Aims

High-quality clinical research in children’s orthopaedic surgery has lagged behind other surgical subspecialties. This study used a consensus-based approach to identify research priorities for clinical trials in children’s orthopaedics.

Aims. Open lower limb fracture is life-changing, resulting in substantial morbidity and resource demand, while inconsistent outcome-reporting hampers systematic review and meta-analysis. A core outcome set establishes consensus among key stakeholders for the recommendation of a minimum set of outcomes. This study aims to define a core outcome set for adult open lower limb fracture. Methods. Candidate outcomes were identified from a previously published systematic review and a secondary thematic analysis of 25 patient interviews exploring the lived experience of recovery from open lower limb fracture. Outcomes were categorized and sequentially refined using healthcare professional and patient structured discussion groups. Consensus methods included a multi-stakeholder two-round online Delphi survey and a consensus meeting attended by a purposive sample of stakeholders, facilitated discussion, and voting using a nominal group technique. Results. Thematic analysis and systematic review identified 121 unique outcomes, reduced to 68 outcomes following structured discussion groups. Outcomes were presented to 136 participants who completed a two-round online Delphi survey. The Delphi survey resulted in 11 outcomes identified as consensus ‘in’ only. All outcomes were discussed at a consensus meeting attended by 15 patients, 14 healthcare professionals, 11 researchers, and one patient-carer. Consensus was achieved for a four-core outcome set: ‘Walking, gait and mobility’, ‘Being able to return to life roles’, ‘Pain or discomfort’, and ‘Quality of life’. Conclusion. This study used robust consensus methods to establish a core outcome set that should be measured in all future research studies and audits of clinical practice without precluding the measurement of additional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(4):294–305

Aims. This study aimed to gather insights from elbow experts using the Delphi method to evaluate the influence of patient characteristics and fracture morphology on the choice between operative and nonoperative treatment for coronoid fractures. Methods. A three-round electronic (e-)modified Delphi survey study was performed between March and December 2023. A total of 55 elbow surgeons from Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America participated, with 48 completing all questionnaires (87%). The panellists evaluated the factors identified as important in literature for treatment decision-making, using a Likert scale ranging from "strongly influences me to recommend nonoperative treatment" (1) to "strongly influences me to recommend operative treatment" (5). Factors achieving Likert scores ≤ 2.0 or ≥ 4.0 were deemed influential for treatment recommendation. Stable consensus is defined as an agreement of ≥ 80% in the second and third rounds. Results. Of 68 factors considered important in the literature for treatment choice for coronoid fractures, 18 achieved a stable consensus to be influential. Influential factors with stable consensus that advocate for operative treatment were being a professional athlete, playing overhead sports, a history of subjective dislocation or subluxation during trauma, open fracture, crepitation with range of movement, > 2 mm opening during varus stress on radiological imaging, and having an anteromedial facet or basal coronoid fracture (O’Driscoll type 2 or 3). An anterolateral coronoid tip fracture ≤ 2 mm was the only influential factor with a stable consensus that advocates for nonoperative treatment. Most disagreement existed regarding the treatment for the terrible triad injury with an anterolateral coronoid tip fracture fragment ≤ 2 mm (O’Driscoll type 1 subtype 1). Conclusion. This study gives insights into areas of consensus among surveyed elbow surgeons in choosing between operative and nonoperative management of coronoid fractures. These findings should be used in conjunction with previous patient cohort studies when discussing treatment options with patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1150–1157

