Antibiotic resistance represents a threat to human health. It has been suggested that by 2050, antibiotic-resistant infections could cause ten million deaths each year. In orthopaedics, many patients undergoing surgery suffer from complications resulting from implant-associated infection. In these circumstances secondary surgery is usually required and chronic and/or relapsing disease may ensue. The development of effective treatments for antibiotic-resistant infections is needed. Recent evidence shows that bacteriophage (phages; viruses that infect bacteria) therapy may represent a viable and successful solution. In this review, a brief description of bone and joint infection and the nature of bacteriophages is presented, as well as a summary of our current knowledge on the use of bacteriophages in the treatment of bacterial infections. We present contemporary published in vitro and in vivo data as well as data from clinical trials, as they relate to bone and joint infections. We discuss the potential use of bacteriophage therapy in orthopaedic infections. This area of research is beginning to reveal successful results, but mostly in nonorthopaedic fields. We believe that bacteriophage therapy has potential therapeutic value for implant-associated infections in orthopaedics.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):234–244.

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: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1281–1288.

Evidence suggests that the alleviation of pain is enhancedby a strong patient-clinician relationship and attending to a patient’s social and mental health. There is a limited role for medication, opioids in particular.

Orthopaedic surgeons can use comprehensive biopsychosocial strategies to help people recover and can work with colleagues who have the appropriate expertise in order to maximize pain alleviation with optimal opioid stewardship.

Preparing patients for elective surgery and caring for them after unplanned injury or surgery can benefit from planned and practiced strategies based in communication science.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1122–1127.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. Orthopaedic departments have adopted business continuity models and guidelines for essential and non-essential surgeries to preserve hospital resources as well as protect patients and staff. These guidelines broadly encompass reduction of ambulatory care with a move towards telemedicine, redeployment of orthopaedic surgeons/residents to the frontline battle against COVID-19, continuation of education and research through web-based means, and cancellation of non-essential elective procedures. However, if containment of COVID-19 community spread is achieved, resumption of elective orthopaedic procedures and transition plans to return to normalcy must be considered for orthopaedic departments. The COVID-19 pandemic also presents a moral dilemma to the orthopaedic surgeon considering elective procedures. What is the best treatment for our patients and how does the fear of COVID-19 influence the risk-benefit discussion during a pandemic? Surgeons must deliberate the fine balance between elective surgery for a patient’s wellbeing versus risks to the operating team and utilization of precious hospital resources. Attrition of healthcare workers or Orthopaedic surgeons from restarting elective procedures prematurely or in an unsafe manner may render us ill-equipped to handle the second wave of infections. This highlights the need to develop effective screening protocols or preoperative COVID-19 testing before elective procedures in high-risk, elderly individuals with comorbidities. Alternatively, high-risk individuals should be postponed until the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection is minimal. In addition, given the higher mortality and perioperative morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery, the decision to operate must be carefully deliberated. As we ramp-up elective services and get “back to business” as orthopaedic surgeons, we have to be constantly mindful to proceed in a cautious and calibrated fashion, delivering the best care, while maintaining utmost vigilance to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19 during this critical transition period.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:222–228.

Continuous technical improvement in spinal surgical procedures, with the aim of enhancing patient outcomes, can be assisted by the deployment of advanced technologies including navigation, intraoperative CT imaging, and surgical robots. The latest generation of robotic surgical systems allows the simultaneous application of a range of digital features that provide the surgeon with an improved view of the surgical field, often through a narrow portal.

There is emerging evidence that procedure-related complications and intraoperative blood loss can be reduced if the new technologies are used by appropriately trained surgeons. Acceptance of the role of surgical robots has increased in recent years among a number of surgical specialities including general surgery, neurosurgery, and orthopaedic surgeons performing major joint arthroplasty. However, ethical challenges have emerged with the rollout of these innovations, such as ensuring surgeon competence in the use of surgical robotics and avoiding financial conflicts of interest. Therefore, it is essential that trainees aspiring to become spinal surgeons as well as established spinal specialists should develop the necessary skills to use robotic technology safely and effectively and understand the ethical framework within which the technology is introduced.

Traditional and more recently developed platforms exist to aid skill acquisition and surgical training which are described.

The aim of this narrative review is to describe the role of surgical robotics in spinal surgery, describe measures of proficiency, and present the range of training platforms that institutions can use to ensure they employ confident spine surgeons adequately prepared for the era of robotic spinal surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):568–572.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the current evidence relating to the benefits of virtual reality (VR) simulation in orthopaedic surgical training, and to identify areas of future research.

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: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1267–79.

The mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) are a group of inherited lysosomal storage disorders with clinical manifestations relevant to the orthopaedic surgeon. Our aim was to review the recent advances in their management and the implications for surgical practice.

The current literature about MPSs is summarised, emphasising orthopaedic complications and their management.

Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of MPSs include the recognition of slowly progressive, late presenting subtypes, developments in life-prolonging systemic treatment and potentially new indications for surgical treatment. The outcomes of surgery in these patients are not yet validated and some procedures have a high rate of complications which differ from those in patients who do not have a MPS.

The diagnosis of a MPS should be considered in adolescents or young adults with a previously unrecognised dysplasia of the hip. Surgeons treating patients with a MPS should report their experience and studies should include the assessment of function and quality of life to guide treatment.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1132–9

The United States and Canada are in the midst of an epidemic of the use, misuse and overdose of opioids, and deaths related to overdose. This is the direct result of overstatement of the benefits and understatement of the risks of using opioids by advocates and pharmaceutical companies. Massive amounts of prescription opioids entered the community and were often diverted and misused. Most other parts of the world achieve comparable pain relief using fewer opioids.

The misconceptions about opioids that created this epidemic are finding their way around the world. There is particular evidence of the increased prescription of strong opioids in Europe.

Opioids are addictive and dangerous. Evidence is mounting that the best pain relief is obtained through resilience. Opioids are often prescribed when treatments to increase resilience would be more effective.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:856–64.

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: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1005–15.