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. This Delphi study assessed the challenges of diagnosing soft-tissue knee injuries (STKIs) in acute settings among orthopaedic healthcare stakeholders. Methods. This modified e-Delphi study consisted of three rounds and involved 32 orthopaedic healthcare stakeholders, including physiotherapists, emergency nurse practitioners, sports medicine physicians, radiologists, orthopaedic registrars, and orthopaedic consultants. The perceived importance of diagnostic components relevant to STKIs included patient and external risk factors, clinical signs and symptoms, special clinical tests, and diagnostic imaging methods. Each round required scoring and ranking various items on a ten-point Likert scale. The items were refined as each round progressed. The study produced rankings of perceived importance across the various diagnostic components. Results. In Round 1, the study revealed widespread variability in stakeholder opinions on diagnostic components of STKIs. Round 2 identified patterns in the perceived importance of specific items within each diagnostic component. Round 3 produced rankings of perceived item importance within each diagnostic component. Noteworthy findings include the challenges associated with accurate and readily available diagnostic methods in acute care settings, the consistent acknowledgment of the importance of adopting a patient-centred approach to diagnosis, and the transition from divergent to convergent opinions between Rounds 2 and 3. Conclusion. This study highlights the potential for a paradigm shift in acute STKI diagnosis, where variability in the understanding of STKI diagnostic components may be addressed by establishing a uniform, evidence-based framework for evaluating these injuries. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(11):984–991

Aims. It is unclear whether mortality outcomes differ for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery who are readmitted to the index hospital where their surgery was performed, or to another hospital. Methods. We analyzed linked hospital and death records for residents of New South Wales, Australia, aged ≥ 18 years who had an emergency readmission within 90 days following THA or TKA surgery between 2003 and 2022. Multivariable modelling was used to identify factors associated with non-index readmission and to evaluate associations of readmission destination (non-index vs index) with 90-day and one-year mortality. Results. Of 394,248 joint arthroplasty patients (THA = 149,456; TKA = 244,792), 9.5% (n = 37,431) were readmitted within 90 days, and 53.7% of these were admitted to a non-index hospital. Non-index readmission was more prevalent among patients who underwent surgery in private hospitals (60%). Patients who were readmitted for non-orthopaedic conditions (62.8%), were more likely to return to a non-index hospital compared to those readmitted for orthopaedic complications (39.5%). Factors associated with non-index readmission included older age, higher socioeconomic status, private health insurance, and residence in a rural or remote area. Non-index readmission was significantly associated with 90 day (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 2.05) and one-year mortality (aOR 1.31; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47). Associations between non-index readmission and mortality were similar for patients readmitted with orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic complications (90-day mortality aOR 1.61; 95% CI 0.98 to 2.64, and aOR 1.67; 95% CI 1.35 to 2.06, respectively). Conclusion. Non-index readmission was associated with increased mortality, irrespective of whether the readmission was for orthopaedic complications or other conditions. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(1):60–68

The December 2023 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Tissue integration and chondroprotective potential of acetabular labral augmentation with autograft tendon: study of a porcine model; The Irish National Orthopaedic Register under cyberattack: what happened, and what were the consequences?; An overview of machine learning in orthopaedic surgery: an educational paper; Beware of the fungus…; New evidence for COVID-19 in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery

Despite the vast quantities of published artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that target trauma and orthopaedic applications, very few progress to inform clinical practice. One key reason for this is the lack of a clear pathway from development to deployment. In order to assist with this process, we have developed the Clinical Practice Integration of Artificial Intelligence (CPI-AI) framework – a five-stage approach to the clinical practice adoption of AI in the setting of trauma and orthopaedics, based on the IDEAL principles (. https://www.ideal-collaboration.net/. ). Adherence to the framework would provide a robust evidence-based mechanism for developing trust in AI applications, where the underlying algorithms are unlikely to be fully understood by clinical teams. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(9):507–512