Aims. A core outcome set for adult, open lower limb fracture has been established consisting of ‘Walking, gait and mobility’, ‘Being able to return to life roles’, ‘Pain or discomfort’, and ‘Quality of life’. This study aims to identify which outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) should be recommended to measure each core outcome. Methods. A systematic review and quality assessment were conducted to identify existing instruments with evidence of good measurement properties in the open lower limb fracture population for each core outcome. Additionally, shortlisting criteria were developed to identify suitable instruments not validated in the target population. Candidate instruments were presented, discussed, and voted on at a consensus meeting of key stakeholders. Results. The Wales Lower Limb Trauma Recovery scale was identified, demonstrating validation evidence in the target population. In addition, ten candidate OMIs met the shortlisting criteria. Six patients, eight healthcare professionals, and 11 research methodologists attended the consensus meeting. Consensus was achieved for the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) to measure ‘Quality of life’ and ‘Walking, gait and mobility’ in future research trials, audit, and clinical assessment, respectively. No instrument met consensus criteria to measure ‘Being able to return to life roles’ and ‘Pain or discomfort’. However, the EQ-5D-5L was found to demonstrate good face validity and could also be used pragmatically to measure these two outcomes, accepting limitations in sensitivity. Conclusion. This study recommends the LEFS and EQ-5D-5L to measure the core outcome set for adult open lower limb fracture. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(6):352–361

Aims. A review of the literature on elbow replacement found no consistency in the clinical outcome measures which are used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The aim of this study was to define core outcome domains for elbow replacement. Methods. A real-time Delphi survey was conducted over four weeks using outcomes from a scoping review of 362 studies on elbow replacement published between January 1990 and February 2021. A total of 583 outcome descriptors were rationalized to 139 unique outcomes. The survey consisted of 139 outcomes divided into 18 domains. The readability and clarity of the survey was determined by an advisory group including a patient representative. Participants were able to view aggregated responses from other participants in real time and to revisit their responses as many times as they wished during the study period. Participants were able to propose additional items for inclusion. A Patient and Public Inclusion and Engagement (PPIE) panel considered the consensus findings. Results. A total of 45 respondents completed the survey. Nine core mandatory domains were identified: ‘return to work or normal daily role’; delivery of care was measured in the domains ‘patient satisfaction with the outcome of surgery’ and ‘would the patient have the same operation again’; ‘pain’; ‘revision’; ‘elbow function’; ‘independence in activities of daily living’; ‘health-related quality of life’; and ‘adverse events’. ‘Elbow range of motion’ was identified as important by consensus but was felt to be less relevant by the PPIE panel. The PPIE panel unanimously stated that pain should be used as the primary outcome domain. Conclusion. This study defined core domains for the clinical outcomes of elbow replacement obtained by consensus from patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Pain may be used as the primary outcome in future studies, where appropriate. Further work is required to define the instruments that should be used. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):xxx–xxx

Aims. Prophylactic antibiotic regimens for elective primary total hip and knee arthroplasty vary widely across hospitals and trusts in the UK. This study aimed to identify antibiotic prophylaxis regimens currently in use for elective primary arthroplasty across the UK, establish variations in antibiotic prophylaxis regimens and their impact on the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the first-year post-index procedure, and evaluate adherence to current international consensus guidance. Methods. The guidelines for the primary and alternative recommended prophylactic antibiotic regimens in clean orthopaedic surgery (primary arthroplasty) for 109 hospitals and trusts across the UK were sought by searching each trust and hospital’s website (intranet webpages), and by using the MicroGuide app. The mean cost of each antibiotic regimen was calculated using price data from the British National Formulary (BNF). Regimens were then compared to the 2018 Philadelphia Consensus Guidance, to evaluate adherence to international guidance. Results. The primary choice and dosing of the prophylactic antimicrobial regimens varied widely. The two most used regimens were combined teicoplanin and gentamicin, and cefuroxime followed by two or three doses of cefuroxime eight-hourly, recommended by 24 centres (22.02%) each. The alternative choice and dosing of the prophylactic antimicrobial regimen also varied widely across the 83 centres with data available. Prophylaxis regimens across some centres fail to cover the likeliest causes of surgical site infection (SSI). Five centres (4.59%) recommend co-amoxiclav, which confers no Staphylococcus coverage, while 33 centres (30.28%) recommend cefuroxime, which confers no Enterococcus coverage. Limited adherence to 2018 Philadelphia Consensus Guidance was observed, with 67 centres (61.50%) not including a cephalosporin in their guidance. Conclusion. This analysis of guidance on antimicrobial prophylaxis in primary arthroplasty across 109 hospitals and trusts in the UK has identified widespread variation in primary and alternative antimicrobial regimens currently recommended. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):742–749

