Background

Approximately half of all hip fractures are displaced intracapsular fractures. The standard treatment for these fractures is either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty. The recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on hip fracture management recommends the use of ‘proven’ cemented stem arthroplasty with an Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of at least 3B (97% survival at three years). The Thompsons prosthesis is currently lacking an ODEP rating despite over 50 years of clinical use, likely due to the paucity of implant survival data. Nationally, adherence to these guidelines is varied as there is debate as to which prosthesis optimises patient outcomes.

The December 2013 Oncology Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Peri-articular resection fraught with complications; Navigated margins; Skeletal tumours and thromboembolism; Conditional survival in Ewing’s sarcoma; Reverse shoulders and tumour; For how long should we follow up sarcoma patients?; and already metastasised?

Hip fracture is a common injury associated with high mortality, long-term disability and huge socio-economic burden. Yet there has been relatively little research into best treatment, and evidence that has been generated has often been criticised for its poor quality. Here, we discuss the advances made towards overcoming these criticisms and the future directions for hip fracture research: how co-ordinating existing national infrastructures and use of now established clinical research networks will likely go some way towards overcoming the practical and financial challenges of conducting large trials. We highlight the importance of large collaborative pragmatic trials to inform decision/policy makers and the progress made towards reaching a consensus on a core outcome set to facilitate data pooling for evidence synthesis and meta-analysis.

These advances and future directions are a priority in order to establish the high-quality evidence base required for this important group of patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:875–9.

The need to demonstrate probity and fair market competition has increased scrutiny of the relationships between orthopaedic surgeons and the industry that supplies them with their tools and devices. Investigations and judgements from the US Department of Justice and the introduction of the AdvaMed and Eucomed codes have defined new boundaries for interactions between these groups. This article summarises the current interplay between orthopaedic surgeons and industry, and provides recommendations for the future.

Arthroscopy has become a routine surgical procedure, used as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool for the treatment of joint problems. This article discusses its origins and looks at how it is currently used.

Objectives

To review the current best surgical practice and detail a multi-disciplinary approach that could further reduce joint replacement infection.

Trauma and Orthopaedic care has been through a rapid evolution over the past few decades. This Editorial discusses some of the advances.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1–2.

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.

Worldwide rates of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are rising due to increased longevity of the population and the burden of osteoarthritis.

Revision TKA is a technically demanding procedure generating outcomes which are reported to be inferior to those of primary knee arthroplasty, and with a higher risk of complication. Overall, the rate of revision after primary arthroplasty is low, but the number of patients currently living with a TKA suggests a large potential revision healthcare burden.

Many patients are now outliving their prosthesis, and consideration must be given to how we are to provide the necessary capacity to meet the rising demand for revision surgery and how to maximise patient outcomes.

The purpose of this review was to examine the epidemiology of, and risk factors for, revision knee arthroplasty, and to discuss factors that may enhance patient outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:723–8.

The February 2015 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Syndesmosis screw removal in randomised controlled trial; Diagnostic value of Hawkins sign; Chevron rules supreme?; Diabetes and ankle replacement; Fixed-bearing ankle replacement; Fusion for osteomyelitis of the ankle; ‘Reformed’ fallers.

The February 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Hip arthroplasty in Down syndrome; Bulk femoral autograft successful in acetabular reconstruction; Arthroplasty follow-up: is the internet the solution?; Total hip arthroplasty following acetabular fracture; Salvage arthroplasty following failed hip internal fixation; Bone banking sensible financially and clinically; Allogenic blood transfusion in arthroplasty.

The April 2015 Wrist & Hand Roundup360 looks at: Non-operative hand fracture management; From the sublime to the ridiculous?; A novel approach to carpal tunnel decompression; Osteoporosis and functional scores in the distal radius; Ulnar variance and force distribution; Tourniquets in carpal tunnel under the spotlight; Scaphoid fractures reclassified; Osteoporosis and distal radial fracture fixation; PROMISing results in the upper limb

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of training on the arthroscopic performance of a group of medical students and to determine whether all students could be trained to competence. Thirty-three medical students with no previous experience of arthroscopy were randomised to a ‘Trained’ or an ‘Untrained’ cohort. They were required to carry out 30 episodes of two simulated arthroscopic tasks (one shoulder and one knee). The primary outcome variable was task success at each episode. Individuals achieved competence when their learning curve stabilised. The secondary outcome was technical dexterity, assessed objectively using a validated motion analysis system. Six subjects in the ‘Untrained’ cohort failed to achieve competence in the shoulder task, compared with one in the ‘Trained’ cohort. During the knee task, two subjects in each cohort failed to achieve competence. Based on the objective motion analysis parameters, the ‘Trained’ cohort performed better on the shoulder task (p < 0.05) but there was no significant difference for the knee task (p > 0.05).

Although specific training improved the arthroscopic performance of novices, there were individuals who could not achieve competence despite focused training.These findings may have an impact on the selection process for trainees and influence individual career choices.