Aims

Perthes' disease (PD) is a relatively rare syndrome of idiopathic osteonecrosis of the proximal femoral epiphysis. Treatment for Perthes' disease is controversial due to the many options available, with no clear superiority of one treatment over another. Despite having few evidence-based approaches, many patients with Perthes' disease are managed surgically. Positive outcome reporting, defined as reporting a study variable producing statistically significant positive (beneficial) results, is a phenomenon that can be considered a proxy for the strength of science. This study aims to conduct a systematic literature review with the hypothesis that positive outcome reporting is frequent in studies on the treatment of Perthes' disease.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is mainly caused by ageing, strain, trauma, and congenital joint abnormalities, resulting in articular cartilage degeneration. During the pathogenesis of OA, the changes in subchondral bone (SB) are not only secondary manifestations of OA, but also an active part of the disease, and are closely associated with the severity of OA. In different stages of OA, there were microstructural changes in SB. Osteocytes, osteoblasts, and osteoclasts in SB are important in the pathogenesis of OA. The signal transduction mechanism in SB is necessary to maintain the balance of a stable phenotype, extracellular matrix (ECM) synthesis, and bone remodelling between articular cartilage and SB. An imbalance in signal transduction can lead to reduced cartilage quality and SB thickening, which leads to the progression of OA. By understanding changes in SB in OA, researchers are exploring drugs that can regulate these changes, which will help to provide new ideas for the treatment of OA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(9):536–545.

Aims. Preprint servers allow authors to publish full-text manuscripts or interim findings prior to undergoing peer review. Several preprint servers have extended their services to biological sciences, clinical research, and medicine. The purpose of this study was to systematically identify and analyze all articles related to Trauma & Orthopaedic (T&O) surgery published in five medical preprint servers, and to investigate the factors that influence the subsequent rate of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Methods. All preprints covering T&O surgery were systematically searched in five medical preprint servers (medRxiv, OSF Preprints, Preprints.org, PeerJ, and Research Square) and subsequently identified after a minimum of 12 months by searching for the title, keywords, and corresponding author in Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, and the Web of Science. Subsequent publication of a work was defined as publication in a peer-reviewed indexed journal. The rate of publication and time to peer-reviewed publication were assessed. Differences in definitive publication rates of preprints according to geographical origin and level of evidence were analyzed. Results. The number of preprints increased from 2014 to 2020 (p < 0.001). A total of 38.6% of the identified preprints (n = 331) were published in a peer-reviewed indexed journal after a mean time of 8.7 months (SD 5.4 (1 to 27)). The highest proportion of missing subsequent publications was in the preprints originating from Africa, Asia/Middle East, and South America, or in those that covered clinical research with a lower level of evidence (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Preprints are being published in increasing numbers in T&O surgery. Depending on the geographical origin and level of evidence, almost two-thirds of preprints are not subsequently published in a peer-reviewed indexed journal after one year. This raises major concerns regarding the dissemination and persistence of potentially wrong scientific work that bypasses peer review, and the orthopaedic community should discuss appropriate preventive measures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):582–588

Aims. This systematic review aims to compare the precision of component positioning, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and learning curves of MAKO robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) with manual medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA). Methods. Searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were performed in November 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-­Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “unicompartmental”, “knee”, and “arthroplasty”. Published clinical research articles reporting the learning curves and cost-effectiveness of MAKO RAUKA, and those comparing the component precision, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mUKA, were included for analysis. Results. A total of 179 articles were identified from initial screening, of which 14 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The papers analyzed include one on learning curve, five on implant positioning, six on functional outcomes, five on complications, six on survivorship, and three on cost. The learning curve was six cases for operating time and zero for precision. There was consistent evidence of more precise implant positioning with MAKO RAUKA. Meta-analysis demonstrated lower overall complication rates associated with MAKO RAUKA (OR 2.18 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 4.49); p = 0.040) but no difference in re-intervention, infection, Knee Society Score (KSS; mean difference 1.64 (95% CI -3.00 to 6.27); p = 0.490), or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score (mean difference -0.58 (95% CI -3.55 to 2.38); p = 0.700). MAKO RAUKA was shown to be a cost-effective procedure, but this was directly related to volume. Conclusion. MAKO RAUKA was associated with improved precision of component positioning but was not associated with improved PROMs using the KSS and WOMAC scores. Future longer-term studies should report functional outcomes, potentially using scores with minimal ceiling effects and survival to assess whether the improved precision of MAKO RAUKA results in better outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):541–548

