Despite the vast quantities of published artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that target trauma and orthopaedic applications, very few progress to inform clinical practice. One key reason for this is the lack of a clear pathway from development to deployment. In order to assist with this process, we have developed the Clinical Practice Integration of Artificial Intelligence (CPI-AI) framework – a five-stage approach to the clinical practice adoption of AI in the setting of trauma and orthopaedics, based on the IDEAL principles (https://www.ideal-collaboration.net/). Adherence to the framework would provide a robust evidence-based mechanism for developing trust in AI applications, where the underlying algorithms are unlikely to be fully understood by clinical teams.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(9):507–512.

Objectives. Fractures of the proximal femur are a common clinical problem, and a number of orthopaedic devices are available for the treatment of such fractures. The objective of this study was to assess the rotational stability, a common failure predictor, of three different rotational control design philosophies: a screw, a helical blade and a deployable crucifix. Methods. Devices were compared in terms of the mechanical work (W) required to rotate the implant by 6° in a bone substitute material. The substitute material used was Sawbones polyurethane foam of three different densities (0.08 g/cm. 3. , 0.16 g/cm. 3. and 0.24 g/cm. 3. ). Each torsion test comprised a steady ramp of 1°/minute up to an angular displacement of 10°. Results. The deployable crucifix design (X-Bolt), was more torsionally stable, compared to both the dynamic hip screw (DHS, p = 0.008) and helical blade (DHS Blade, p= 0.008) designs in bone substitute material representative of osteoporotic bone (0.16 g/cm. 3. polyurethane foam). In 0.08 g/cm. 3. density substrate, the crucifix design (X-Bolt) had a higher resistance to torsion than the screw (DHS, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences (p = 0.101) between the implants in 0.24 g/cm. 3. density bone substitute. Conclusions. Our findings indicate that the clinical standard proximal fracture fixator design, the screw (DHS), was the least effective at resisting torsional load, and a novel crucifix design (X-Bolt), was the most effective design in resisting torsional load in bone substitute material with density representative of osteoporotic bone. At other densities the torsional stability was also higher for the X-Bolt, although not consistently significant by statistical analysis. Cite this article: J. D. Gosiewski, T. P. Holsgrove, H. S. Gill. The efficacy of rotational control designs in promoting torsional stability of hip fracture fixation. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:270–276. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2017-0287.R1

Objectives. The Sliding Hip Screw (SHS) is commonly used to treat trochanteric hip fractures. Fixation failure is a devastating complication requiring complex revision surgery. One mode of fixation failure is lag screw cut-out which is greatest in unstable fracture patterns and when the tip-apex distance of the lag screw is > 25 mm. The X-Bolt Dynamic Hip Plating System (X-Bolt Orthopaedics, Dublin, Ireland) is a new device which aims to reduce this risk of cut-out. However, some surgeons have reported difficulty minimising the tip-apex distance with subsequent concerns that this may lead to an increased risk of cut-out. Patients and Methods. We measured the tip-apex distance from the intra-operative radiographs of 93 unstable trochanteric hip fractures enrolled in a randomised controlled trial (Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation, WHiTE One trial). Participants were treated with either the sliding hip screw or the X-Bolt dynamic hip plating system. We also recorded the incidence of cut-out in both groups, at a median follow-up time of 17 months. Results. There was a significantly increased tip-apex distance with the use of the X-Bolt (mean difference 3.7mm (95% confidence interval 1.58 to 5.73); SHS mean 17.1 mm, X-Bolt mean 20.8; p = 0.001. However, this was not associated with an increased incidence of cut-out at a median follow-up time of 17 months, with three cut-outs (6%) in the SHS group and 0 (0%) in the X-Bolt group. Conclusion. The X-Bolt is a safe implant with no increased risk for cut-out. Concerns about minimising the tip-apex distance may be justified but do not appear to be clinically important. Cite this article: M. A. Fernandez, A. Aquilina, J. Achten, N. Parsons, M. L. Costa, X. L. Griffin. The tip-apex distance in the X-Bolt dynamic plating system. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–207. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.64.BJR-2015-0016.R2

Fractures of the proximal femur are one of the greatest challenges facing the medical community, constituting a heavy socioeconomic burden worldwide. Controversy exists regarding the optimal treatment for patients with unstable trochanteric proximal femoral fractures. The recognised treatment alternatives are extramedullary fixation usually with a sliding hip screw and intramedullary fixation with a cephalomedullary nail. Current evidence suggests that best results and lowest complication rates occur using a sliding hip screw. Complications in these difficult fractures are relatively common regardless of type of treatment. We believe that a novel device, the X-Bolt dynamic plating system, may offer superior fixation over a sliding hip screw with lower reoperation risk and better function. We therefore propose to investigate the clinical effectiveness of the X-bolt dynamic plating system compared with standard sliding hip screw fixation within the framework of a the larger WHiTE (Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation) Comprehensive Cohort Study. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:206–9