Aims. Management of displaced paediatric supracondylar elbow fractures remains widely debated and actual practice is unclear. This national trainee collaboration aimed to evaluate surgical and postoperative management of these injuries across the UK. Methods. This study was led by the South West Orthopaedic Research Division (SWORD) and performed by the Supra Man Collaborative. Displaced paediatric supracondylar elbow fractures undergoing surgery between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019 were retrospectively identified and their anonymized data were collected via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). Results. A total of 972 patients were identified across 41 hospitals. Mean age at injury was 6.3 years (1 to 15), 504 were male (52%), 583 involved the left side (60%), and 538 were Gartland type 3 fractures (55%). Median time from injury to theatre was 16 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 6.6 to 22), 300 patients (31%) underwent surgery on the day of injury, and 91 (9%) underwent surgery between 10:00 pm and 8:00 am. Overall, 910 patients (94%) had Kirschner (K)-wire) fixation and these were left percutaneous in 869 (95%), while 62 patients (6%) had manipulation under anaesthetic (MUA) and casting. Crossed K-wire configuration was used as fixation in 544 cases (59.5%). Overall, 208 of the fixation cases (61%) performed or supervised by a paediatric orthopaedic consultant underwent lateral-only fixation, whereas 153 (27%) of the fixation cases performed or supervised by a non-paediatric orthopaedic consultant used lateral-only fixation. In total, 129 percutaneous wires (16%) were removed in theatre. Of the 341 percutaneous wire fixations performed or supervised by a paediatric orthopaedic consultant, 11 (3%) underwent wire removal in theatre, whereas 118 (22%) of the 528 percutaneous wire fixation cases performed or supervised by a non-paediatric orthopaedic consultant underwent wire removal in theatre. Four MUA patients (6%) and seven K-wire fixation patients (0.8%) required revision surgery within 30 days for displacement. Conclusion. The treatment of supracondylar elbow fractures in children varies across the UK. Patient cases where a paediatric orthopaedic consultant was involved had an increased tendency for lateral only K-wire fixation and for wire removal in clinic. Low rates of displacement requiring revision surgery were identified in all fixation configurations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):82–87

Aims. As an increasing number of female surgeons are choosing orthopaedics, it is important to recognize the impact of pregnancy within this cohort. The aim of this review was to examine common themes and data surrounding pregnancy, parenthood, and fertility within orthopaedics. Methods. A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline, Emcare, Embase, PsycINFO, OrthoSearch, and the Cochrane Library in November 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis were adhered to. Original research papers that focused on pregnancy and/or parenthood within orthopaedic surgery were included for review. Results. Of 1,205 papers, 19 met the inclusion criteria. Our results found that orthopaedic surgeons have higher reported rates of obstetric complications, congenital abnormalities, and infertility compared to the general population. They were noted to have children at a later age and voluntarily delayed childbearing. Negative perceptions of pregnancy from fellow trainees and programme directors were identified. Conclusion. Female orthopaedic surgeons have high rates of obstetric complications and infertility. Negative perceptions surrounding pregnancy can lead to orthopaedic surgeons voluntarily delaying childbearing. There is a need for a pregnancy-positive culture shift combined with formalized guidelines and female mentorship to create a more supportive environment for pregnancy within orthopaedic surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):857–863

Aims. This study aimed to investigate the risk of postoperative complications in COVID-19-positive patients undergoing common orthopaedic procedures. Methods. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme (NSQIP) database, patients who underwent common orthopaedic surgery procedures from 1 January to 31 December 2021 were extracted. Patient preoperative COVID-19 status, demographics, comorbidities, type of surgery, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Propensity score matching was conducted between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. Multivariable regression was then performed to identify both patient and provider risk factors independently associated with the occurrence of 30-day postoperative adverse events. Results. Of 194,121 included patients, 740 (0.38%) were identified to be COVID-19-positive. Comparison of comorbidities demonstrated that COVID-19-positive patients had higher rates of diabetes, heart failure, and pulmonary disease. After propensity matching and controlling for all preoperative variables, multivariable analysis found that COVID-19-positive patients were at increased risk of several postoperative complications, including: any adverse event, major adverse event, minor adverse event, death, venous thromboembolism, and pneumonia. COVID-19-positive patients undergoing hip/knee arthroplasty and trauma surgery were at increased risk of 30-day adverse events. Conclusion. COVID-19-positive patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery had increased odds of many 30-day postoperative complications, with hip/knee arthroplasty and trauma surgery being the most high-risk procedures. These data reinforce prior literature demonstrating increased risk of venous thromboembolic events in the acute postoperative period. Clinicians caring for patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures should be mindful of these increased risks, and attempt to improve patient care during the ongoing global pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):704–712