Aims. Perthes’ disease is an idiopathic avascular necrosis of the developing femoral head, often causing deformity that impairs physical function. Current treatments aim to optimize the joint reaction force across the hip by enhancing congruency between the acetabulum and femoral head. Despite a century of research, there is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment. The aim of this study was to describe the experiences of children, their families, and clinicians when considering the treatment of Perthes’ disease. Methods. A qualitative study gathered information from children and their families affected by Perthes’ disease, along with treating clinicians. Interviews followed a coding framework, with the interview schedule informed by behavioural theory and patient and public involvement. Transcripts were analyzed using the framework method. Results. A total of 24 interviews took place, with 12 child/family dyads and 12 clinicians from UK NHS centres. Interviews identified widespread variation of routine care. Children/their families recounted positive experiences when included in the decision-making process for treatment. There is a strong desire from clinicians and children/families for consistent guidance from everyone involved in care, which should be based on clinical consensus. Conclusion. This is the first study to describe how children/families and clinicians experienced receiving or providing treatment in Perthes’ disease. The results indicate the need for robust evidence to support treatment decisions. Children and families valued feeling involved in the clinical decision-making process. Clinicians acknowledged the central importance of providing patient-centred care, particularly in the absence of robust evidence to guide the optimal treatment decisions. This study will inform a future Delphi project to develop clinical consensus guidelines for the treatment of Perthes’ disease. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):735–741

Aims. To identify the minimum set of outcomes that should be collected in clinical practice and reported in research related to the care of children with idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV). Methods. A list of outcome measurement tools (OMTs) was obtained from the literature through a systematic review. Further outcomes were collected from patients and families through a questionnaire and interview process. The combined list, as well as the appropriate follow-up timepoint, was rated for importance in a two-round Delphi process that included an international group of orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists, nurse practitioners, patients, and families. Outcomes that reached no consensus during the Delphi process were further discussed and scored for inclusion/exclusion in a final consensus meeting involving international stakeholder representatives of practitioners, families, and patient charities. Results. In total, 39 OMTs were included from the systematic review. Two additional OMTs were identified from the interviews and questionnaires, and four were added after round one Delphi. Overall, 22 OMTs reached ‘consensus in’ during the Delphi and two reached ‘consensus out’; 21 OMTs reached ‘no consensus’ and were included in the final consensus meeting. In all, 21 participants attended the consensus meeting, including a wide diversity of clubfoot practitioners, parent/patient representative, and an independent chair. A total of 21 outcomes were discussed and voted upon; six were voted ‘in’ and 15 were voted ‘out’. The final COS document includes nine OMTs and two existing outcome scores with a total of 31 outcome parameters to be collected after a minimum follow-up of five years. It incorporates static and dynamic clinical findings, patient-reported outcome measures, and a definition of CTEV relapse. Conclusion. We have defined a minimum set of outcomes to draw comparisons between centres and studies in the treatment of CTEV. With the use of these outcomes, we hope to allow more meaningful research and a better clinical management of CTEV. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):98–106

Aims. The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. Methods. The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds. Results. The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively. Conclusion. The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431

Aims. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set of what to measure in all future clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries in adults. Methods. Phase 1 consisted of steps to identify potential outcome domains through systematic review of published studies, and exploration of the patient perspective through qualitative research, consisting of 25 semi-structured interviews and five focus groups. Phase 2 involved key stakeholder groups (patients, hand surgeons, and hand therapists) prioritizing the outcome domains via a three-round international Delphi survey, with a final consensus meeting to agree the final core outcome set. Results. The systematic review of 160 studies identified 74 outcome domains based on the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Overall, 35 domains were generated through thematic analysis of the patient interviews and focus groups. The domains from these elements were synthesised to develop 37 outcome domains as the basis of the Delphi survey, with a further four generated from participant suggestions in Round 1. The Delphi survey identified 20 outcome domains as ‘very important’ for the core outcome set. At the consensus meeting, 27 participants from key stakeholder groups selected seven outcomes for the core outcome set: pain/discomfort with activity, pain/discomfort with rest, fine hand use/dexterity, self-hygiene/personal care, return to usual work/job, range of motion, and patient satisfaction with outcome/result. Conclusion. This set of core outcome domains is recommended as a minimum to be reported in all clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries in adults. While this establishes what to measure, future work will focus on determining how best to measure these outcomes. By adopting this patient-centred core outcome set, consistency and comparability of studies will be improved, aiding meta-analysis and strengthening the evidence base for management of these common and impactful injuries. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):87–95

