Patients most at risk of osteoporosis are post-menopausal women. However, for many such women, presentation of osteoporosis is only made following their first fragility fracture. Often in the UK, osteoporosis investigation occurs following discharge, and any subsequent secondary prevention starts in the community. This may result in patients with osteoporosis not being investigated or not receiving correct prophylactic treatment.

143 post-menopausal women (av. age 77.7 years) starting secondary osteoporosis prophylaxis following fragility fractures requiring operative intervention were included in this retrospective study. Osteoporosis was defined by DEXA scan using the WHO criteria (122 hip fractures and 21 wrist fractures), following the UK's national guidelines for osteoporosis prophylaxis. Treatment was started following discussion and explanation of treatment with each patient, and either commenced by the surgical team during the acute hospital admission with the fracture, or in an out-patient setting within 6 weeks of the fracture by an orthopaedic specialist nurse. To check compliance, either the patient themselves or the patients' family physician was contacted.

Results showed that 120 of the women (83.9%, 102 hip fractures, and 18 wrist fractures) were still compliant with secondary osteoporosis prophylaxis at an average follow-up of 200 days (5 hip fractures lost to follow-up, 0 wrist fractures). 12 women with hip fractures died (0 wrist fractures), and 6 women stopped taking their prophylaxis (3 hip fractures, 3 wrist fractures): 4 for medical reasons, and 2 for unknown reasons. No women sustained further fractures.

Few studies have previously investigated compliance of osteoporosis secondary prevention, and our results compare favorably. We therefore recommend the prompt commencement of secondary prevention treatment by the orthopaedic surgical team following osteoporotic fractures.

Aims. This study evaluated variation in the surgical treatment of stable (A1) and unstable (A2) trochanteric hip fractures among an international group of orthopaedic surgeons, and determined the influence of patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics on choice of implant (intramedullary nailing (IMN) versus sliding hip screw (SHS)). Methods. A total of 128 orthopaedic surgeons in the Science of Variation Group evaluated radiographs of 30 patients with Type A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures and indicated their preferred treatment: IMN or SHS. The management of Type A3 (reverse obliquity) trochanteric fractures was not evaluated. Agreement between surgeons was calculated using multirater kappa. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess whether patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics were independently associated with choice of implant. Results. The overall agreement between surgeons on implant choice was fair (kappa = 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.28)). Factors associated with preference for IMN included USA compared to Europe or the UK (Europe odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.67); UK OR 0.16 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.22); p < 0.001); exposure to IMN only during training compared to surgeons that were exposed to both (only IMN during training OR 2.6 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.4); p < 0.001); and A2 compared to A1 fractures (Type A2 OR 10 (95% CI 8.4 to 12); p < 0.001). Conclusion. In an international cohort of orthopaedic surgeons, there was a large variation in implant preference for patients with A1 and A2 trochanteric fractures. This is due to surgeon bias (country of practice and aspects of training). The observation that surgeons favoured the more expensive implant (IMN) in the absence of convincing evidence of its superiority suggests that surgeon de-biasing strategies may be a useful focus for optimizing patient outcomes and promoting value-based healthcare. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):775–781

