Aims. The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results. Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion. The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350

Aims. The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic is directly impacting the field of orthopaedic surgery and traumatology with postponed operations, changed status of planned elective surgeries and acute emergencies in patients with unknown infection status. To this point, Germany's COVID-19 infection numbers and death rate have been lower than those of many other nations. Methods. This article summarizes the current regimen used in the field of orthopaedics in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. Internal university clinic guidelines, latest research results, expert consensus, and clinical experiences were combined in this article guideline. Results. Every patient, with and without symptoms, should be screened for COVID-19 before hospital admission. Patients should be assigned to three groups (infection status unknown, confirmed, or negative). Patients with unknown infection status should be considered as infectious. Dependent of the infection status and acuity of the symptoms, patients are assigned to a COVID-19-free or affected zone of the hospital. Isolation, hand hygiene, and personal protective equipment is essential. Hospital personnel directly involved in the care of COVID-19 patients should be tested on a weekly basis independently of the presence of clinical symptoms, staff in the COVID-19-free zone on a biweekly basis. Class 1a operation rooms with laminar air flow and negative pressure are preferred for surgery in COVID-19 patients. Electrocautery should only be utilized with a smoke suction system. In cases of unavoidable elective surgery, a self-imposed quarantine of 14 days is recommended prior to hospital admission. Conclusion. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, orthopaedic patients admitted to the hospital should be treated based on an interdisciplinary algorithm, strictly separating infectious and non-infectious cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:309–315

Aims

The evidence base within trauma and orthopaedics has traditionally favoured quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research can provide unique insights which illuminate patient experiences and perceptions of care. Qualitative methods reveal the subjective narratives of patients that are not captured by quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to quantify the level of qualitative research within the orthopaedic literature.

Benefits of early stabilization of femoral shaft fractures, in mitigation of pulmonary and other complications, have been recognized over the past decades. Investigation into the appropriate level of resuscitation, and other measures of readiness for definitive fixation, versus a damage control strategy have been ongoing. These principles are now being applied to fractures of the thoracolumbar spine, pelvis, and acetabulum. Systems of trauma care are evolving to encompass attention to expeditious and safe management of not only multiply injured patients with these major fractures, but also definitive care for hip and periprosthetic fractures, which pose a similar burden of patient recumbency until stabilized. Future directions regarding refinement of patient resuscitation, assessment, and treatment are anticipated, as is the potential for data sharing and registries in enhancing trauma system functionality.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):361–364.

Aims

The aim of this study was to establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and indications, if any, for medial patellofemoral complex (MPFC) repair in patients with patellar instability, using the modified Delphi approach.

The August 2023 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Achilles tendon rupture: surgery or conservative treatment for the high-demand patient?; First ray amputation in diabetic patients; Survival of ankle arthroplasty in the UK; First metatarsophalangeal joint fusion and flat foot correction; Intra-articular corticosteroid injections with or without hyaluronic acid in the management of subtalar osteoarthritis; Factors associated with nonunion of post-traumatic subtalar arthrodesis; The Mayo Prosthetic Joint Infection Risk Score for total ankle arthroplasty.

Aims

This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data.

Aims

The aim of this study was to establish consensus statements on medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction, anteromedialization tibial tubercle osteotomy, trochleoplasty, and rehabilitation and return to sporting activity in patients with patellar instability, using the modified Delphi process.

Aims

Open lower limb fracture is a life-changing injury affecting 11.5 per 100,000 adults each year, and causes significant morbidity and resource demand on trauma infrastructures. This study aims to identify what, and how, outcomes have been reported for people following open lower limb fracture over ten years.

Aims

Proximal femur fractures treatment can involve anterograde nailing with a single or double cephalic screw. An undesirable failure for this fixation is screw cut-out. In a single-screw nail, a tip-apex distance (TAD) greater than 25 mm has been associated with an increased risk of cut-out. The aim of the study was to examine the role of TAD as a risk factor in a cephalic double-screw nail.