Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are among the most common and debilitating knee injuries in professional athletes with an incidence in females up to eight-times higher than their male counterparts. ACL injuries can be career-threatening and are associated with increased risk of developing knee osteoarthritis in future life. The increased risk of ACL injury in females has been attributed to various anatomical, developmental, neuromuscular, and hormonal factors. Anatomical and hormonal factors have been identified and investigated as significant contributors including osseous anatomy, ligament laxity, and hamstring muscular recruitment. Postural stability and impact absorption are associated with the stabilizing effort and stress on the ACL during sport activity, increasing the risk of noncontact pivot injury. Female patients have smaller diameter hamstring autografts than males, which may predispose to increased risk of re-rupture following ACL reconstruction and to an increased risk of chondral and meniscal injuries. The addition of an extra-articular tenodesis can reduce the risk of failure; therefore, it should routinely be considered in young elite athletes. Prevention programs target key aspects of training including plyometrics, strengthening, balance, endurance and stability, and neuromuscular training, reducing the risk of ACL injuries in female athletes by up to 90%. Sex disparities in access to training facilities may also play an important role in the risk of ACL injuries between males and females. Similarly, football boots, pitches quality, and football size and weight should be considered and tailored around females’ characteristics. Finally, high levels of personal and sport-related stress have been shown to increase the risk of ACL injury which may be related to alterations in attention and coordination, together with increased muscular tension, and compromise the return to sport after ACL injury. Further investigations are still necessary to better understand and address the risk factors involved in ACL injuries in female athletes. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(2):94–100

Upper limb amputations, ranging from transhumeral to partial hand, can be devastating for patients, their families, and society. Modern paradigm shifts have focused on reconstructive options after upper extremity limb loss, rather than considering the amputation an ablative procedure. Surgical advancements such as targeted muscle reinnervation and regenerative peripheral nerve interface, in combination with technological development of modern prosthetics, have expanded options for patients after amputation. In the near future, advances such as osseointegration, implantable myoelectric sensors, and implantable nerve cuffs may become more widely used and may expand the options for prosthetic integration, myoelectric signal detection, and restoration of sensation. This review summarizes the current advancements in surgical techniques and prosthetics for upper limb amputees. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):430–439

Stem cells are defined by their potential for self-renewal and the ability to differentiate into numerous cell types, including cartilage and bone cells. Although basic laboratory studies demonstrate that cell therapies have strong potential for improvement in tissue healing and regeneration, there is little evidence in the scientific literature for many of the available cell formulations that are currently offered to patients. Numerous commercial entities and ‘regenerative medicine centres’ have aggressively marketed unproven cell therapies for a wide range of medical conditions, leading to sometimes indiscriminate use of these treatments, which has added to the confusion and unpredictable outcomes. The significant variability and heterogeneity in cell formulations between different individuals makes it difficult to draw conclusions about efficacy. The ‘minimally manipulated’ preparations derived from bone marrow and adipose tissue that are currently used differ substantially from cells that are processed and prepared under defined laboratory protocols. The term ‘stem cells’ should be reserved for laboratory-purified, culture-expanded cells. The number of cells in uncultured preparations that meet these defined criteria is estimated to be approximately one in 10 000 to 20 000 (0.005% to 0.01%) in native bone marrow and 1 in 2000 in adipose tissue. It is clear that more refined definitions of stem cells are required, as the lumping together of widely diverse progenitor cell types under the umbrella term ‘mesenchymal stem cells’ has created confusion among scientists, clinicians, regulators, and our patients. Validated methods need to be developed to measure and characterize the ‘critical quality attributes’ and biological activity of a specific cell formulation. It is certain that ‘one size does not fit all’ – different cell formulations, dosing schedules, and culturing parameters will likely be required based on the tissue being treated and the desired biological target. As an alternative to the use of exogenous cells, in the future we may be able to stimulate the intrinsic vascular stem cell niche that is known to exist in many tissues. The tremendous potential of cell therapy will only be realized with further basic, translational, and clinical research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:361–364