Aims. Weightbearing instructions after musculoskeletal injury or orthopaedic surgery are a key aspect of the rehabilitation pathway and prescription. The terminology used to describe the weightbearing status of the patient is variable; many different terms are used, and there is recognition and evidence that the lack of standardized terminology contributes to confusion in practice. Methods. A consensus exercise was conducted involving all the major stakeholders in the patient journey for those with musculoskeletal injury. The consensus exercise primary aim was to seek agreement on a standardized set of terminology for weightbearing instructions. Results. A pre-meeting questionnaire was conducted. The one-day consensus meeting, including patient representatives, identified three agreed terms only to be used in defining the weightbearing status of the patient: 1) non-weightbearing; 2) limited weightbearing; and 3) unrestricted weightbearing. Conclusion. This study represents the first and only exercise in standardizing rehabilitation terminology in orthopaedics, as agreed by all major stakeholders in the patient pathway and the patients themselves. The standardization of language allows for higher-quality and more accurate research to be conducted, and is one small part of the bigger picture in increasing the mobility of patients after orthopaedic injury or surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):1016–1020

Aims. This study aimed to assess the carbon footprint associated with total hip arthroplasty (THA) in a UK hospital setting, considering various components within the operating theatre. The primary objective was to identify actionable areas for reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable orthopaedic practices. Methods. Using a life-cycle assessment approach, we conducted a prospective study on ten cemented and ten hybrid THA cases, evaluating carbon emissions from anaesthetic room to recovery. Scope 1 and scope 2 emissions were considered, focusing on direct emissions and energy consumption. Data included detailed assessments of consumables, waste generation, and energy use during surgeries. Results. The carbon footprint of an uncemented THA was estimated at 100.02 kg CO2e, with a marginal increase to 104.89 kg CO2e for hybrid THA. Key contributors were consumables in the operating theatre (21%), waste generation (22%), and scope 2 emissions (38%). The study identified opportunities for reducing emissions, including instrument rationalization, transitioning to LED lighting, and improving waste-recycling practices. Conclusion. This study sheds light on the substantial carbon footprint associated with THA. Actionable strategies for reducing emissions were identified, emphasizing the need for sustainable practices in orthopaedic surgery. The findings prompt a critical discussion on the environmental impact of single-use versus reusable items in the operating theatre, challenging traditional norms to make more environmentally responsible choices. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):742–748

Aims. Orthopaedic surgery uses many varied instruments with high-speed, high-impact, thermal energy and sometimes heavy instruments, all of which potentially result in aerosolization of contaminated blood, tissue, and bone, raising concerns for clinicians’ health. This study quantifies the aerosol exposure by measuring the number and size distribution of the particles reaching the lead surgeon during key orthopaedic operations. Methods. The aerosol yield from 17 orthopaedic open surgeries (on the knee, hip, and shoulder) was recorded at the position of the lead surgeon using an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS; 0.5 to 20 μm diameter particles) sampling at 1 s time resolution. Through timestamping, detected aerosol was attributed to specific procedures. Results. Diathermy (electrocautery) and oscillating bone saw use had a high aerosol yield (> 100 particles detected per s) consistent with high exposure to aerosol in the respirable range (< 5 µm) for the lead surgeon. Pulsed lavage, reaming, osteotome use, and jig application/removal were medium aerosol yield (10 to 100 particles s. -1. ). However, pulsed lavage aerosol was largely attributed to the saline jet, osteotome use was always brief, and jig application/removal had a large variability in the associated aerosol yield. Suctioning (with/without saline irrigation) had a low aerosol yield (< 10 particles s. -1. ). Most surprisingly, other high-speed procedures, such as drilling and screwing, had low aerosol yields. Conclusion. This work suggests that additional precautions should be recommended for diathermy and bone sawing, such as enhanced personal protective equipment or the use of suction devices to reduce exposure. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(10):636–643

