Polished taper-slip (PTS) cemented stems have an excellent clinical track record and are the most common stem type used in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the UK. Due to low rates of aseptic loosening, they have largely replaced more traditional composite beam (CB) cemented stems. However, there is now emerging evidence from multiple joint registries that PTS stems are associated with higher rates of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) compared to their CB stem counterparts. The risk of both intraoperative and postoperative PFF remains greater with uncemented stems compared to either of these cemented stem subtypes. PFF continues to be a devastating complication following primary THA and is associated with high complication and mortality rates. Recent efforts have focused on identifying implant-related risk factors for PFF in order to guide preventative strategies, and therefore the purpose of this article is to present the current evidence on the effect of cemented femoral stem design on the risk of PFF. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):11–15

The Unified Classification System (UCS), or Vancouver system, is a validated and widely used classification system to guide the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures. It suggests that well-fixed stems (type B1) can be treated with fixation but that loose stems (types B2 and B3) should be revised. Determining whether a stem is loose can be difficult and some authors have questioned how to apply this classification system to polished taper slip stems which are, by definition, loose within their cement mantle. Recent evidence has challenged the common perception that revision surgery is preferable to fixation surgery for UCS-B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished taper slip stems. Indications for fixation include an anatomically reducible fracture and cement mantle, a well-fixed femoral bone-cement interface, and a well-functioning acetabular component. However, not all type B fractures can or should be managed with fixation due to the risk of early failure. This annotation details specific fracture patterns that should not be managed with fixation alone. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):481–486

Cell therapies hold significant promise for the treatment of injured or diseased musculoskeletal tissues. However, despite advances in research, there is growing concern about the increasing number of clinical centres around the world that are making unwarranted claims or are performing risky biological procedures. Such providers have been known to recommend, prescribe, or deliver so called ‘stem cell’ preparations without sufficient data to support their true content and efficacy. In this annotation, we outline the current environment of stem cell-based treatments and the strategies of marketing directly to consumers. We also outline the difficulties in the regulation of these clinics and make recommendations for best practice and the identification and reporting of illegitimate providers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):148–154

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in incidence, and typically occur in frail elderly patients. They are similar to pathological fractures in many ways. The aims of treatment are the same, including 'getting it right first time' with a single operation, which allows immediate unrestricted weightbearing, with a low risk of complications, and one that avoids the creation of stress risers locally that may predispose to further peri-implant fracture. The surgical approach to these fractures, the associated soft-tissue handling, and exposure of the fracture are key elements in minimizing the high rate of complications. This annotation describes the approaches to the femur that can be used to facilitate the surgical management of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur at all levels using either modern methods of fixation or revision arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):593–601.

Recent publications have drawn attention to the fact that some brands of joint replacement may contain variants which perform significantly worse (or better) than their ‘siblings’. As a result, the National Joint Registry has performed much more detailed analysis on the larger families of knee arthroplasties in order to identify exactly where these differences may be present and may hitherto have remained hidden. The analysis of the Nexgen knee arthroplasty brand identified that some posterior-stabilized combinations have particularly high revision rates for aseptic loosening of the tibia, and consequently a medical device recall has been issued for the Nexgen ‘option’ tibial component which was implicated. More elaborate signal detection is required in order to identify such variation in results in a routine fashion if patients are to be protected from such variation in outcomes between closely related implant types.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):221–226.

Prophylactic antibiotics are important in reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty. Their effectiveness depends on the choice of antibiotic and the optimum timing of their administration, to ensure adequate tissue concentrations. Cephalosporins are typically used, but an increasing number of resistant organisms are causing PJI, leading to the additional use of vancomycin. There are difficulties, however, with the systemic administration of vancomycin including its optimal timing, due to the need for prolonged administration, and potential adverse reactions. Intraosseous regional administration distal to a tourniquet is an alternative and attractive mode of delivery due to the ease of obtaining intraosseous access. Many authors have reported the effectiveness of intraosseous prophylaxis in achieving higher concentrations of antibiotic in the tissues compared with intravenous administration, providing equal or enhanced prophylaxis while minimizing adverse effects. This annotation describes the technique of intraosseous administration of antibiotics and summarizes the relevant clinical literature to date.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(11):1135–1139.

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):425–429.

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.

