Aims. The primary aim of this study is to assess the survival of the uncemented hydroxyapatite (HA) coated Trident II acetabular component as part of a hybrid total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a cemented Exeter stem. The secondary aims are to assess the complications, joint-specific function, health-related quality of life, and radiological signs of loosening of the acetabular component. Methods. A single-centre, prospective cohort study of 125 implants will be undertaken. Patients undergoing hybrid THA at the study centre will be recruited. Inclusion criteria are patients suitable for the use of the uncemented acetabular component, aged 18 to 75 years, willing and able to comply with the study protocol, and provide informed consent. Exclusion criteria includes patients not meeting study inclusion criteria, inadequate bone stock to support fixation of the prosthesis, a BMI > 40 kg/m. 2. , or THA performed for pain relief in those with severely restricted mobility. Results. Implant survival, complications, functional outcomes and radiological assessment up to ten years following index THA (one, two, five, seven, and ten years) will be performed. Functional assessment will include the Oxford Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, EuroQol five-dimension health questionnaire, and pain and patient satisfaction. Radiological assessment with assess for acetabula lucent lines, lysis, and loosening according to DeLee and Charnley zones. Conclusion. This study is part of a stepwise introduction of a new device to orthopaedic practice, and careful monitoring of implants should be carried out as part of the Beyond Compliance principles. The results of this study will provide functional, radiological, and survival data to either support the ongoing use of the HA acetabulum or highlight potential limitations of this new implant before wide adoption. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):782–790

Aims. During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. Methods. The PAtellar Resurfacing Trial (PART) is a patient- and assessor-blinded multicentre, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary TKR for primary osteoarthritis at NHS hospitals in England, with an embedded internal pilot phase (ISRCTN 33276681). Participants will be randomly allocated intraoperatively on a 1:1 basis (stratified by centre and implant type (cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-sacrificing)) to always resurface or selectively resurface the patella, once the surgeon has confirmed sufficient patellar thickness for resurfacing and that constrained implants are not required. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures at three months, six months, and one year (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, OKS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and costs). Cost-effectiveness will be measured for the lifetime of the patient. Overall, 530 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a four-point difference in OKS between the groups one year after surgery, assuming up to 40% resurfacing in the selective group. Conclusion. The trial findings will provide evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. This will inform future NICE guidelines on primary TKR and the role of selective patellar resurfacing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):464–478

Aims. Steroid injections are used for subacromial pain syndrome and can be administered via the anterolateral or posterior approach to the subacromial space. It is not currently known which approach is superior in terms of improving clinical symptoms and function. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the clinical effectiveness of a steroid injection given via the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Methods. The Subacromial Approach Injection Trial (SAInT) study is a single-centre, parallel, two-arm RCT. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to a subacromial steroid injection via either the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Participants in both trial arms will then receive physiotherapy as standard of care for subacromial pain syndrome. The primary analysis will compare the change in Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at three months after injection. Secondary outcomes include the change in OSS at six and 12 months, as well as the Pain Numeric Rating Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain), Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (RAND) at three months, six months, and one year after injection. Assessment of pain experienced during the injection will also be determined. A minimum of 86 patients will be recruited to obtain an 80% power to detect a minimally important difference of six points on the OSS change between the groups at three months after injection. Conclusion. The results of this trial will demonstrate if there is a difference in shoulder pain and function after a subacromial space steroid injection between the anterolateral versus posterior approach in patients with subacromial pain syndrome. This will help to guide treatment for patients with subacromial pain syndrome. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):729–735

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with an accelerated recovery, improved functional outcomes, and retention of anatomical knee kinematics when compared to manual total knee arthroplasty (mTKA). UKA is not universally employed by all surgeons as there is a higher revision risk when compared to mTKA. Robotic arm-assisted (ra) UKA enables the surgeon to position the prosthesis more accurately when compared to manual UKA, and is associated with improved functional outcomes and a lower early revision risk. Non-randomized data suggests that, when compared to mTKA, raUKA has a clinically meaningful greater functional benefit. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial that aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of raUKA compared to mTKA for individuals with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. The total versus robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (TRAKER) trial is a patient- and assessor-blinded, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary knee arthroplasty for primary medial compartment OA at a single NHS hospital (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05290818). Participants will be randomly allocated on a 1:2 basis to either raUKA or mTKA, respectively. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) six months after surgery. Secondary outcomes measured at three, six, and 12 months include the OKS, Forgotten Joint Score, patient expectations, EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), and EQ-visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), patient satisfaction, range of motion, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and financial costs. Cost-effectiveness will be measured over a ten-year time span. A total of 159 patients will be randomized (n = 53 raUKA vs n = 106 mTKA) to obtain 80% power to detect a five-point difference in OKS between the groups six months after surgery. Conclusion. The trial findings will provide evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of raUKA compared to mTKA in patients with isolated medial compartment OA. This will inform future National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on primary knee arthroplasty in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(2):164–177

Aims

Is it feasible to conduct a definitive multicentre trial in community settings of corticosteroid injections (CSI) and hydrodilation (HD) compared to CSI for patients with frozen shoulder? An adequately powered definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) delivered in primary care will inform clinicians and the public whether hydrodilation is a clinically and cost-effective intervention. In this study, prior to a full RCT, we propose a feasibility trial to evaluate recruitment and retention by patient and clinician willingness of randomization; rates of withdrawal, crossover and attrition; and feasibility of outcome data collection from routine primary and secondary care data.