Aims. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are common orthopaedic procedures requiring postoperative radiographs to confirm implant positioning and identify complications. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based image analysis has the potential to automate this postoperative surveillance. The aim of this study was to prepare a scoping review to investigate how AI is being used in the analysis of radiographs following THA and TKA, and how accurate these tools are. Methods. The Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed libraries were systematically searched to identify relevant articles. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O’Malley framework were followed. Study quality was assessed using a modified Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool. AI performance was reported using either the area under the curve (AUC) or accuracy. Results. Of the 455 studies identified, only 12 were suitable for inclusion. Nine reported implant identification and three described predicting risk of implant failure. Of the 12, three studies compared AI performance with orthopaedic surgeons. AI-based implant identification achieved AUC 0.992 to 1, and most algorithms reported an accuracy > 90%, using 550 to 320,000 training radiographs. AI prediction of dislocation risk post-THA, determined after five-year follow-up, was satisfactory (AUC 76.67; 8,500 training radiographs). Diagnosis of hip implant loosening was good (accuracy 88.3%; 420 training radiographs) and measurement of postoperative acetabular angles was comparable to humans (mean absolute difference 1.35° to 1.39°). However, 11 of the 12 studies had several methodological limitations introducing a high risk of bias. None of the studies were externally validated. Conclusion. These studies show that AI is promising. While it already has the ability to analyze images with significant precision, there is currently insufficient high-level evidence to support its widespread clinical use. Further research to design robust studies that follow standard reporting guidelines should be encouraged to develop AI models that could be easily translated into real-world conditions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):929–937

Orthopaedic surgeons are currently faced with an overwhelming number of choices surrounding total knee arthroplasty (TKA), not only with the latest technologies and prostheses, but also fundamental decisions on alignment philosophies. From ‘mechanical’ to ‘adjusted mechanical’ to ‘restricted kinematic’ to ‘unrestricted kinematic’ — and how constitutional alignment relates to these — there is potential for ambiguity when thinking about and discussing such concepts. This annotation summarizes the various alignment strategies currently employed in TKA. It provides a clear framework and consistent language that will assist surgeons to compare confidently and contrast the concepts, while also discussing the latest opinions about alignment in TKA. Finally, it provides suggestions for applying consistent nomenclature to future research, especially as we explore the implications of 3D alignment patterns on patient outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):102–108

Paediatric bone sarcomas are a dual challenge for orthopaedic surgeons in terms of tumour resection and reconstruction, as it is important to minimize functional and growth problems without compromising survival rates. Cañadell’s technique consists of a Type I epiphysiolysis performed using continuous distraction by an external fixator prior to resection. It was designed to achieve a safe margin due to the ability of the physeal cartilage to be a barrier to tumour spread in some situations, avoiding the need for articular reconstruction, and preserving the growth capacity most of the times. Despite initial doubts raised in the scientific community, this technique is now widely used in many countries for the treatment of metaphyseal paediatric bone sarcomas. This annotation highlights the importance of Cañadell’s work and reviews the experience of applying it to bone sarcoma patients over the last 40 years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):11–16

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. Understanding of open fracture management is skewed due to reliance on small-number lower limb, specialist unit reports and large, unfocused registry data collections. To address this, we carried out the Open Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study, and report the demographic details and the initial steps of care for patients admitted with open fractures in the UK. Methods. Any patient admitted to hospital with an open fracture between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 was included, excluding phalanges and isolated hand injuries. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture. Demographic details, injury, fracture classification, and patient dispersal were detailed. Results. In total, 1,175 patients (median age 47 years (interquartile range (IQR) 29 to 65), 61.0% male (n = 717)) were admitted across 51 sites. A total of 546 patients (47.1%) were employed, 5.4% (n = 63) were diabetic, and 28.8% (n = 335) were smokers. In total, 29.0% of patients (n = 341) had more than one injury and 4.8% (n = 56) had two or more open fractures, while 51.3% of fractures (n = 637) occurred in the lower leg. Fractures sustained in vehicle incidents and collisions are common (38.8%; n = 455) and typically seen in younger patients. A simple fall (35.0%; n = 410) is common in older people. Overall, 69.8% (n = 786) of patients were admitted directly to an orthoplastic centre, 23.0% (n = 259) were transferred to an orthoplastic centre after initial management elsewhere, and 7.2% were managed outwith specialist units (n = 81). Conclusion. This study describes the epidemiology of open fractures in the UK. For a decade, orthopaedic surgeons have been practicing in a guideline-driven, network system without understanding the patient features, injury characteristics, or dispersal processes of the wider population. This work will inform care pathways as the UK looks to the future of trauma networks and guidelines, and how to optimize care for patients with open fractures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):746–752