We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom, with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice. After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%) had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita), Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question the need for so many different products, especially with limited published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:583–97.

Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial subject. A vast amount of epidemiological and trial data about venous thromboembolism has been published over the past 40 years. These data have been distilled and synthesised into guidelines designed to help the practitioner translate this extensive research into ‘evidence-based’ advice.

Guidelines should, in theory, benefit patient care by ensuring that every patient routinely receives the best prophylaxis; without guidelines, it is argued, patients may fail to receive treatment or be exposed to protocols which are ineffective, dangerous or expensive.

Guidelines, however, have not been welcomed or applied universally. In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have published their concerns about the thromboprophylaxis guidelines prepared by the American College of Chest Physicians. In Britain, controversy persists with many surgeons unconvinced of the risk/benefit, cost/benefit or practicality of thromboprophylaxis. The extended remit of the recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence thromboprophylaxis guidelines has been challenged.

The reasons for this disquiet are addressed in this paper and particular emphasis is placed on how clinically-acceptable guidelines could be developed and applied.

Objectives

Current studies on the additional benefit of using computed tomography (CT) in order to evaluate the surgeons’ agreement on treatment plans for fracture are inconsistent. This inconsistency can be explained by a methodological phenomenon called ‘spectrum bias’, defined as the bias inherent when investigators choose a population lacking therapeutic uncertainty for evaluation. The aim of the study is to determine the influence of spectrum bias on the intra-observer agreement of treatment plans for fractures of the distal radius.

Aims

This study assessed the impact of COVID-19 on hip and distal femur fracture patient outcomes across three successive UK lockdown periods over one year.

Non-accidental injury (NAI) in children includes orthopaedic trauma throughout the skeleton. Fractures with soft-tissue injuries constitute the majority of manifestations of physical abuse in children. Fracture and injury patterns vary with age and development, and NAI is intrinsically related to the mobility of the child. No fracture in isolation is pathognomonic of NAI, but specific abuse-related injuries include multiple fractures, particularly at various stages of healing, metaphyseal corner and bucket-handle fractures and fractures of ribs. Isolated or multiple rib fractures, irrespective of location, have the highest specificity for NAI. Other fractures with a high specificity for abuse include those of the scapula, lateral end of the clavicle, vertebrae and complex skull fractures.

Injuries caused by NAI constitute a relatively small proportion of childhood fractures. They may be associated with significant physical and psychological morbidity, with wide- ranging effects from deviations in normal developmental progression to death.

Orthopaedic surgeons must systematically assess, recognise and act on the indicators for NAI in conjunction with the paediatric multidisciplinary team.