Aims. The principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) are the foundation of modern medical practice. Surgeons are familiar with the commonly used statistical techniques to test hypotheses, summarize findings, and provide answers within a specified range of probability. Based on this knowledge, they are able to critically evaluate research before deciding whether or not to adopt the findings into practice. Recently, there has been an increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze information and derive findings in orthopaedic research. These techniques use a set of statistical tools that are increasingly complex and may be unfamiliar to the orthopaedic surgeon. It is unclear if this shift towards less familiar techniques is widely accepted in the orthopaedic community. This study aimed to provide an exploration of understanding and acceptance of AI use in research among orthopaedic surgeons. Methods. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out on a sample of 12 orthopaedic surgeons. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. Results. The four intersecting themes identified were: 1) validity in traditional research, 2) confusion around the definition of AI, 3) an inability to validate AI research, and 4) cautious optimism about AI research. Underpinning these themes is the notion of a validity heuristic that is strongly rooted in traditional research teaching and embedded in medical and surgical training. Conclusion. Research involving AI sometimes challenges the accepted traditional evidence-based framework. This can give rise to confusion among orthopaedic surgeons, who may be unable to confidently validate findings. In our study, the impact of this was mediated by cautious optimism based on an ingrained validity heuristic that orthopaedic surgeons develop through their medical training. Adding to this, the integration of AI into everyday life works to reduce suspicion and aid acceptance. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):696–703

Aims. The aim of this study was to produce clinical consensus recommendations about the non-surgical treatment of children with Perthes’ disease. The recommendations are intended to support clinical practice in a condition for which there is no robust evidence to guide optimal care. Methods. A two-round, modified Delphi study was conducted online. An advisory group of children’s orthopaedic specialists consisting of physiotherapists, surgeons, and clinical nurse specialists designed a survey. In the first round, participants also had the opportunity to suggest new statements. The survey included statements related to ‘Exercises’, ‘Physical activity’, ‘Education/information sharing’, ‘Input from other services’, and ‘Monitoring assessments’. The survey was shared with clinicians who regularly treat children with Perthes’ disease in the UK using clinically relevant specialist groups and social media. A predetermined threshold of ≥ 75% for consensus was used for recommendation, with a threshold of between 70% and 75% being considered as ‘points to consider’. Results. A total of 40 participants took part in the first round, of whom 31 completed the second round. A total of 87 statements were generated by the advisory group and included in the first round, at the end of which 31 achieved consensus and were removed from the survey, and an additional four statements were generated. A total of 60 statements were included in the second round and 45 achieved the threshold for consensus from both rounds, with three achieving the threshold for ‘points to consider’. The recommendations predominantly included self-management, particularly relating to advice about exercise and education for children with Perthes’ disease and their families. Conclusion. Children’s orthopaedic specialists have reached consensus on recommendations for non-surgical treatment in Perthes’ disease. These statements will support decisions made in clinical practice and act as a foundation to support clinicians in the absence of robust evidence. The dissemination of these findings and the best way of delivering this care needs careful consideration, which we will continue to explore. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):501–507

Aims. Tenosynovial giant cell tumour (TGCT) is a rare benign tumour of the musculoskeletal system. Surgical management is fraught with challenges due to high recurrence rates. The aim of this study was to describe surgical treatment and evaluate surgical outcomes of TGCT at an Australian tertiary referral centre for musculoskeletal tumours and to identify factors affecting recurrence rates. Methods. A prospective database of all patients with TGCT surgically managed by two orthopaedic oncology surgeons was reviewed. All cases irrespective of previous treatment were included and patients without follow-up were excluded. Pertinent tumour characteristics and surgical outcomes were collected for analysis. Results. There were 111 total cases included in the study; 71 (64%) were female, the mean age was 36 years (SD 13.6), and the knee (n = 64; 57.7%) was the most commonly affected joint. In all, 60 patients (54.1%) had diffuse-type (D-TGCT) disease, and 94 patients (84.7%) presented therapy-naïve as "primary cases" (PC). The overall recurrence rate was 46.8% for TGCT. There was a statistically significant difference in recurrence rates between D-TGCT and localized disease (75.0% vs 13.7%, relative risk (RR) 3.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.17 to 5.34; p < 0.001), and for those who were referred in the ”revision cases” (RC) group compared to the PC group (82.4% vs 48.9%, RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.28; p = 0.011). Age, sex, tumour volume, and mean duration of symptoms were not associated with recurrence (p > 0.05). Conclusion. Recurrence rates remain high even at a tertiary referral hospital. Highest rates are seen in D-TGCT and “revision cases”. Due to the risks of recurrence, the complexity of surgery, and the need for adjuvant therapy, this paper further supports the management of TGCT in a tertiary referral multi-disciplinary orthopaedic oncology service. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):846–852