Aims. Ankle fractures are common injuries and the third most common fragility fracture. In all, 40% of ankle fractures in the frail are open and represent a complex clinical scenario, with morbidity and mortality rates similar to hip fracture patients. They have a higher risk of complications, such as wound infections, malunion, hospital-acquired infections, pressure sores, veno-thromboembolic events, and significant sarcopaenia from prolonged bed rest. Methods. A modified Delphi method was used and a group of experts with a vested interest in best practice were invited from the British Foot and Ankle Society (BOFAS), British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), Orthopaedic Trauma Society (OTS), British Association of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgeons (BAPRAS), British Geriatric Society (BGS), and the British Limb Reconstruction Society (BLRS). Results. In the first stage, there were 36 respondents to the survey, with over 70% stating their unit treats more than 20 such cases per year. There was a 50:50 split regarding if the timing of surgery should be within 36 hours, as per the hip fracture guidelines, or 72 hours, as per the open fracture guidelines. Overall, 75% would attempt primary wound closure and 25% would utilize a local flap. There was no orthopaedic agreement on fixation, and 75% would permit weightbearing immediately. In the second stage, performed at the BLRS meeting, experts discussed the survey results and agreed upon a consensus for the management of open elderly ankle fractures. Conclusion. A mutually agreed consensus from the expert panel was reached to enable the best practice for the management of patients with frailty with an open ankle fracture: 1) all units managing lower limb fragility fractures should do so through a cohorted multidisciplinary pathway. This pathway should follow the standards laid down in the "care of the older or frail orthopaedic trauma patient" British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guideline. These patients have low bone density, and we should recommend full falls and bone health assessment; 2) all open lower limb fragility fractures should be treated in a single stage within 24 hours of injury if possible; 3) all patients with fragility fractures of the lower limb should be considered for mobilisation on the day following surgery; 4) all patients with lower limb open fragility fractures should be considered for tissue sparing, with judicious debridement as a default; 5) all patients with open lower limb fragility fractures should be managed by a consultant plastic surgeon with primary closure wherever possible; and 6) the method of fixation must allow for immediate unrestricted weightbearing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):236–242

Aims. Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme. Methods. We used a consensus process consisting of an evidence review to generate items for the guidelines and online consensus questionnaire and virtual face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the guidelines. Results. The consensus panel comprised 21 clinical experts in orthopaedics, primary care, rehabilitation, and healthcare commissioning. The final output from the consensus process was a 14-item guideline. The guidelines make recommendations regarding increased vigilance and monitoring of those at increased risk of infection; diagnosis including strategies to ensure the early recognition of prosthetic infection and referral to orthopaedic teams; treatment, including early use of DAIR and revision strategies; and postoperative management including appropriate physical and psychological support and antibiotic strategies. Conclusion. We believe the implementation of the INFORM guidelines will inform treatment protocols and clinical pathways to improve the treatment and management of periprosthetic hip infection. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(4):226–233

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. Diabetic foot care is a significant burden on the NHS in England. We have conducted a nationwide survey to determine the current participation of orthopaedic surgeons in diabetic foot care in England. Methods. A questionnaire was sent to all 136 NHS trusts audited in the 2018 National Diabetic Foot Audit (NDFA). The questionnaire asked about the structure of diabetic foot care services. Results. Overall, 123 trusts responded, of which 117 admitted patients with diabetic foot disease and 113 had an orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeon. A total of 90 trusts (77%) stated that the admission involved medicine, with 53 (45%) of these admissions being exclusively under medicine, and 37 (32%) as joint admissions. Of the joint admissions, 16 (14%) were combined with vascular and 12(10%) with orthopaedic surgery. Admission is solely under vascular surgery in 12 trusts (10%) and orthopaedic surgery in 7 (6%). Diabetic foot abscesses were drained by orthopaedic surgeons in 61 trusts (52%) and vascular surgeons in 47 (40%). Conclusion. Orthopaedic surgeons make a significant contribution to both acute and elective diabetic foot care currently in the UK. This contribution is likely to increase with the movement of vascular surgery to a hub and spoke model, and measures should be put in place to increase the team based approach to the diabetic foot, for example with the introduction of a best practice tariff. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):618–622