We aim to explore the potential technologies for monitoring and assessment of patients undergoing arthroplasty by examining selected literature focusing on the technology currently available and reflecting on possible future development and application. The reviewed literature indicates a large variety of different hardware and software, widely available and used in a limited manner, to assess patients’ performance. There are extensive opportunities to enhance and integrate the systems which are already in existence to develop patient-specific pathways for rehabilitation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1104–1109.

The development and pre-clinical evaluation of nano-texturised, biomimetic, surfaces of titanium (Ti) implants treated with titanium dioxide (TiO₂) nanotube arrays is reviewed. In vitro and in vivo evaluations show that TiO₂ nanotubes on Ti surfaces positively affect the osseointegration, cell differentiation, mineralisation, and anti-microbial properties. This surface treatment can be superimposed onto existing macro and micro porous Ti implants creating a surface texture that also interacts with cells at the nano level. Histology and mechanical pull-out testing of specimens in rabbits indicate that TiO₂ nanotubes improves bone bonding nine-fold (p = 0.008). The rate of mineralisation associated with TiO₂ nanotube surfaces is about three times that of non-treated Ti surfaces. In addition to improved osseointegration properties, TiO₂ nanotubes reduce the initial adhesion and colonisation of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Collectively, the properties of Ti implant surfaces enhanced with TiO₂ nanotubes show great promise.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B(1 Supple A):9–16.

We recently published a paper comparing the incidence of adverse outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). The conclusion of this study, which was in favour of UKA, was dismissed as “biased” in a review in Bone & Joint 360. Although this study is one of the least biased comparisons of UKA and TKA, this episode highlights the biases that exist both for and against UKA. In this review, we explore the different types of bias, particularly selection, reporting and measurement. We conclude that comparisons between UKA and TKA are open to bias. These biases can be so marked, particularly in comparisons based just on national registry data, that the conclusions can be misleading. For a fair comparison, data from randomised studies or well-matched, prospective observational cohort studies, which include registry data, are required, and multiple outcome measures should be used. The data of this type that already exist suggest that if UKA is used appropriately, compared with TKA, its advantages outweigh its disadvantages. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:12–15

Joint replacement of the hip and knee remain very satisfactory operations. They are, however, expensive. The actual manufacturing of the implant represents only 30% of the final cost, while sales and marketing represent 40%. Recently, the patents on many well established and successful implants have expired. Companies have started producing and distributing implants that purport to replicate existing implants with good long-term results.

The aims of this paper are to assess the legality, the monitoring and cost saving implications of such generic implants. We also assess how this might affect the traditional orthopaedic implant companies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:892–900.

More than a million hip replacements are carried out each year worldwide, and the number of other artificial joints inserted is also rising, so that infections associated with arthroplasties have become more common. However, there is a paucity of literature on infections due to haematogenous seeding following dental procedures. We reviewed the published literature to establish the current knowledge on this problem and to determine the evidence for routine antibiotic prophylaxis prior to a dental procedure.

We found that antimicrobial prophylaxis before dental interventions in patients with artificial joints lacks evidence-based information and thus cannot be universally recommended.