Aims. To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. Results. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to ten years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Conclusion. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):72–78

Aims. Multiple secondary surgical procedures of the shoulder, such as soft-tissue releases, tendon transfers, and osteotomies, are described in brachial plexus birth palsy (BPBP) patients. The long-term functional outcomes of these procedures described in the literature are inconclusive. We aimed to analyze the literature looking for a consensus on treatment options. Methods. A systematic literature search in healthcare databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, CINAHL, and Web of Science) was performed from January 2000 to July 2020, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The quality of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane ROBINS-I risk of bias tool. Relevant trials studying BPBP with at least five years of follow-up and describing functional outcome were included. Results. Of 5,941 studies, 19 were included after full-text screening. A total of 15 surgical techniques were described. All studies described an improvement in active external rotation (range 12° to 128°). A decrease in range of motion and Mallet score after long-term (five to 30 years) follow-up compared to short-term follow-up was seen in most studies. Conclusion. The literature reveals that functional outcome increases after different secondary procedures, even in the long term. Due to the poor methodological quality of the included studies and the variations in indication for surgery and surgical techniques described, a consensus on the long-term functional outcome after secondary surgical procedures in BPBP patients cannot be made. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):455–464

Aims. The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). Results. The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. Conclusion. The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753–758

Aims. Return to sport following undergoing total (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been researched with meta-analyses and systematic reviews of varying quality. The aim of this study is to create an umbrella review to consolidate the data into consensus guidelines for returning to sports following TKA and UKA. Methods. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses written between 2010 and 2020 were systematically searched. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers and methodology quality was assessed. Variables for analysis included objective classification of which sports are safe to participate in postoperatively, time to return to sport, prognostic indicators of returning, and reasons patients do not. Results. A total of 410 articles were found, including 58 duplicates. Seven articles meeting inclusion criteria reported that 34% to 100% of patients who underwent TKA or UKA were able to return to sports at 13 weeks and 12 weeks respectively, with UKA patients more likely to do so. Prior experience with the sport was the most significant prognostic indicator for return. These patients were likely to participate in low-impact sports, particularly walking, cycling, golf, and swimming. Moderate-impact sport participation, such as doubles tennis and skiing, may be considered on a case-by-case basis considering the patient’s prior experience. There is insufficient long-term data on the risks to return to high-impact sport, such as decreased implant survivorship. Conclusion. There is a consensus that patients can return to low-impact sports following TKA or UKA. Return to moderate-impact sport was dependent on a case-by-case basis, with emphasis on the patient’s prior experience in the sport. Return to high-impact sports was not supported. Patients undergoing UKA return to sport one week sooner and with more success than TKA. Future studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes following return to high-impact sports to establish evidence-based recommendations. This review summarizes all available data for the most up-to-date and evidence-based guidelines for returning to sport following TKA and UKA to replace guidelines based on subjective physician survey data. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):245–251

The February 2024 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Do patients with hypoallergenic total knee arthroplasty implants for metal allergy do worse? An analysis of healthcare utilizations and patient-reported outcome measures; Defining a successful total knee arthroplasty; Incidence, microbiological studies, and factors associated with periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty; A modified Delphi consensus statement on patellar instability; Cause for concern? Significant cement coverage in retrieved metaphyseal cones after revision total knee arthroplasty; Prevalence of post-traumatic osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament injury remains high despite advances in surgical techniques; Cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy for traumatic meniscal tears in patients aged under 45 years

