Despite being one of the most common injuries around the elbow, the optimal treatment of olecranon fractures is far from established and stimulates debate among both general orthopaedic trauma surgeons and upper limb specialists. It is almost universally accepted that stable non-displaced fractures can be safely treated nonoperatively with minimal specialist input. Internal fixation is recommended for the vast majority of displaced fractures, with a range of techniques and implants to choose from. However, there is concern regarding the complication rates, largely related to symptomatic metalwork resulting in high rates of implant removal. As the number of elderly patients sustaining these injuries increases, we are becoming more aware of the issues associated with fixation in osteoporotic bone and the often fragile soft-tissue envelope in this group. Given this, there is evidence to support an increasing role for nonoperative management in this high-risk demographic group, even in those presenting with displaced and/or multifragmentary fracture patterns. This review summarizes the available literature to date, focusing predominantly on the management techniques and available implants for stable fractures of the olecranon. It also offers some insights into the potential avenues for future research, in the hope of addressing some of the pertinent questions that remain unanswered.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):112–123.

Aims. In 2013, we introduced a specialized, centralized, and interdisciplinary team in our institution that applied a standardized diagnostic and treatment algorithm for the management of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The hypothesis for this study was that the outcome of treatment would be improved using this approach. Patients and Methods. In a retrospective analysis with a standard postoperative follow-up, 95 patients with a PJI of the hip and knee who were treated with a two-stage exchange between 2013 and 2017 formed the study group. A historical cohort of 86 patients treated between 2009 and 2011 not according to the standardized protocol served as a control group. The success of treatment was defined according to the Delphi criteria in a two-year follow-up. Results. Patients in the study group had a significantly higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (3.9 vs 3.1; p = 0.009) and rate of previous revisions for infection (52.6% vs 36%; p = 0.025), and tended to be older (69.0 vs 66.2 years; p = 0.075) with a broader polymicrobial spectrum (47.3% vs 33.7%; p = 0.062). The rate of recurrent infection (3.1% vs 10.4%; p = 0.048) and the mean time interval between the two stages of the procedure (66.6 vs 80.7 days; p < 0.001) were reduced significantly in the study group compared with the control group. Conclusion. We were able to show that the outcome following the treatment of PJIs of the hip and knee is better when managed in a separate department with an interdisciplinary team using a standard algorithm

Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a well-known and potentially devastating complication. Clinicians have used many strategies in attempts to prevent dislocation since the introduction of THA. While the importance of postoperative care cannot be ignored, particular emphasis has been placed on preoperative planning in the prevention of dislocation. The strategies have progressed from more traditional approaches, including modular implants, the size of the femoral head, and augmentation of the offset, to newer concepts, including patient-specific component positioning combined with computer navigation, robotics, and the use of dual-mobility implants. As clinicians continue to pursue improved outcomes and reduced complications, these concepts will lay the foundation for future innovation in THA and ultimately improved outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):8–11.