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 management of symptomatic osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs) can be challenging. The number of ways of treating these lesions has increased considerably during the last decade, with published studies often providing conflicting, low-level evidence. This paper aims to present an up-to-date concise overview of the best evidence for the surgical treatment of OLTs. Management options are reviewed based on the size of the lesion and include bone marrow stimulation, bone grafting options, drilling techniques, biological preparations, and resurfacing. Although many of these techniques have shown promising results, there remains little high level evidence, and further large scale prospective studies and systematic reviews will be required to identify the optimal form of treatment for these lesions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):207–212.

There is good scientific rationale to support the use of growth factors to promote musculoskeletal tissue regeneration. However, the clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and other blood-derived products has yet to be proven. Characterization and reporting of PRP preparation protocols utilized in clinical trials for the treatment of musculoskeletal disease is highly inconsistent, and the majority of studies do not provide sufficient information to allow the protocols to be reproduced. Furthermore, the reporting of blood-derived products in orthopaedics is limited by the multiple PRP classification systems available, which makes comparison of results between studies challenging. Several attempts have been made to characterize and classify PRP; however, no consensus has been reached, and there is lack of a comprehensive and validated classification. In this annotation, we outline existing systems used to classify preparations of PRP, highlighting their advantages and limitations. There remains a need for standardized universal nomenclature to describe biological therapies, as well as a comprehensive and reproducible classification system for autologous blood-derived products.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:891–896.

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.

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.

The continual cycle of bone formation and resorption is carried out by osteoblasts, osteocytes, and osteoclasts under the direction of the bone-signaling pathway. In certain situations the host cycle of bone repair is insufficient and requires the assistance of bone grafts and their substitutes. The fundamental properties of a bone graft are osteoconduction, osteoinduction, osteogenesis, and structural support. Options for bone grafting include autogenous and allograft bone and the various isolated or combined substitutes of calcium sulphate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. Not all bone grafts will have the same properties. As a result, understanding the requirements of the clinical situation and specific properties of the various types of bone grafts is necessary to identify the ideal graft. We present a review of the bone repair process and properties of bone grafts and their substitutes to help guide the clinician in the decision making process.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):6–9.

An international faculty of orthopaedic surgeons presented their work on the current challenges in hip surgery at the London Hip Meeting which was attended by over 400 delegates. The topics covered included femoroacetabular impingement, thromboembolic phenomena associated with hip surgery, bearing surfaces (including metal-on-metal articulations), outcomes of hip replacement surgery and revision hip replacement. We present a concise report of the current opinions on hip surgery from this meeting with appropriate references to the current literature.

Orthopaedic surgery is in an exciting transitional period as modern surgical interventions, implants and scientific developments are providing new therapeutic options. As advances in basic science and technology improve our understanding of the pathology and repair of musculoskeletal tissue, traditional operations may be replaced by newer, less invasive procedures which are more appropriately targeted at the underlying pathophysiology. However, evidence-based practice will remain a basic requirement of care. Orthopaedic surgeons can and should remain at the forefront of the development of novel therapeutic interventions and their application. Progression of the potential of bench research into an improved array of orthopaedic treatments in an effective yet safe manner will require the development of a subgroup of specialists with extended training in research to play an important role in bridging the gap between laboratory science and clinical practice. International regulations regarding the introduction of new biological treatments will place an additional burden on the mechanisms of this translational process, and orthopaedic surgeons who are trained in science, surgery and the regulatory environment will be essential. Training and supporting individuals with these skills requires special consideration and discussion by the orthopaedic community.

In this paper we review some traditional approaches to the integration of orthopaedic science and surgery, the therapeutic potential of current regenerative biomedical science for cartilage repair and ways in which we may develop surgeons with the skills required to translate scientific discovery into effective and properly assessed orthopaedic treatments.

This study evaluated the feasibility of using published data from more than one register to define the performance of different hip implants. In order to obtain estimates of performance for specific types of hip system from different register, we analysed data from the annual reports of five national and one Italian regional register. We extracted the number of implants and rates of implant survival at different periods of follow-up. Our aim was to assess whether estimates of cumulative survival rate were comparable with data from registers from different countries, and our conclusion was that such a comparison could only be performed incompletely.

Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component continues to be the most common indication for revision of total hip replacements in younger patients. Early in the evolution of the cemented hip, arthroplasty surgeons switched from removal to retention of the acetabular subchondral bone plate, theorising that unfavourable mechanical forces were the cause of loosening at the bone-cement interface.

It is now known that the cause of aseptic loosening is probably biological rather than mechanical and removing the subchondral bone plate may enhance biological fixation of cement to bone. With this in mind, perhaps it is time to revive removal of the subchondral bone as a standard part of acetabular preparation.

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.