The December 2022 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Halicin is effective against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in vitro; Synovial fluid and serum neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio: useful in septic arthritis?; Transcutaneous oximetry and wound healing; Orthopaedic surgery causes gut microbiome dysbiosis and intestinal barrier dysfunction; Mortality in alcohol-related cirrhosis: a nationwide population-based cohort study; Self-reported resistance training is associated with better bone microarchitecture in vegan people

The August 2023 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Can artificial intelligence improve the readability of patient education materials?; What is the value of radiology input during a multidisciplinary orthopaedic oncology conference?; Periprosthetic joint infection in patients with multiple arthroplasties; Orthopedic Surgery and Anesthesiology Surgical Improvement Strategies Project - Phase III outcomes; Knot tying in arthroplasty and arthroscopy causes lesions to surgical gloves: a potential risk of infection; Vascular calcification of the ankle in plain radiographs equals diabetes mellitus?

The June 2023 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Characterizing recurrent infections after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the knee; Predicted waiting times for orthopaedic surgery: an urgent need to address the deficit in capacity; Vascular impulse technology versus elevation for reducing the swelling of upper and lower limb joint fractures; Desperate patients will accept higher risks; How long does it take to find a positive culture in periprosthetic joint infection?

The August 2024 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Does topical vancomycin prevent fracture-related infections in closed fractures undergoing open reduction and internal fixation? A randomized controlled trial; Is postoperative splinting advantageous after upper limb fracture surgery?; Does suprapatellar nailing resolve knee pain?; Locking versus non-locking plate fixation in comminuted talar neck fractures: a biomechanical study using cadaveric specimens; Revolutionizing recovery metrics: PROMIS versus SMFA in orthopaedic trauma care; Dorsal hook plating of patella fractures: reliable fixation and satisfactory outcomes; The impact of obesity on subtrochanteric femur fracture outcomes; Low-dose NSAIDs (ketorolac) and cytokine modulation in orthopaedic polytrauma: a detailed analysis

The April 2024 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Prevalence and characteristics of benign cartilaginous tumours of the shoulder joint; Is total-body MRI useful as a screening tool to rule out malignant progression in patients with multiple osteochondromas?; Effects of vancomycin and tobramycin on compressive and tensile strengths of antibiotic bone cement: a biomechanical study; Biomarkers for early detection of Charcot arthropathy; Strong association between growth hormone therapy and proximal tibial physeal avulsion fractures in children and adolescents; UK pregnancy in orthopaedics (UK-POP): a cross-sectional study of UK female trauma and orthopaedic surgeons and their experiences of pregnancy; Does preoperative weight loss change the risk of adverse outcomes in total knee arthroplasty by initial BMI classification?

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 subject of noise in the operating theatre was recognized as early as 1972 and has been compared to noise levels on a busy highway. While noise-induced hearing loss in orthopaedic surgery specifically has been recognized as early as the 1990s, it remains poorly studied. As a result, there has been renewed focus in this occupational hazard. Noise level is typically measured in decibels (dB), whereas noise adjusted for human perception uses A-weighted sound levels and is expressed in dBA. Mean operating theatre noise levels range between 51 and 75 dBA, with peak levels between 80 and 119 dBA. The greatest sources of noise emanate from powered surgical instruments, which can exceed levels as high as 140 dBA. Newer technology, such as robotic-assisted systems, contribute a potential new source of noise. This article is a narrative review of the deleterious effects of prolonged noise exposure, including noise-induced hearing loss in the operating theatre team and the patient, intraoperative miscommunication, and increased cognitive load and stress, all of which impact the surgical team’s overall performance. Interventions to mitigate the effects of noise exposure include the use of quieter surgical equipment, the implementation of sound-absorbing personal protective equipment, or changes in communication protocols. Future research endeavours should use advanced research methods and embrace technological innovations to proactively mitigate the effects of operating theatre noise. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1039–1043