Musculoskeletal diseases are having a growing impact worldwide. It is therefore crucial to have an evidence base to most effectively and efficiently implement future health services across different healthcare systems. International trials are an opportunity to address these challenges and have many potential benefits. They are, however, complex to set up and deliver, which may impact on the efficient and timely delivery of a project. There are a number of models of how international trials are currently being delivered across a range of orthopaedic patient populations, which are discussed here. The examples given highlight that the key to overcoming these challenges is the development of trusted and equal partnerships with collaborators in each country. International trials have the potential to address a global burden of disease, and in turn optimize the benefit to patients in the collaborating countries and those with similar health services and care systems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):719–722

Aims. The aim of this study was to explore current use of the Global Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) Minimum Common Dataset (MCD) within established national hip fracture registries, and to propose a revised MCD to enable international benchmarking for hip fracture care. Methods. We compared all ten established national hip fracture registries: England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Scotland; Australia and New Zealand; Republic of Ireland; Germany; the Netherlands; Sweden; Norway; Denmark; and Spain. We tabulated all questions included in each registry, and cross-referenced them against the 32 questions of the MCD dataset. Having identified those questions consistently used in the majority of national audits, and which additional fields were used less commonly, we then used consensus methods to establish a revised MCD. Results. A total of 215 unique questions were used across the ten registries. Only 72 (34%) were used in more than one national audit, and only 32 (15%) by more than half of audits. Only one registry used all 32 questions from the 2014 MCD, and five questions were only collected by a single registry. Only 21 of the 32 questions in the MCD were used in the majority of national audits. Only three fields (anaesthetic grade, operation, and date/time of surgery) were used by all ten established audits. We presented these findings at the Asia-Pacific FFN meeting, and used an online questionnaire to capture feedback from expert clinicians from different countries. A draft revision of the MCD was then presented to all 95 nations represented at the Global FFN conference in September 2021, with online feedback again used to finalize the revised MCD. Conclusion. The revised MCD will help aspirant nations establish new registry programmes, facilitate the integration of novel analytic techniques and greater multinational collaboration, and serve as an internationally-accepted standard for monitoring and improving hip fracture services. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):721–728

Aims. There are many guidelines that help direct the management of patients with metal-on-metal (MOM) hip arthroplasties. We have undertaken a study to compare the management of patients with MOM hip arthroplasties in different countries. . Methods. Six international tertiary referral orthopaedic centres were invited to participate by organising a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting, consisting of two or more revision hip arthroplasty surgeons and a musculoskeletal radiologist. A full clinical dataset including history, blood tests and imaging for ten patients was sent to each unit, for discussion and treatment planning. Differences in the interpretation of findings, management decisions and rationale for decisions were compared using quantitative and qualitative methods. Results. Overall agreement between the orthopaedic centres and the recommended treatment plans for the ten patients with MOM hip implants was moderate (kappa = 0.6). Full agreement was seen in a third of cases, however split decisions were also seen in a third of cases. Units differed in their interpretation of the significance of the investigation findings and put varying emphasis on serial changes, in the presence of symptoms. Discussion. In conclusion, the management of raised or rising blood metal ions, cystic pseudotumours and peri-acetabular osteolysis led to inconsistency in the agreement between centres. Coordinated international guidance and MDT panel discussions are recommended to improve consensus in decision making. Take home message: A lack of evidence and the subsequent variation in regulator guidance leads to differences in opinions, the clinical impact of which can be reduced through a multi-disciplinary team approach to managing patients with MOM hip implants. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:179–86

Aims. The aim of this consensus was to develop a definition of post-operative fibrosis of the knee. Patients and Methods. An international panel of experts took part in a formal consensus process composed of a discussion phase and three Delphi rounds. Results. Post-operative fibrosis of the knee was defined as a limited range of movement (ROM) in flexion and/or extension, that is not attributable to an osseous or prosthetic block to movement from malaligned, malpositioned or incorrectly sized components, metal hardware, ligament reconstruction, infection (septic arthritis), pain, chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS) or other specific causes, but due to soft-tissue fibrosis that was not present pre-operatively. Limitation of movement was graded as mild, moderate or severe according to the range of flexion (90° to 100°, 70° to 89°, < 70°) or extension deficit (5° to 10°, 11° to 20°, > 20°). Recommended investigations to support the diagnosis and a strategy for its management were also agreed. Conclusion. The development of standardised, accepted criteria for the diagnosis, classification and grading of the severity of post-operative fibrosis of the knee will facilitate the identification of patients for inclusion in clinical trials, the development of clinical guidelines, and eventually help to inform the management of this difficult condition. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1479–88

