Artificial intelligence and machine-learning analytics have gained extensive popularity in recent years due to their clinically relevant applications. A wide range of proof-of-concept studies have demonstrated the ability of these analyses to personalize risk prediction, detect implant specifics from imaging, and monitor and assess patient movement and recovery. Though these applications are exciting and could potentially influence practice, it is imperative to understand when these analyses are indicated and where the data are derived from, prior to investing resources and confidence into the results and conclusions. In this article, we review the current benefits and potential limitations of machine-learning for the orthopaedic surgeon with a specific emphasis on data quality.

The transition from shutdown of elective orthopaedic services to the resumption of pre-COVID-19 activity presents many challenges. These include concerns about patient safety, staff safety, and the viability of health economies. Careful planning is necessary to allow patients to benefit from orthopaedic care in a safe and sustainable manner.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):807–810.

Deep infection was identified as a serious complication in the earliest days of total hip arthroplasty. It was identified that airborne contamination in conventional operating theatres was the major contributing factor. As progress was made in improving the engineering of operating theatres, airborne contamination was reduced. Detailed studies were carried out relating airborne contamination to deep infection rates.

In a trial conducted by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC), it was found that the use of ultra-clean air (UCA) operating theatres was associated with a significant reduction in deep infection rates. Deep infection rates were further reduced by the use of a body exhaust system. The MRC trial also included a detailed microbiology study, which confirmed the relationship between airborne contamination and deep infection rates.

Recent observational evidence from joint registries has shown that in contemporary practice, infection rates remain a problem, and may be getting worse. Registry observations have also called into question the value of “laminar flow” operating theatres.

Observational evidence from joint registries provides very limited evidence on the efficacy of UCA operating theatres. Although there have been some changes in surgical practice in recent years, the conclusions of the MRC trial remain valid, and the use of UCA is essential in preventing deep infection.

There is evidence that if UCA operating theatres are not used correctly, they may have poor microbiological performance. Current UCA operating theatres have limitations, and further research is required to update them and improve their microbiological performance in contemporary practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1264–9.

Aims. The purpose of this article was to review the current literature pertaining to the use of mobile compression devices (MCDs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) following total joint arthroplasty (TJA), and to discuss the results of data from our institution. Patients and Methods. Previous studies have illustrated higher rates of post-operative wound complications, re-operation and re-admission with the use of more aggressive anticoagulation regimens, such as warfarin and factor Xa inhibitors. This highlights the importance of the safety, as well as efficacy, of the chemoprophylactic regimen. Results. Studies have shown a symptomatic VTE rate of 0.92% with use of MCDs for prophylaxis, which is comparable with rates seen with more aggressive anticoagulation protocols. A prior prospective study found that use of a pre-operative risk stratification protocol based on personal history of deep vein thrombosis, family history of VTE, active cancer, or a hypercoaguable state allowed for the avoidance of aggressive prophylactic anticoagulation in over 70% of patients while maintaining a low incidence of symptomatic VTE. Conclusion. Further investigation is needed into the role of aspirin in VTE prophylaxis as well as the efficacy of MCDs as stand-alone prophylactic treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):8–13

In a systematic review, reports from national registers and clinical studies were identified and analysed with respect to revision rates after joint replacement, which were calculated as revisions per 100 observed component years.

After primary hip replacement, a mean of 1.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen. The results after primary total knee replacement are 1.26 revisions per 100 observed component years, and 1.53 after medial unicompartmental replacement. After total ankle replacement a mean of 3.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen.

The outcomes of total hip and knee replacement are almost identical. Revision rates of about 6% after five years and 12% after ten years are to be expected.

National registers compare implants by their revision rates, but the validity of the method has never been assessed. The New Zealand Joint Registry publishes clinical outcomes (Oxford knee scores, OKS) alongside revision rates, allowing comparison of the two measurements. In the two types of knee replacement, unicompartmental (UKR) had a better knee score than total replacement (TKR), but the revision rate of the former was nearly three times higher than that of the latter. This was because the sensitivity of the revision rate to clinical failure was different for the two implants. For example, of knees with a very poor outcome (OKS < 20 points), only about 12% of TKRs were revised compared with about 63% of UKRs with similar scores.

Revision therefore is not an objective measurement and should not be used to compare these two types of implant. Furthermore, revision is much less sensitive than the OKS to clinical failure in both types and therefore exaggerates the success of knee replacements, particularly of TKR.

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.

The majority of patients with osteoarthritis present to orthopaedic surgeons seeking relief of pain and associated restoration of function. Although our understanding of the physiology of pain has improved greatly over the last 25 years there remain a number of unexplained pain-related observations in patients with osteoarthritis. The understanding of pain in osteoarthritis, its modulation and treatment is central to orthopaedic clinical practice and in this annotation we explore some of the current concepts applicable. We also introduce the concept of the ‘phantom joint’ as a cause for persistent pain after joint replacement.

The Oxford hip and knee scores have been extensively used since they were first described in 1996 and 1998. During this time, they have been modified and used for many different purposes. This paper describes how they should be used and seeks to clarify areas of confusion.