The recently published Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens In Tumor Surgery (PARITY) trial found no benefit in extending antibiotic prophylaxis from 24 hours to five days after endoprosthetic reconstruction for lower limb bone tumours. PARITY is the first randomized controlled trial in orthopaedic oncology and is a huge step forward in understanding antibiotic prophylaxis. However, significant gaps remain, including questions around antibiotic choice, particularly in the UK, where cephalosporins are avoided due to concerns of Clostridioides difficile infection. We present a review of the evidence for antibiotic choice, dosing, and timing, and a brief description of PARITY, its implication for practice, and the remaining gaps in our understanding.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):850–856.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a difficult complication requiring a comprehensive eradication protocol. Cure rates have essentially stalled in the last two decades, using methods of antimicrobial cement joint spacers and parenteral antimicrobial agents. Functional spacers with higher-dose antimicrobial-loaded cement and antimicrobial-loaded calcium sulphate beads have emphasized local antimicrobial delivery on the premise that high-dose local antimicrobial delivery will enhance eradication. However, with increasing antimicrobial pressures, microbiota have responded with adaptive mechanisms beyond traditional antimicrobial resistance genes. In this review we describe adaptive resistance mechanisms that are relevant to the treatment of PJI. Some mechanisms are well known, but others are new. The objective of this review is to inform clinicians of the known adaptive resistance mechanisms of microbes relevant to PJI. We also discuss the implications of these adaptive mechanisms in the future treatment of PJI.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):575–580.

Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a well-known and potentially devastating complication. Clinicians have used many strategies in attempts to prevent dislocation since the introduction of THA. While the importance of postoperative care cannot be ignored, particular emphasis has been placed on preoperative planning in the prevention of dislocation. The strategies have progressed from more traditional approaches, including modular implants, the size of the femoral head, and augmentation of the offset, to newer concepts, including patient-specific component positioning combined with computer navigation, robotics, and the use of dual-mobility implants. As clinicians continue to pursue improved outcomes and reduced complications, these concepts will lay the foundation for future innovation in THA and ultimately improved outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):8–11.

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.

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.

Abstract

Nerve transfer has become a common and often effective reconstructive strategy for proximal and complex peripheral nerve injuries of the upper limb. This case-based discussion explores the principles and potential benefits of nerve transfer surgery and offers in-depth discussion of several established and valuable techniques including: motor transfer for elbow flexion after musculocutaneous nerve injury, deltoid reanimation for axillary nerve palsy, intrinsic re-innervation following proximal ulnar nerve repair, and critical sensory recovery despite non-reconstructable median nerve lesions.

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.

Modern healthcare contracting is shifting the responsibility for improving quality, enhancing community health and controlling the total cost of care for patient populations from payers to providers. Population-based contracting involves capitated risk taken across an entire population, such that any included services within the contract are paid for by the risk-bearing entity throughout the term of the agreement. Under such contracts, a risk-bearing entity, which may be a provider group, a hospital or another payer, administers the contract and assumes risk for contractually defined services. These contracts can be structured in various ways, from professional fee capitation to full global per member per month diagnosis-based risk. The entity contracting with the payer must have downstream network contracts to provide the care and facilities that it has agreed to provide. Population health is a very powerful model to reduce waste and costs. It requires a deep understanding of the nuances of such contracting and the appropriate infrastructure to manage both networks and risk.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1431–4.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a major orthopaedic intervention. The length of a patient's stay has been progressively reduced with the introduction of enhanced recovery protocols: day-case surgery has become the ultimate challenge.

This narrative review shows the potential limitations of day-case TKA. These constraints may be social, linked to patient’s comorbidities, or due to surgery-related adverse events (e.g. pain, post-operative nausea and vomiting, etc.).

Using patient stratification, tailored surgical techniques and multimodal opioid-sparing analgesia, day-case TKA might be achievable in a limited group of patients. The younger, male patient without comorbidities and with an excellent social network around him might be a candidate.

Demographic changes, effective recovery programmes and less invasive surgical techniques such as unicondylar knee arthroplasty, may increase the size of the group of potential day-case patients.

The cost reduction achieved by day-case TKA needs to be balanced against any increase in morbidity and mortality and the cost of advanced follow-up at a distance with new technology. These factors need to be evaluated before adopting this ultimate ‘fast-track’ approach.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):40–4.

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the first Global Patient Safety Challenge in 2005 and introduced the ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ in 2009 in an attempt to reduce the burden of health care associated infections. Many NHS trusts in England adopted this model of hand hygiene, which prompts health care workers to clean their hands at five distinct stages of caring for the patient. Our review analyses the scientific foundation for the five moments of hand hygiene and explores the evidence, as referenced by WHO, to support these recommendations. We found no strong scientific support for this regime of hand hygiene as a means of reducing health care associated infections. Consensus-based guidelines based on weak scientific foundations should be assessed carefully to prevent shifting the clinical focus from more important issues and to direct limited resources more effectively.

We recommend caution in the universal adoption of the WHO ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ by orthopaedic surgeons and other health care workers and emphasise the need for evidence-based principles when adopting hospital guidelines aimed at promoting excellence in clinical practice.