Aims. Safety concerns surrounding osseointegration are a significant barrier to replacing socket prosthesis as the standard of care following limb amputation. While implanted osseointegrated prostheses traditionally occur in two stages, a one-stage approach has emerged. Currently, there is no existing comparison of the outcomes of these different approaches. To address safety concerns, this study sought to determine whether a one-stage osseointegration procedure is associated with fewer adverse events than the two-staged approach. Methods. A comprehensive electronic search and quantitative data analysis from eligible studies were performed. Inclusion criteria were adults with a limb amputation managed with a one- or two-stage osseointegration procedure with follow-up reporting of complications. Results. A total of 19 studies were included: four one-stage, 14 two-stage, and one article with both one- and two-stage groups. Superficial infection was the most common complication (one-stage: 38% vs two-stage: 52%). There was a notable difference in the incidence of osteomyelitis (one-stage: nil vs two-stage: 10%) and implant failure (one-stage: 1% vs two-stage: 9%). Fracture incidence was equivocal (one-stage: 13% vs two-stage: 12%), and comparison of soft-tissue, stoma, and mechanical related complications was not possible. Conclusion. This review suggests that the one-stage approach is favourable compared to the two-stage, because the incidence of complications was slightly lower in the one-stage cohort, with a pertinent difference in the incidence of osteomyelitis and implant failure. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(7):539–550

Aims. The timing of when to remove a circular frame is crucial; early removal results in refracture or deformity, while late removal increases the patient morbidity and delay in return to work. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of a staged reloading protocol. We report the incidence of mechanical failure following both single-stage and two stage reloading protocols and analyze the associated risk factors. Methods. We identified consecutive patients from our departmental database. Both trauma and elective cases were included, of all ages, frame types, and pathologies who underwent circular frame treatment. Our protocol is either a single-stage or two-stage process implemented by defunctioning the frame, in order to progressively increase the weightbearing load through the bone, and promote full loading prior to frame removal. Before progression, through the process we monitor patients for any increase in pain and assess radiographs for deformity or refracture. Results. There were 244 frames (230 patients) included in the analyses, of which 90 were Ilizarov type frames and 154 were hexapods. There were 149 frames which underwent single-stage reloading and 95 frames which underwent a two-stage reloading protocol. Mechanical failure occurred after frame removal in 13 frames (5%), which suffered refracture. There were no cases of change in alignment. There was no difference between refracture patients who underwent single-stage or two-stage reloading protocols (p = 0.772). In all, 14 patients had failure prevented through identification with the reloading protocol. Conclusion. Our reloading protocol is a simple and effective way to confirm the timing of frame removal and minimize the rate of mechanical failure. Similar failure rates occurred between patients undergoing single-stage and two-stage reloading protocols. If the surgeon is confident with clinical and radiological assessment, it may be possible to progress directly to stage two and decrease frame time and patient morbidity. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):359–366

Aims

The standard of wide tumour-like resection for chronic osteomyelitis (COM) has been challenged recently by adequate debridement. This paper reviews the evolution of surgical debridement for long bone COM, and presents the outcome of adequate debridement in a tertiary bone infection unit.

Aims

COVID-19 has compounded a growing waiting list problem, with over 4.5 million patients now waiting for planned elective care in the UK. Views of patients on waiting lists are rarely considered in prioritization. Our primary aim was to understand how to support patients on waiting lists by hearing their experiences, concerns, and expectations. The secondary aim was to capture objective change in disability and coping mechanisms.