The recently published Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens In Tumor Surgery (PARITY) trial found no benefit in extending antibiotic prophylaxis from 24 hours to five days after endoprosthetic reconstruction for lower limb bone tumours. PARITY is the first randomized controlled trial in orthopaedic oncology and is a huge step forward in understanding antibiotic prophylaxis. However, significant gaps remain, including questions around antibiotic choice, particularly in the UK, where cephalosporins are avoided due to concerns of Cite this article:
In recent years, machine learning (ML) and artificial neural networks (ANNs), a particular subset of ML, have been adopted by various areas of healthcare. A number of diagnostic and prognostic algorithms have been designed and implemented across a range of orthopaedic sub-specialties to date, with many positive results. However, the methodology of many of these studies is flawed, and few compare the use of ML with the current approach in clinical practice. Spinal surgery has advanced rapidly over the past three decades, particularly in the areas of implant technology, advanced surgical techniques, biologics, and enhanced recovery protocols. It is therefore regarded an innovative field. Inevitably, spinal surgeons will wish to incorporate ML into their practice should models prove effective in diagnostic or prognostic terms. The purpose of this article is to review published studies that describe the application of neural networks to spinal surgery and which actively compare ANN models to contemporary clinical standards allowing evaluation of their efficacy, accuracy, and relatability. It also explores some of the limitations of the technology, which act to constrain the widespread adoption of neural networks for diagnostic and prognostic use in spinal care. Finally, it describes the necessary considerations should institutions wish to incorporate ANNs into their practices. In doing so, the aim of this review is to provide a practical approach for spinal surgeons to understand the relevant aspects of neural networks. Cite this article:
Injuries to the hamstring muscle complex are common in athletes, accounting for between 12% and 26% of all injuries sustained during sporting activities. Acute hamstring injuries often occur during sports that involve repetitive kicking or high-speed sprinting, such as American football, soccer, rugby, and athletics. They are also common in watersports, including waterskiing and surfing. Hamstring injuries can be career-threatening in elite athletes and are associated with an estimated risk of recurrence in between 14% and 63% of patients. The variability in prognosis and treatment of the different injury patterns highlights the importance of prompt diagnosis with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in order to classify injuries accurately and plan the appropriate management. Low-grade hamstring injuries may be treated with nonoperative measures including pain relief, eccentric lengthening exercises, and a graduated return to sport-specific activities. Nonoperative management is associated with highly variable times for convalescence and return to a pre-injury level of sporting function. Nonoperative management of high-grade hamstring injuries is associated with poor return to baseline function, residual muscle weakness and a high-risk of recurrence. Proximal hamstring avulsion injuries, high-grade musculotendinous tears, and chronic injuries with persistent weakness or functional compromise require surgical repair to enable return to a pre-injury level of sporting function and minimize the risk of recurrent injury. This article reviews the optimal diagnostic imaging methods and common classification systems used to guide the treatment of hamstring injuries. In addition, the indications and outcomes for both nonoperative and operative treatment are analyzed to provide an evidence-based management framework for these patients. Cite this article:
Non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head
is a potentially devastating condition, the prevalence of which
is increasing. Many joint-preserving forms of treatment, both medical
and surgical, have been developed in an attempt to slow or reverse
its progression, as it usually affects young patients. However, it is important to evaluate the best evidence that is
available for the many forms of treatment considering the variation
in the demographics of the patients, the methodology and the outcomes
in the studies that have been published, so that it can be used
effectively. The purpose of this review, therefore, was to provide an up-to-date,
evidence-based guide to the management, both non-operative and operative,
of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Cite this article:
Intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown
to be effective in reducing blood loss and the need for transfusion
after joint replacement. Recently, there has been interest in applying
it topically before the closure of surgical wounds. This has the
advantages of ease of application, maximum concentration at the
site of bleeding, minimising its systemic absorption and, consequently,
concerns about possible side-effects. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included
14 randomised controlled trials (11 in knee replacement, two in
hip replacement and one in both) which investigated the effect of
topical TXA on blood loss and rates of transfusion. Topical TXA
significantly reduced the rate of blood transfusion (total knee
replacement: risk ratio (RR) 4.51; 95% confidence interval (CI):
3.02 to 6.72; p <
0.001 (nine trials, I2 = 0%); total
hip replacement: RR 2.56; 95% CI: 1.32 to 4.97, p = 0.004 (one trial)).
The rate of thromboembolic events with topical TXA were similar
to those found with a placebo. Indirect comparison of placebo-controlled
trials of topical and intravenous TXA indicates that topical administration
is superior to the intravenous route. In conclusion, topical TXA is an effective and safe method of
reducing the need for blood transfusion after total knee and hip
replacement. Further research is required to find its optimum dose
for topical use. Cite this article:
The World Health Organization (WHO) launched
the first Global Patient Safety Challenge in 2005 and introduced
the ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ in 2009 in an attempt to reduce
the burden of health care associated infections. Many NHS trusts
in England adopted this model of hand hygiene, which prompts health
care workers to clean their hands at five distinct stages of caring
for the patient. Our review analyses the scientific foundation for
the five moments of hand hygiene and explores the evidence, as referenced
by WHO, to support these recommendations. We found no strong scientific
support for this regime of hand hygiene as a means of reducing health
care associated infections. Consensus-based guidelines based on
weak scientific foundations should be assessed carefully to prevent
shifting the clinical focus from more important issues and to direct
limited resources more effectively. We recommend caution in the universal adoption of the WHO ‘5
moments of hand hygiene’ by orthopaedic surgeons and other health
care workers and emphasise the need for evidence-based principles
when adopting hospital guidelines aimed at promoting excellence
in clinical practice.