Aims. The purpose of this study was to develop a convolutional neural network (CNN) for fracture detection, classification, and identification of greater tuberosity displacement ≥ 1 cm, neck-shaft angle (NSA) ≤ 100°, shaft translation, and articular fracture involvement, on plain radiographs. Methods. The CNN was trained and tested on radiographs sourced from 11 hospitals in Australia and externally validated on radiographs from the Netherlands. Each radiograph was paired with corresponding CT scans to serve as the reference standard based on dual independent evaluation by trained researchers and attending orthopaedic surgeons. Presence of a fracture, classification (non- to minimally displaced; two-part, multipart, and glenohumeral dislocation), and four characteristics were determined on 2D and 3D CT scans and subsequently allocated to each series of radiographs. Fracture characteristics included greater tuberosity displacement ≥ 1 cm, NSA ≤ 100°, shaft translation (0% to < 75%, 75% to 95%, > 95%), and the extent of articular involvement (0% to < 15%, 15% to 35%, or > 35%). Results. For detection and classification, the algorithm was trained on 1,709 radiographs (n = 803), tested on 567 radiographs (n = 244), and subsequently externally validated on 535 radiographs (n = 227). For characterization, healthy shoulders and glenohumeral dislocation were excluded. The overall accuracy for fracture detection was 94% (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.98) and for classification 78% (AUC 0.68 to 0.93). Accuracy to detect greater tuberosity fracture displacement ≥ 1 cm was 35.0% (AUC 0.57). The CNN did not recognize NSAs ≤ 100° (AUC 0.42), nor fractures with ≥ 75% shaft translation (AUC 0.51 to 0.53), or with ≥ 15% articular involvement (AUC 0.48 to 0.49). For all objectives, the model’s performance on the external dataset showed similar accuracy levels. Conclusion. CNNs proficiently rule out proximal humerus fractures on plain radiographs. Despite rigorous training methodology based on CT imaging with multi-rater consensus to serve as the reference standard, artificial intelligence-driven classification is insufficient for clinical implementation. The CNN exhibited poor diagnostic ability to detect greater tuberosity displacement ≥ 1 cm and failed to identify NSAs ≤ 100°, shaft translations, or articular fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1348–1360

Aims. The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study was performed to provide clarity in open fracture management previously skewed by small, specialist centre studies and large, unfocused registry investigations. We report the current management metrics of open fractures across the UK. Method. Patients admitted to hospital with an open fracture (excluding phalanges or isolated hand injuries) between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 were included. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture software. All domains of the British Orthopaedic Association Standard for Open Fracture Management were recorded. Results. Across 51 centres, 1,175 patients were analyzed. Antibiotics were given to 754 (69.0%) in the emergency department, 240 (22.0%) pre-hospital, and 99 (9.1%) as inpatients. Wounds were photographed in 848 (72.7%) cases. Median time to first surgery was 16 hrs 14 mins (interquartile range (IQR) 8 hrs 29 mins to 23 hrs 19 mins). Complex injuries were operated on sooner (median 12 hrs 51 mins (IQR 4 hrs 36 mins to 21 hrs 14 mins)). Of initial procedures, 1,053 (90.3%) occurred between 8am and 8pm. A consultant orthopaedic surgeon was present at 1,039 (89.2%) first procedures. In orthoplastic centres, a consultant plastic surgeon was present at 465 (45.1%) first procedures. Overall, 706 (60.8%) patients required a single operation. At primary debridement, 798 (65.0%) fractures were definitively fixed, while 734 (59.8%) fractures had fixation and coverage in one operation through direct closure or soft-tissue coverage. Negative pressure wound therapy was used in 235 (67.7%) staged procedures. Following wound closure or soft-tissue cover, 509 (47.0%) patients received antibiotics for a median of three days (IQR 1 to 7). Conclusion. OPEN provides an insight into care across the UK and different levels of hospital for open fractures. Patients are predominantly operated on promptly, in working hours, and at specialist centres. Areas for improvement include combined patient review and follow-up, scheduled operating, earlier definitive soft-tissue cover, and more robust antibiotic husbandry. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1073–1080

Introduction. Knee arthroscopy can be used for ligamentous repair, reconstruction and to reduce burden of infection. Understanding and feeling confident with knee arthroscopy is therefore a highly important skillset for the orthopaedic surgeon. However, with limited training or experience, furthered by reduced practical education due to COVID-19, this skill can be under-developed amongst trainee surgeons. Methods. At a single institution, ten junior doctors (FY1 to CT2), were recruited as a part of a five, two-hour session, training programme utilising the Simbionix® ARTHRO Mentor knee arthroscopy simulator, supplemented alongside educational guidance with a consultant orthopaedic knee surgeon. All students had minimal to no levels of prior arthroscopic experience. Exercises completed included maintaining steadiness, image centring and orientation, probe triangulation, arthroscopic knee examination, removal of loose bodies and meniscectomy. Pre and post experience questionnaires and quantitative repeat analysis on simulation exercises were undertaken to identify levels of improvement. Results. Comparing pre and post experience questionnaires significant improvements in levels of confidence were noted in the following domains: naming arthroscopic instruments, port positioning and insertion, recognising normal anatomy arthroscopically, holding and using arthroscopic instruments and assisting in a live theatre setting (p<0.05). Significant improvements were also noted in time taken to complete and distance covered in metres, of the simulated exercises on repeat performance (p<0.05). Conclusion. Overall, with only five sessions under senior guidance, using a simulator such as the ARTHRO Mentor, significant improvements in both levels of confidence and skill can be developed even among individuals with no prior experience

