Despite being one of the most common injuries around the elbow, the optimal treatment of olecranon fractures is far from established and stimulates debate among both general orthopaedic trauma surgeons and upper limb specialists. It is almost universally accepted that stable non-displaced fractures can be safely treated nonoperatively with minimal specialist input. Internal fixation is recommended for the vast majority of displaced fractures, with a range of techniques and implants to choose from. However, there is concern regarding the complication rates, largely related to symptomatic metalwork resulting in high rates of implant removal. As the number of elderly patients sustaining these injuries increases, we are becoming more aware of the issues associated with fixation in osteoporotic bone and the often fragile soft-tissue envelope in this group. Given this, there is evidence to support an increasing role for nonoperative management in this high-risk demographic group, even in those presenting with displaced and/or multifragmentary fracture patterns. This review summarizes the available literature to date, focusing predominantly on the management techniques and available implants for stable fractures of the olecranon. It also offers some insights into the potential avenues for future research, in the hope of addressing some of the pertinent questions that remain unanswered.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):112–123.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has proven higher accuracy, fewer alignment outliers, and improved short-term clinical outcomes when compared to conventional TKA. However, evidence of cost-effectiveness and individual superiority of one system over another is the subject of further research. Despite its growing adoption rate, published results are still limited and comparative studies are scarce. This review compares characteristics and performance of five currently available systems, focusing on the information and feedback each system provides to the surgeon, what the systems allow the surgeon to modify during the operation, and how each system then aids execution of the surgical plan.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):13–18.

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: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1442–1448.

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.

Episodic, or bundled payments, is a concept now familiar to most in the healthcare arena, but the models are often misunderstood. Under a traditional fee-for-service model, each provider bills separately for their services which creates financial incentives to maximise volumes. Under a bundled payment, a single entity, often referred to as a convener (maybe the hospital, the physician group, or a third party) assumes the risk through a payer contract for all services provided within a defined episode of care, and receives a single (bundled) payment for all services provided for that episode. The time frame around the intervention is variable, but defined in advance, as are included and excluded costs. Timing of the actual payment in a bundle may either be before the episode occurs (prospective payment model), or after the end of the episode through a reconciliation (retrospective payment model). In either case, the defined costs over the defined time frame are borne by the convener.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1280–5.