This edition of the Cochrane Corner looks at the three reviews that were published in the second half of 2023: surgical versus non-surgical interventions for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures; cryotherapy following total knee arthroplasty; and physical activity and education about physical activity for chronic musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents.

Fusion is the main goal in the surgical management of the injured and unstable spine. A wide variety of implants is available to enhance this. Our study was performed to evaluate the stabilising characteristics of several anterior, posterior and combined systems of fixation. Six thoracolumbar (T11 to L2) spines from 13-week-old calves were first tested intact. Then the vertebral body of T13 was removed and the defect replaced and supported by a wooden block to simulate bone grafting. Dorsal implants consisting of a Universal Spine System (USS) fracture system and an AO Fixateur interne (AOFI), and ventral implants comprising of a Kaneda Classic, a Kaneda SR, a prototype of the VentroFix single clamp/single rod construct (SC/SR) and the VentroFix single clamp/double rod construct (SC/DR) were first implanted individually to stabilise the removal of the vertebral body. Simulating the combined anteroposterior stabilisations, all ventral implants were combined with the AOFI. The range of motion (ROM) was measured under loads of up to 7.5 Nm. The load was applied in a custom-made spine tester in the three primary directions while measuring the intervertebral movements using a goniometric linkage system. The dorsal systems limited ROM in flexion below 0.9° and in extension between 3.3° and 3.6° (median values). The improved Kaneda System SR yielded a mean ROM of 1.8° in flexion and in extension. The median rotation found with the VentroFix (SC/DR) was 3.2° for flexion and 2.8° for extension. Reinforcement of the ventral constructs with a dorsal system reduced the ROM in flexion and extension in all cases to 0.4° and lower. In rotation, the median ROM of the anterior systems ranged from 2.7° to 5.1° and for the posterior systems from 3.9° to 5.7°, while the combinations provided a ROM of 1.2° to 1.9°. In lateral bending, the posterior implants restricted movement to 1.1°, whereas the anterior implants allowed up to 5.2°. The combined systems provided the highest stability at less than 0.6°. Our study revealed distinct differences between posterior and anterior approaches in all primary directions. Also, different stabilisation characteristics were found within the anterior and posterior groups. Combinations of these two approaches provided the highest stability in all directions

A three-dimensional computer model of a total hip replacement was used to examine the relationship between the position of the components, the range of motion and the prosthetic joint contact area. Horizontal acetabular positions with small amounts of acetabular and femoral anteversion provide the largest contact areas, but result in limited joint movement. These data will allow surgeons to select implant positions that will provide the largest possible joint contact area for a given joint range of motion although these are conflicting goals. In some component positions a truncated spherical prosthetic head resulted in smaller contact areas than a completely spherical head