Introduction. Activity scales are used throughout orthopaedics as a component of PROMs. Tegner Activity Scale is commonly used and is validated in various knee injuries in adults. It has a reading age of 18 years presenting an understanding problem for children. An alternative is HSS-PediFABS, but this looks at specific skills like running, cutting, pivoting rather than sporting level. Our aim was to determine if children understood TAS and whether their answers compared to how their parents scored them and determine if our suggested sporting levels were more appropriate for them. Method. We created a study form to compare levels given by children and their parent. We added our own suggested levels, with a reading age of 9, created by a discussion group of paediatric orthopaedic surgeons. Following ethics approval, a sample size was determined via power calculation. All patients over 7 and their parents presenting to the orthopaedic clinic at SCH over a 4-month period were asked to fill out the TAS, baseline questions and rank the new suggested sporting levels. Results. 51 patients and their parents were recruited, with a mean age of 13 (±0.31, 8–17). 35% female. The mean TAS score for children rating themselves was 7.04 (±0.32, 2–10) vs 6.43 (±0.37, 0–10) for parents rating the child (p=0.31). The average weekly activity time rated by children was 6.72 hours (±0.84, 0–30) vs 7.48 (±1.02, 0–36) rated by the parent (p=0.68). Our suggested levels for paediatric patients were ordered correctly by both groups (mode score). The mean new activity level for children was 4.9 (±0.24, 2–9) vs 4.81 (±0.26, 1–8) by their parent(p=0.79). The mean score difference for TAS was 1.42 vs 1.2 in the new score (p=0.38). Conclusion. Paediatric patients had difficulty understanding the TAS and there was poor agreement of activity levels between patients and parents

Introduction. It has been contentious whether an anatomic double-bundle technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR)is superior to that of a single-bundle technique. It has been hypothesized in the literature that the double-bundle technique could provide function closer to that of the anatomical knee joint. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes after single-bundle ACLR versus double-bundle ACLR. We hypothesized that the double-bundle technique would not be superior to the single-bundle technique. Methods. A retrospective, non-randomized, matched-paired comparative study was performed. Patients undergoing primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using either a double-bundle or single-bundle technique, between 2003 and 2008 were included and matched 1:1. Matching included age, sex, BMI, time from injury to surgery, side of injury and type of sport. Patients who underwent revision procedures, multiligament reconstruction or other ACLR techniques were excluded. Patients were subsequently followed up, noting occurrence of graft rupture and any other complications. Results. A total of 1377 ACLRs were performed during the study period. Seven hundred and fifty-six patients were excluded, leaving 396patients to be included in the matching (198 matched pairs). Mean follow-up time was 176.7 +/− 7.7 months (range, 166–211 months). Overall, 40 patients (10.1%) suffered from a graft rupture which consisted of 22 patients (11.1%) in the single-bundle group and 18patients (9.1%) in the double-bundle group. A multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox model and demonstrated that graft failure had no significant association with the surgical technique (hazard ratio (HR), 0.857(0.457;1.609), p=0.6313). (Figure 1) Five patients (2.5%) in the single-bundle group and 7 patients (3.5%) in the double-bundle group underwent secondary surgery for cyclops syndrome(p=0.5637). Three patients (1.5%) in the single-bundle group and 2 patients (1.0%) in the double-bundle group underwent arthrolysis(p=0.6547). Seven patients (3.5%) in the single-bundle group underwent secondary meniscectomy compared to 6 patients (3.0%) in the double-bundle group (p=0.7630). Conclusion. Double-bundle ACLR is not superior to single-bundle ACLR at long-term follow up. Therefore, orthopaedic surgeons do not need to use a double-bundle technique when performing ACL reconstruction. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

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

Aims

To investigate if preoperative CT improves detection of unstable trochanteric hip fractures.

