Aims. The evidence base within trauma and orthopaedics has traditionally favoured quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research can provide unique insights which illuminate patient experiences and perceptions of care. Qualitative methods reveal the subjective narratives of patients that are not captured by quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to quantify the level of qualitative research within the orthopaedic literature. Methods. A bibliometric search of journals’ online archives and multiple databases was undertaken in March 2024, to identify articles using qualitative research methods in the top 12 trauma and orthopaedic journals based on the 2023 impact factor and SCImago rating. The bibliometric search was conducted and reported in accordance with the preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Results. Of the 7,201 papers reviewed, 136 included qualitative methods (0.1%). There was no significant difference between the journals, apart from Bone & Joint Open, which included 21 studies using qualitative methods, equalling 4% of its published articles. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that there is a very low number of qualitative research papers published within trauma and orthopaedic journals. Given the increasing focus on patient outcomes and improving the patient experience, it may be argued that there is a requirement to support both quantitative and qualitative approaches to orthopaedic research. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods may effectively address the complex and personal aspects of patients’ care, ensuring that outcomes align with patient values and enhance overall care quality

Aims

Most patients with advanced malignancy suffer bone metastases, which pose a significant challenge to orthopaedic services and burden to the health economy. This study aimed to assess adherence to the British Orthopaedic Oncology Society (BOOS)/British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) guidelines on patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) in the UK.

Implant-related infection is one of the leading reasons for failure in orthopaedics and trauma, and results in high social and economic costs. Various antibacterial coating technologies have proven to be safe and effective both in preclinical and clinical studies, with post-surgical implant-related infections reduced by 90% in some cases, depending on the type of coating and experimental setup used. Economic assessment may enable the cost-to-benefit profile of any given antibacterial coating to be defined, based on the expected infection rate with and without the coating, the cost of the infection management, and the cost of the coating. After reviewing the latest evidence on the available antibacterial coatings, we quantified the impact caused by delaying their large-scale application. Considering only joint arthroplasties, our calculations indicated that for an antibacterial coating, with a final user’s cost price of €600 and able to reduce post-surgical infection by 80%, each year of delay to its large-scale application would cause an estimated 35 200 new cases of post-surgical infection in Europe, equating to additional hospital costs of approximately €440 million per year. An adequate reimbursement policy for antibacterial coatings may benefit patients, healthcare systems, and related research, as could faster and more affordable regulatory pathways for the technologies still in the pipeline. This could significantly reduce the social and economic burden of implant-related infections in orthopaedics and trauma. Cite this article: C. L. Romanò, H. Tsuchiya, I. Morelli, A. G. Battaglia, L. Drago. Antibacterial coating of implants: are we missing something? Bone Joint Res 2019;8:199–206. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.85.BJR-2018-0316

The FRCS (Tr & Orth) examination has three components: MCQs, Vivas and Clinical Examination. The Vivas are further divided into four sections comprising Basic Science, Adult Pathology, Hands and Children’s Orthopaedics and Trauma. The Clinical Examination section is divided into Upper and Lower limb cases. The aim of this section in the Journal is to focus specifically on the trainees preparing for the exam and to cater to all the sections of the exam. The vision is to complete the cycle of all relevant exam topics (as per the syllabus) in four years

The FRCS (Tr & Orth) examination has three components: MCQs, Vivas and Clinical Examination. The Vivas are further divided into four sections comprising Basic Science, Adult Pathology, Hands and Children’s Orthopaedics and Trauma. The Clinical Examination section is divided into Upper and Lower limb cases. The aim of this section in the Journal is to focus specifically on the trainees preparing for the exam and to cater to all the sections of the exam. The vision is to complete the cycle of all relevant exam topics (as per the syllabus) in four years

The FRCS (Tr & Orth) examination has three components: MCQs, Vivas and Clinical Examination. The Vivas are further divided into four sections comprising Basic Science, Adult Pathology, Hands and Children’s Orthopaedics and Trauma. The Clinical Examination section is divided into Upper and Lower limb cases. The aim of this section in the Journal is to focus specifically on the trainees preparing for the exam and to cater to all the sections of the exam. The vision is to complete the cycle of all relevant exam topics (as per the syllabus) in four years

The FRCS (Tr & Orth) examination has three components: MCQs, Vivas and Clinical Examination. The Vivas are further divided into four sections comprising Basic Science, Adult Pathology, Hands and Children’s Orthopaedics and Trauma. The Clinical Examination section is divided into Upper and Lower limb cases. The aim of this section in the Journal is to focus specifically on the trainees preparing for the exam and to cater to all the sections of the exam. The vision is to complete the cycle of all relevant exam topics (as per the syllabus) in four years

We have developed a list of 281 competencies deemed to be of importance in the training of orthopaedic surgeons. A stratified, randomised selection of non-university orthopaedic surgeons rated each individual item on a scale 1 to 4 of increasing importance. Summary statistics across all respondents were given. The mean scores and . sd. s were computed. Secondary analyses were computed in general orthopaedics, paediatrics, trauma and adult reconstruction. Of the 156 orthopaedic surgeons approached 131 (84%) responded to the questionnaire. They rated 240 of the 281 items greater than 3.0 suggesting that competence in these was necessary by completion of training. Complex procedures were rated to be less important. The structure, delivery and implementation of the curriculum needs further study. Learning activities are ‘driven’ by the evaluation of competencies and thus competency-based learning may soon be in the forefront of training programmes

The FRCS (Tr & Orth) examination has three components: MCQs, Vivas and Clinical Examination. The Vivas are further divided into four sections comprising Basic Science, Adult Pathology, Hands and Children’s Orthopaedics and Trauma. The Clinical Examination section is divided into Upper and Lower limb cases. The aim of this section in the Journal is to focus specifically on the trainees preparing for the exam and to cater to all the sections of the exam. The vision is to complete the cycle of all relevant exam topics (as per the syllabus) in four years

The FRCS (Tr & Orth) examination has three components: MCQs, Vivas and Clinical Examination. The Vivas are further divided into four sections comprising Basic Science, Adult Pathology, Hands and Children’s Orthopaedics and Trauma. The Clinical Examination section is divided into Upper and Lower limb cases. The aim of this section in the Journal is to focus specifically on the trainees preparing for the exam and to cater to all the sections of the exam. The vision is to complete the cycle of all relevant exam topics (as per the syllabus) in four years

The FRCS (Tr & Orth) examination has three components: MCQs, Vivas and Clinical Examination. The Vivas are further divided into four sections comprising Basic Science, Adult Pathology, Hands and Children’s Orthopaedics and Trauma. The Clinical Examination section is divided into Upper and Lower limb cases. The aim of this section in the Journal is to focus specifically on the trainees preparing for the exam and to cater to all the sections of the exam. The vision is to complete the cycle of all relevant exam topics (as per the syllabus) in four years

The FRCS (Tr & Orth) examination has three components: MCQs, Vivas and Clinical Examination. The Vivas are further divided into four sections comprising Basic Science, Adult Pathology, Hands and Children’s Orthopaedics and Trauma. The Clinical Examination section is divided into Upper and Lower limb cases. The aim of this section in the Journal is to focus specifically on the trainees preparing for the exam and to cater to all the sections of the exam. The vision is to complete the cycle of all relevant exam topics (as per the syllabus) in four years

John Kirkup, the distinguished orthopaedic surgeon and archivist recently published a book describing the history of amputation. This annotation highlights the importance of this work and the particular relevance of many of its themes to current orthopaedic and trauma practice

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. The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results. Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion. The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350