommendations should be considered when cementing a TKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):682–688

Aims. To achieve expert clinical consensus in the delivery of hydrodilatation for the treatment of primary frozen shoulder to inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation. Methods. We conducted a two-stage, electronic questionnaire-based, modified Delphi survey of shoulder experts in the UK NHS. Round one required positive, negative, or neutral ratings about hydrodilatation. In round two, each participant was reminded of their round one responses and the modal (or ‘group’) response from all participants. This allowed participants to modify their responses in round two. We proposed respectively mandating or encouraging elements of hydrodilatation with 100% and 90% positive consensus, and respectively disallowing or discouraging with 90% and 80% negative consensus. Other elements would be optional. Results. Between 4 August 2020 and 4 August 2021, shoulder experts from 47 hospitals in the UK completed the study. There were 106 participants (consultant upper limb orthopaedic surgeons, n = 50; consultant radiologists, n = 52; consultant physiotherapist, n = 1; extended scope physiotherapists, n = 3) who completed round one, of whom 97 (92%) completed round two. No elements of hydrodilatation were “mandated” (100% positive rating). Elements that were “encouraged” (≥ 80% positive rating) were the use of image guidance, local anaesthetic, normal saline, and steroids to deliver the injection. Injecting according to patient tolerance, physiotherapy, and home exercises were also “encouraged”. No elements were “discouraged” (≥ 80% negative rating) although using hypertonic saline was rated as being “disallowed” (≥ 90% negative rating). Conclusion. In the absence of rigorous evidence, our Delphi study allowed us to achieve expert consensus about positive, negative, and neutral ratings of hydrodilatation in the management of frozen shoulder in a hospital setting. This should inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):701–709

Aims

The aim of the HIPGEN consortium is to develop the first cell therapy product for hip fracture patients using PLacental-eXpanded (PLX-PAD) stromal cells.

Artificial intelligence and machine-learning analytics have gained extensive popularity in recent years due to their clinically relevant applications. A wide range of proof-of-concept studies have demonstrated the ability of these analyses to personalize risk prediction, detect implant specifics from imaging, and monitor and assess patient movement and recovery. Though these applications are exciting and could potentially influence practice, it is imperative to understand when these analyses are indicated and where the data are derived from, prior to investing resources and confidence into the results and conclusions. In this article, we review the current benefits and potential limitations of machine-learning for the orthopaedic surgeon with a specific emphasis on data quality.

Aims

The number of convolutional neural networks (CNN) available for fracture detection and classification is rapidly increasing. External validation of a CNN on a temporally separate (separated by time) or geographically separate (separated by location) dataset is crucial to assess generalizability of the CNN before application to clinical practice in other institutions. We aimed to answer the following questions: are current CNNs for fracture recognition externally valid?; which methods are applied for external validation (EV)?; and, what are reported performances of the EV sets compared to the internal validation (IV) sets of these CNNs?

Aims. To develop a core outcome set of measurements from postoperative radiographs that can be used to assess technical skill in performing dynamic hip screw (DHS) and hemiarthroplasty, and to validate these against Van der Vleuten’s criteria for effective assessment. Methods. A Delphi exercise was undertaken at a regional major trauma centre to identify candidate measurement items. The feasibility of taking these measurements was tested by two of the authors (HKJ, GTRP). Validity and reliability were examined using the radiographs of operations performed by orthopaedic resident participants (n = 28) of a multicentre randomized controlled educational trial (ISRCTN20431944). Trainees were divided into novice and intermediate groups, defined as having performed < ten or ≥ ten cases each for DHS and hemiarthroplasty at baseline. The procedure-based assessment (PBA) global rating score was assumed as the gold standard assessment for the purposes of concurrent validity. Intra- and inter-rater reliability testing were performed on a random subset of 25 cases. Results. In total, 327 DHS and 248 hemiarthroplasty procedures were performed by 28 postgraduate year (PGY) 3 to 5 orthopaedic trainees during the 2014 to 2015 surgical training year at nine NHS hospitals in the West Midlands, UK. Overall, 109 PBAs were completed for DHS and 80 for hemiarthroplasty. Expert consensus identified four ‘final product analysis’ (FPA) radiological parameters of technical success for DHS: tip-apex distance (TAD); lag screw position in the femoral head; flushness of the plate against the lateral femoral cortex; and eight-cortex hold of the plate screws. Three parameters were identified for hemiarthroplasty: leg length discrepancy; femoral stem alignment; and femoral offset. Face validity, content validity, and feasibility were excellent. For all measurements, performance was better in the intermediate compared with the novice group, and this was statistically significant for TAD (p < 0.001) and femoral stem alignment (p = 0.023). Concurrent validity was poor when measured against global PBA score. This may be explained by the fact that they are measuring difference facets of competence. Intra-and inter-rater reliability were excellent for TAD, moderate for lag screw position (DHS), and moderate for leg length discrepancy (hemiarthroplasty). Use of a large multicentre dataset suggests good generalizability of the results to other settings. Assessment using FPA was time- and cost-effective compared with PBA. Conclusion. Final product analysis using post-implantation radiographs to measure technical skill in hip fracture surgery is feasible, valid, reliable, and cost-effective. It can complement traditional workplace-based assessment for measuring performance in the real-world operating room . It may have particular utility in competency-based training frameworks and for assessing skill transfer from the simulated to live operating theatre. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:594–604

Aims. The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic is directly impacting the field of orthopaedic surgery and traumatology with postponed operations, changed status of planned elective surgeries and acute emergencies in patients with unknown infection status. To this point, Germany's COVID-19 infection numbers and death rate have been lower than those of many other nations. Methods. This article summarizes the current regimen used in the field of orthopaedics in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. Internal university clinic guidelines, latest research results, expert consensus, and clinical experiences were combined in this article guideline. Results. Every patient, with and without symptoms, should be screened for COVID-19 before hospital admission. Patients should be assigned to three groups (infection status unknown, confirmed, or negative). Patients with unknown infection status should be considered as infectious. Dependent of the infection status and acuity of the symptoms, patients are assigned to a COVID-19-free or affected zone of the hospital. Isolation, hand hygiene, and personal protective equipment is essential. Hospital personnel directly involved in the care of COVID-19 patients should be tested on a weekly basis independently of the presence of clinical symptoms, staff in the COVID-19-free zone on a biweekly basis. Class 1a operation rooms with laminar air flow and negative pressure are preferred for surgery in COVID-19 patients. Electrocautery should only be utilized with a smoke suction system. In cases of unavoidable elective surgery, a self-imposed quarantine of 14 days is recommended prior to hospital admission. Conclusion. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, orthopaedic patients admitted to the hospital should be treated based on an interdisciplinary algorithm, strictly separating infectious and non-infectious cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:309–315