Introduction. The case of Montgomery in 2015 considered standards of risk disclosure, whether alternative treatments had been discussed, standards of professional performance, and the importance of patient autonomy. Methods. A survey was devised to investigate orthopaedic surgeons' knowledge of the law of consent and risk disclosure and distributed by Survey Monkey. Results. 194 respondents from a total of 365 consultant orthopaedic surgeons contacted (53%). 85% of respondents were aware that Montgomery is primarily an obstetric case, 14.5% thought it was a spinal surgery case, and 1 respondent (0.5%) thought it was a paediatric surgery case. 99% correctly defined the Bolam test, but 57% erroneously believed that Bolam was still applicable in consent cases. 7% of respondents believed that it was not necessary to disclose a risk of surgery if the risk was less than 1%, and 4% of respondents if the risk was less than 10%. The legal test of materiality was correctly identified by 86% of respondents where a reasonable person in the patient's position would be likely to attach significance to the risk. 5% erroneously believed that provision of a standardised, printed information booklet provides sufficient risk disclosure for the individual patient to give their informed consent. 97% were aware that the surgeon must discuss reasonable alternative treatments including ‘no treatment’. Only 28% were aware that when a surgeon refers a patient for an interventional radiology procedure, it is the referring doctor who should formally hold and document the initial consent discussion. Discussion. General awareness of Montgomery was satisfactory, including the need to discuss alternative treatments including ‘no treatment’, and the qualitative concept of material risk. There was less understanding that material risk is independent of any quantitative rate of occurrence. Over half of consultants erroneously believed that the Bolam test was still applicable in consent cases. Small numbers of respondents erroneously thought that an information booklet constituted sufficient information disclosure. There was widespread misunderstanding that if a consultant surgeon refers an individual for an interventional radiology investigation it is in fact for the referring doctor to hold the initial consent discussion. Further training is required in respect of several issues raised by Montgomery

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.

Aims

Occult (clinical) injuries represent 15% of all scaphoid fractures, posing significant challenges to the clinician. MRI has been suggested as the gold standard for diagnosis, but remains expensive, time-consuming, and is in high demand. Conventional management with immobilization and serial radiography typically results in multiple follow-up attendances to clinic, radiation exposure, and delays return to work. Suboptimal management can result in significant disability and, frequently, litigation.

Aims

Acetabular fractures are associated with long-term morbidity. Our prospective cohort study sought to understand the recovery trajectory of this injury over five years.

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics and outcomes associated with culture-negative limb osteomyelitis patients.

Aims

Despite limited clinical scientific backing, an additional trochanteric stabilizing plate (TSP) has been advocated when treating unstable trochanteric fractures with a sliding hip screw (SHS). We aimed to explore whether the TSP would result in less post operative fracture motion, compared to SHS alone.

Aims

This is a multicentre, prospective assessment of a proportion of the overall orthopaedic trauma caseload of the UK. It investigates theatre capacity, cancellations, and time to surgery in a group of hospitals that is representative of the wider population. It identifies barriers to effective practice and will inform system improvements.