Aims. Responsiveness and ceiling effects are key properties of an outcome score. No such data have been reported for the original English version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) at a follow-up of more than four months. The aim of this study was to identify the responsiveness and ceiling effects of the English version iHOT-12 in a series of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for intra-articular hip pathology at a minimum of one year postoperatively. Methods. A total of 171 consecutive patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with a diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) under the care of a single surgeon between January 2013 and March 2017 were included. iHOT-12 and EuroQol 5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) scores were available pre- and postoperatively. Effect size and ceiling effects for the iHOT-12 were calculated with subgroup analysis. Results. A total of 122 patients (71.3%) completed postoperative PROMs scores with median follow-up of 24.3 months (interquartile range (IQR) 17.2 to 33.5). The median total cohort iHOT-12 score improved significantly from 31.0 (IQR 20 to 58) preoperatively to 72.5 (IQR 47 to 90) postoperatively (p < 0.001). The effect size (Cohen’s d) was 1.59. In all, 33 patients (27%) scored within ten points (10%) of the maximum score and 38 patients (31.1%) scored within the previously reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the maximum score. Furthermore, nine (47%) male patients aged < 30 years scored within 10% of the maximum score and ten (53%) scored within the previously reported MCID of the maximum score. Conclusion. There is a previously unreported ceiling effect of the iHOT-12 at a minimum one-year follow-up which is particularly marked in young, male patients following hip arthroscopy for FAI. This tool may not have the maximum measurement required to capture the true outcome following this procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):1010–1015

Objectives. Evidence -based medicine (EBM) is designed to inform clinical decision-making within all medical specialties, including orthopaedic surgery. We recently published a pilot survey of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) membership and demonstrated that the adoption of EBM principles is variable among Canadian orthopaedic surgeons. The objective of this study was to conduct a broader international survey of orthopaedic surgeons to identify characteristics of research studies perceived as being most influential in informing clinical decision-making. Materials and Methods. A 29-question electronic survey was distributed to the readership of an established orthopaedic journal with international readership. The survey aimed to analyse the influence of both extrinsic (journal quality, investigator profiles, etc.) and intrinsic characteristics (study design, sample size, etc.) of research studies in relation to their influence on practice patterns. Results. A total of 353 surgeons completed the survey. Surgeons achieved consensus on the ‘importance’ of three key designs on their practices: randomised controlled trials (94%), meta-analyses (75%) and systematic reviews (66%). The vast majority of respondents support the use of current evidence over historical clinical training; however subjective factors such as journal reputation (72%) and investigator profile (68%) continue to influence clinical decision-making strongly. Conclusion. Although intrinsic factors such as study design and sample size have some influence on clinical decision-making, surgeon respondents are equally influenced by extrinsic factors such as investigator reputation and perceived journal quality. Cite this article: Dr M. Ghert. An international survey to identify the intrinsic and extrinsic factors of research studies most likely to change orthopaedic practice. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:130–136. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000578

This brief annotation summarises the particular contributions made by the annual Edinburgh International Trauma Symposium in various areas of research into aspects of orthopaedic trauma and the management of acutely injured patients, during the 25 years since its establishment

Louis Pasteur once said that: “Fortune favours the prepared mind.” As one of the great scientists who contributed to the fight against infection, he emphasised the importance of being prepared at all times to recognise infection and deal with it. Despite the many scientific discoveries and technological advances, such as the advent of antibiotics and the use of sterile techniques, infection continues to be a problem that haunts orthopaedic surgeons and inflicts suffering on patients. . The medical community has implemented many practices with the intention of preventing infection and treating it effectively when it occurs. Although high-level evidence may support some of these practices, many are based on little to no scientific foundation. Thus, around the world, there is great variation in practices for the prevention and management of periprosthetic joint infection. This paper summaries the instigation, conduct and findings of a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic Joint Infection. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1450–2

Background. Symptoms of obstetric brachial plexus injury (OBPI) vary widely over the course of time and from individual to individual and can include various degrees of denervation, muscle weakness, contractures, bone deformities and functional limitations. To date, no universally accepted overall framework is available to assess the outcome of patients with OBPI. The objective of this paper is to outline the proposed process for the development of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Sets for patients with an OBPI. Methods. The first step is to conduct four preparatory studies to identify ICF categories important for OBPI: a) a systematic literature review to identify outcome measures, b) a qualitative study using focus groups, c) an expert survey and d) a cross-sectional, multicentre study. A first version of ICF Core Sets will be defined at a consensus conference, which will integrate the evidence from the preparatory studies. In a second step, field-testing among patients will validate this first version of Core Sets for OBPI. Discussion. The proposed method to develop ICF Core Sets for OBPI yields a practical tool for multiple purposes: for clinicians to systematically assess and evaluate the individual’s functioning, for researchers to design and compare studies, and for patients to get more insight into their health problems and their management