The August 2024 Children’s orthopaedics Roundup. 360. looks at: Antibiotic prophylaxis and infection rates in paediatric supracondylar humerus fractures; Clinical consensus recommendations for the non-surgical treatment of children with Perthes’ disease in the UK; Health-related quality of life in idiopathic toe walkers: a multicentre prospective cross-sectional study; Children with spinal dysraphism: a systematic review of reported outcomes; No delay in age of crawling, standing, or walking with Pavlik harness treatment: a prospective cohort study; No value found with routine early postoperative radiographs after implant removal in paediatric patients; What do we know about the natural history of spastic hip dysplasia and pain in total-involvement cerebral palsy?; Evaluating the efficacy and safety of preoperative gallows traction for hip open reduction in infants

The October 2023 Children’s orthopaedics Roundup. 360. looks at: Outcomes of open reduction in children with developmental hip dislocation: a multicentre experience over a decade; A torn discoid lateral meniscus impacts lower-limb alignment regardless of age; Who benefits from allowing the physis to grow in slipped capital femoral epiphysis?; Consensus guidelines on the management of musculoskeletal infection affecting children in the UK; Diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip by ultrasound imaging using deep learning; Outcomes at a mean of 13 years after proximal humeral fracture during adolescence; Clubfeet treated according to Ponseti at four years; Controlled ankle movement boot provides improved outcomes with lower complications than short leg walking cast

Aims. The aim of this study is to develop a core set of outcome domains that should be considered and reported in all future trials of childhood limb fractures. Methods. A four-phase study was conducted to agree a set of core outcome domains. Identification of candidate outcome domains were identified through systematic review of trials, and outcome domains relevant to families were identified through semi-structured interviews with 20 families (parent-child pairing or group). Outcome domains were prioritized using an international three-round Delphi survey with 205 panellists and then condensed into a core outcome set through a consensus workshop with 30 stakeholders. Results. The systematic review and interviews identified 85 outcome domains as relevant to professionals or families. The Delphi survey prioritized 30 upper and 29 lower limb outcome domains at first round, an additional 17 upper and 18 lower limb outcomes at second round, and four additional outcomes for upper and lower limb at the third round as important domains. At the consensus workshop, the core outcome domains were agreed as: 1) pain and discomfort; 2) return to physical and recreational activities; 3) emotional and psychosocial wellbeing; 4) complications from the injury and treatment; 5) rturn to baseline activities daily living; 6) participation in learning; 7) appearance and deformity; and 8) time to union. In addition, 9a) recovery of mobility and 9b) recovery of manual dexterity was recommended as a core outcome for lower and upper limb fractures, respectively. Conclusion. This set of core outcome domains is recommended as a minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials. It is not an exhaustive set and further work is required to identify what outcome tools should be used to measure each of these outcomes. Adoption of this outcome set will improve the consistency of research for these children that can be combined for more meaningful meta-analyses and policy development. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1821–1830

The April 2023 Children’s orthopaedics Roundup. 360. looks at: CT scan of the ipsilateral femoral neck in paediatric shaft fractures; Meniscal injuries in skeletally immature children with tibial eminence fractures: a systematic literature review; Post-maturity progression in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves of 40° to 50°; Prospective, randomized Ponseti treatment for clubfoot: orthopaedic surgeons versus physical therapists; FIFA 11+ Kids: challenges in implementing a prevention programme; The management of developmental dysplasia of the hip in children aged under three months: a consensus study from the British Society for Children's Orthopaedic Surgery; Early investigation and bracing in developmental dysplasia of the hip impacts maternal wellbeing and breastfeeding; Hip arthrodesis in children: a review of 26 cases with a mean of 20 years’ follow-up

The February 2023 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Machine-learning models: are all complications predictable?; Positive cultures can be safely ignored in revision arthroplasty patients that do not meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting Criteria; Spinal versus general anaesthesia in contemporary primary total knee arthroplasty; Preoperative pain and early arthritis are associated with poor outcomes in total knee arthroplasty; Risk factors for infection and revision surgery following patellar tendon and quadriceps tendon repairs; Supervised versus unsupervised rehabilitation following total knee arthroplasty; Kinematic alignment has similar outcomes to mechanical alignment: a systematic review and meta-analysis; Lifetime risk of revision after knee arthroplasty influenced by age, sex, and indication; Risk factors for knee osteoarthritis after traumatic knee injury