Acute bone and joint infections in children are serious, and misdiagnosis can threaten limb and life. Most young children who present acutely with pain, limping, and/or loss of function have transient synovitis, which will resolve spontaneously within a few days. A minority will have a bone or joint infection. Clinicians are faced with a diagnostic challenge: children with transient synovitis can safely be sent home, but children with bone and joint infection require urgent treatment to avoid complications. Clinicians often respond to this challenge by using a series of rudimentary decision support tools, based on clinical, haematological, and biochemical parameters, to differentiate childhood osteoarticular infection from other diagnoses. However, these tools were developed without methodological expertise in diagnostic accuracy and do not consider the importance of imaging (ultrasound scan and MRI). There is wide variation in clinical practice with regard to the indications, choice, sequence, and timing of imaging. This variation is most likely due to the lack of evidence concerning the role of imaging in acute bone and joint infection in children. We describe the first steps of a large UK multicentre study, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, which seeks to integrate definitively the role of imaging into a decision support tool, developed with the assistance of individuals with expertise in the development of clinical prediction tools.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):227–229.

The management of symptomatic osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs) can be challenging. The number of ways of treating these lesions has increased considerably during the last decade, with published studies often providing conflicting, low-level evidence. This paper aims to present an up-to-date concise overview of the best evidence for the surgical treatment of OLTs. Management options are reviewed based on the size of the lesion and include bone marrow stimulation, bone grafting options, drilling techniques, biological preparations, and resurfacing. Although many of these techniques have shown promising results, there remains little high level evidence, and further large scale prospective studies and systematic reviews will be required to identify the optimal form of treatment for these lesions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):207–212.

We recently published a paper comparing the incidence of adverse outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). The conclusion of this study, which was in favour of UKA, was dismissed as “biased” in a review in Bone & Joint 360. Although this study is one of the least biased comparisons of UKA and TKA, this episode highlights the biases that exist both for and against UKA. In this review, we explore the different types of bias, particularly selection, reporting and measurement. We conclude that comparisons between UKA and TKA are open to bias. These biases can be so marked, particularly in comparisons based just on national registry data, that the conclusions can be misleading. For a fair comparison, data from randomised studies or well-matched, prospective observational cohort studies, which include registry data, are required, and multiple outcome measures should be used. The data of this type that already exist suggest that if UKA is used appropriately, compared with TKA, its advantages outweigh its disadvantages.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:12–15.

There is a trend towards the use of double-bundle techniques for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. This has not been substantiated scientifically. The functional outcome of these techniques is equivalent to that of single-bundle methods. The main advantage of a double-bundle rather than a single-bundle reconstruction should be a better rotational stability, but the validity and accuracy of systems for the measurement of rotational stability have not been confirmed.

Despite the enthusiasm of surgeons for the double-bundle technique, reconstruction with a single-bundle should remain the standard method for managing deficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament until strong evidence in favour of the use of the double-bundle method is available.