Introduction. Hip fracture is a worldwide problem, not only as far as epidemiology is concerned but also regarding economical issues. Surgery is the current standard treatment. However owing to age, and patients co-morbidities complications are common. Surgical site infection is directly related to operative procedure, and surgeons' experience may be very important when making plans for outcome improvement. In this paper we study the role of hip surgeons versus general orthopaedic surgeons in relation to postoperative site infection. Operative hypothesis determines that hip surgeons have less infection rates than general orthopaedic surgeons. Null hypothesis that infection rates are rather the same. Material and Methods. In a prospective controlled cohort study 820 patients presenting with a hip fracture were randomizelly operated on by a group of orthopaedic surgeons of the same Hospital Department. Patients were then classified according to surgeons adscription either to a Hip Unit (Group A=215 cases) or not (Group B=605). Variables studied included age, gender, treatment (osteosynthesis or joint replacement), co-morbidities (according to Charlson, s index), and infection rate. Fisher, and Ranksum statistical tests, and simple and multiple logistic regression, for univariate and multivariate, analysis was performed. Results. 237 (28,93 %) patients were male, and 583 (71,06 %) females. Mean age for both groups was 77,58 years (r=16−105; group A=78, group B=81). 215 patients were included in group A, and 605 in group B. 534 (65.12%) underwent an osteosynthesis, and 272 (33,17%) a joint replacement. 14 patients were not operated. Both groups were homogeneous regarding gender, surgical technique, Charlson's index, and functional outcome (Fisher test p=0,777). 17 patients (2,073%) sustained a surgical site infection (group A=7 cases out of 215 [3,27%], and group B=10 cases out of 605 [1,65%]). Multivariate logistic regression showed that there was no relation between gender, surgical site infection, Charlson index, surgical technique, or groups (A or B). Only age was a determinant factor (Raksum test p=0,003; OR 95% CI=1,08, p=0,005). Conclusion. Since there are no differences in the outcomes between surgeons dedicated to a Hip Unit and general orthopaedic surgeons as far as postoperative surgical site infection is concerned, delaying operative treatment for hip fracture or creating a special Unit for that is unworthy. Only age appears as a significant variable

Aims

The purpose of this study was to determine the weightbearing practice of operatively managed fragility fractures in the setting of publically funded health services in the UK and Ireland.

Aims

We introduced a self-care pathway for minimally displaced distal radius fractures, which involved the patient being discharged from a Virtual Fracture Clinic (VFC) without a physical review and being provided with written instructions on how to remove their own cast or splint at home, plus advice on exercises and return to function.

Background. Hip fractures affect annually over 350,000 people in the USA and over 1.6 million worldwide. About 50% of these numbers are intertrochanteric fractures,. The surgeon should be able to minimize the morbidity associated with the fracture by: recognizing the fracture pattern, choosing the appropriate fixation device, performing accurate reductions with ideal implant placement and being conscious of implant costs. In this study we assessed the ability of the orthopaedic surgeons to recognize fractures pattern, and choosing the ideal implant for the recognized fracture. Methods. We assessed 134 orthopaedic surgeons with questionnaires that assessed 14 different intertrochanteric femoral fractures. We evaluated the fractures as stable or unstable. We chose for each fracture the appropriate fixation device: either a Dynamic Hip Screw (for stable fractures) or an Intra Medullary Nail (for unstable ones), taking into consideration fracture's stability and implants’ costs. We compared the answers of the assessed surgeons to ours. Results. 134 orthopaedic surgeons fulfilled our questionnaires. The average agreement among the assessed surgeons and the authors for fractures’ stability distributed as follows: 78.2% agreement for the stable fractures, 86.2% for the unstable fractures. The agreement for the appropriate fixator between both groups (authors and surgeons) distributed as follows: in choosing the dynamic hip screws for the stable fractures 79.6% agreed with our choice. When choosing the Intra Medullary Nail for the unstable fractures 72.4% of the surgeons agreed with our choice. Interestingly, surgeons that their subspecialty is orthopaedic trauma tended to use more the Intra Medullary Nails in the stable fractures compared to the other surgeons. Conclusions. The majority of the assessed surgeons know to recognise inertrochanteric fractures’ stability and to choose the appropriate fixation device. 20% of surgeons did not agree with our choices. Choosing an Intra Medullary Nail for the stable fracture is not a mistake, but the wrong fixation device for the unstable fracture may cause non-union, mal-union or hardware failure, and might complicate patients’ rehabilitation and cure. We believe that a team discussion should take place for each and any case before operation, and whenever there is a doubt about fractures stability, the Iintra Medullary Nail should be chosen