Aims. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the learning curve of semi-active robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA), and to compare the accuracy, patient-reported functional outcomes, complications, and survivorship between rTHA and manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA). Methods. Searches of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were performed in April 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “hip”, and “arthroplasty”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical research articles reporting the learning curve for rTHA (robotic arm-assisted only) and those comparing the implantation accuracy, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mTHA. Results. There were 501 articles initially identified from databases and references. Following full text screening, 17 articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. Four studies reported the learning curve of rTHA, 13 studies reported on implant positioning, five on functional outcomes, ten on complications, and four on survivorship. The meta-analysis showed a significantly greater number of cases of acetabular component placement in the safe zone compared with the mTHA group (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.10 to 7.94; p < 0.001) and that rTHA resulted in a significantly better Harris Hip Score compared to mTHA in the short- to mid-term follow-up (95% CI 0.46 to 5.64; p = 0.020). However, there was no difference in infection rates, dislocation rates, overall complication rates, and survival rates at short-term follow-up. Conclusion. The learning curve of rTHA was between 12 and 35 cases, which was dependent on the assessment goal, such as operating time, accuracy, and team working. Robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty was associated with improved accuracy of component positioning and functional outcome, however no difference in complication rates or survival were observed at short- to mid-term follow-up. Overall, there remains an absence of high-quality level I evidence and cost analysis comparing rTHA and mTHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1009–1020

Aims. The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results. Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion. The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350

The ability to edit DNA at the nucleotide level using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) systems is a relatively new investigative tool that is revolutionizing the analysis of many aspects of human health and disease, including orthopaedic disease. CRISPR, adapted for mammalian cell genome editing from a bacterial defence system, has been shown to be a flexible, programmable, scalable, and easy-to-use gene editing tool. Recent improvements increase the functionality of CRISPR through the engineering of specific elements of CRISPR systems, the discovery of new, naturally occurring CRISPR molecules, and modifications that take CRISPR beyond gene editing to the regulation of gene transcription and the manipulation of RNA. Here, the basics of CRISPR genome editing will be reviewed, including a description of how it has transformed some aspects of molecular musculoskeletal research, and will conclude by speculating what the future holds for the use of CRISPR-related treatments and therapies in clinical orthopaedic practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(7):351–359.

Objectives. This review aims to summarize the outcomes used to describe effectiveness of treatments for paediatric wrist fractures within existing literature. Method. We searched the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Ovid Medline for studies pertaining to paediatric wrist fractures. Three authors independently identified and reviewed eligible studies. This resulted in a list of outcome domains and outcomes measures used within clinical research. Outcomes were mapped onto domains defined by the COMET collaborative. Results. Our search terms identified 4,262 different papers. Screening of titles excluded 2,975, leaving 1,287 papers to be assessed for eligibility. Of this 1,287, 30 studies were included for full analysis. Overall, five outcome domains, 16 outcome measures, and 28 measurement instruments were identified as outcomes within these studies. 24 studies used at least one measurement pertaining to the physiological/clinical outcome domain. The technical, life impact, and adverse effect domains were recorded in 23, 20, and 11 of the studies respectively. Within each domain it was common for different measurement instruments to be used to assess each outcome measure. The most commonly reported outcome measures were range of movement, a broad array of “radiological measures” and pain intensity, which were used in 24, 23, and 12 of the 30 studies. Conclusion. This study highlights the heterogeneity in outcomes reported within clinical effectiveness studies of paediatric wrist fractures. We provided an overview of the types of outcomes reported in paediatric wrist fracture studies and identified a list of potentially relevant outcomes required for the development of a core outcome set

Bone is one of the most highly adaptive tissues in the body, possessing the capability to alter its morphology and function in response to stimuli in its surrounding environment. The ability of bone to sense and convert external mechanical stimuli into a biochemical response, which ultimately alters the phenotype and function of the cell, is described as mechanotransduction. This review aims to describe the fundamental physiology and biomechanisms that occur to induce osteogenic adaptation of a cell following application of a physical stimulus. Considerable developments have been made in recent years in our understanding of how cells orchestrate this complex interplay of processes, and have become the focus of research in osteogenesis. We will discuss current areas of preclinical and clinical research exploring the harnessing of mechanotransductive properties of cells and applying them therapeutically, both in the context of fracture healing and de novo bone formation in situations such as nonunion. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2019;9(1):1–14