Aims. To develop a multidisciplinary health research agenda (HRA) utilizing expertise from various disciplines to identify and prioritize evidence uncertainties in orthopaedics, thereby reducing research waste. Methods. We employed a novel, structured framework to develop a HRA. We started by systematically collecting all evidence uncertainties from stakeholders with an interest in orthopaedic care, categorizing them into 13 sub-themes defined by the Dutch Orthopaedic Association (NOV). Subsequently, a modified two-phased Delphi study (two rounds per phase), adhering to the Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) guideline, was conducted. In Phase 1, board members assessed the collected evidence uncertainties on a three-point Likert scale to confirm knowledge gaps. In Phase 2, diverse stakeholders, including orthopaedic surgeons, rated the confirmed knowledge gaps on a seven-point Likert scale. Panel members rated one self-selected sub-theme and two randomly assigned sub-themes. The results from Phase 2 were ranked based on the overall average score for each uncertainty. Finally, a focus group discussion with patient associations’ representatives identified their top-ranked uncertainty from a predefined consensus process, leading to the final HRA. An advisory board, the Federation of Medical Specialists, and the NOV research coordinator oversaw the process. Results. Of the 687 collected evidence uncertainties, 160 (zero to 33 per theme) were confirmed by 41 panel members (three to five per theme). In Phase 2, 124 panel members prioritized 41 evidence uncertainties (zero to five per theme). The focus group members identified 12 key evidence uncertainties leading to the final HRA. The remaining 29 evidence uncertainties will be addressed after research on the HRA’s prioritized evidence uncertainty is completed. Conclusion. Our framework resulted in a multidisciplinary HRA, enabling an inclusive approach to consensus-building among healthcare professionals and patients on future research priorities within orthopaedic care. We anticipate this innovative framework will enhance inclusivity and transparency, leading to broader acceptance and optimized resource allocation, ultimately reducing research waste. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(2):206–214

Aims. The Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM), held in January 2024, convened 309 delegates from 53 countries to discuss and refine 21 consensus statements on the optimal management of chondrosarcoma. Methods. With representation from Europe (43%; n = 133), North America (17%; n = 53), South America (16%; n = 49), Asia (13%; n = 40), Australasia (5%; n = 16), the Middle East (4%; n = 12), and Africa (2%; n = 6), the combined experience of treating bone sarcomas among attendees totalled approximately 30,000 cases annually, equivalent to 66 years of experience in the UK alone. The meeting’s process began with the formation of a local organizing committee, regional leads, and a scientific committee comprising representatives from 150 specialist units across 47 countries. Supported by major orthopaedic oncology organizations, the meeting used a modified Delphi process to develop consensus statements through online questionnaires, thematic groupings, narrative reviews, and anonymous pre-meeting polling. Results. Strong (> 80%) consensus was achieved on 19 out of 21 statements, reflecting agreement among delegates. Key areas of consensus included the role of radiology in diagnosis and surveillance, the management of locally recurrent disease, and the treatment of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma. Notably, there was agreement that routine chemotherapy has no role in chondrosarcoma treatment, and radiological surveillance is safe for intraosseous chondrosarcomas. Despite the overall consensus, areas of controversy remain, particularly regarding the treatment of atypical cartilage tumours and surgical margins. These unresolved issues underscore the need for further research and collaboration within the orthopaedic oncology community. Conclusion. BOOM represents the largest global consensus meeting in orthopaedic oncology, providing valuable guidance for clinicians managing chondrosarcoma worldwide. The consensus statements offer a reference for clinical practice, highlight key research priorities, and aim to improve patient outcomes on a global scale. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(2):246–252

The February 2025 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is superior to plate fixation for displaced proximal humeral fractures in the elderly; Long-term outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for complex proximal humerus fractures; The RAND/UCLA algorithm does streamline the clinical decision-making process; Smoking negatively impacts long-term outcomes and survival after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty; Evaluating subscapularis tears: special tests lack sensitivity to tear severity and pain; Rotator cuff tear progression: insights into rates, risk factors, and the need for standardized reporting; Outcomes and complications of revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review; Prevalence and risk factors of glenohumeral chondral damage in shoulder instability: implications for early surgical stabilization.

Aims. This study aims to define a set of family-centred core outcomes for infants undergoing brace treatment to facilitate consistent reporting for future high-quality research. Methods. Family-centred outcomes will be identified through a literature review and a scoping survey involving key stakeholders, including parents, healthcare professionals, and researchers. These outcomes will then be rated for their perceived importance in a two-stage modified Delphi process with the same stakeholders. Finally, a consensus meeting will be held to establish the final core outcome set (COS). Conclusion. The impact of brace treatment on the family is profound, but seldom considered in randomized controlled trials. This COS can independently standardize reporting on the family’s experience, and potentially become part of a broader COS for developmental dysplasia of the hip in infants undergoing brace treatment. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;6(1):21–25

Aims. Prolonged waits for hip and knee arthroplasty have raised questions about the equity of current approaches to waiting list prioritization for those awaiting surgery. We therefore set out to understand key stakeholder (patient and surgeon) preferences for the prioritization of patients awaiting such surgery, in order to guide future waiting list redesign. Methods. A combined qualitative/quantitative approach was used. This comprised a Delphi study to first inform which factors patients and surgeons designate as important for prioritization of patients on hip and knee arthroplasty waiting lists, followed by a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine how the factors should be weighed against each other. Coefficient values for each included DCE attribute were used to construct a ‘priority score’ (weighted benefit score) that could be used to rank individual patients waiting for surgery based on their respective characteristics. Results. In total, 43 people participated in the initial round of the Delphi study (16 patients and 27 surgeons), with a 91% completion rate across all three rounds. Overall, 73 surgeons completed the DCE. Following the final consensus meeting of the Delphi component, the seven final factors designated for inclusion were Pain, Mobility/Function, Activities of Daily Living, Inability to Work/Care, Length of Time Waited, Radiological Severity, and Mental Wellbeing. Output from the adjusted multinomial regression revealed radiological severity to be the most significant factor (coefficient 2.27 (SD 0.31); p < 0.001), followed by pain (coefficient 1.08 (SD 0.13); p < 0.001) and time waited (coefficient for one month additional wait 0.12 (SD 0.02); p < 0.001). Conclusion. These results present a new robust method for determining comparative priority for those on primary hip and knee hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(1):89–96

The December 2024 Oncology Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Non-reversed great saphenous vein grafts for vascular reconstruction after resection of lower limb sarcoma; Detrimental effects of COVID-19 pandemic on patients with limb bone sarcoma: reference centre experience; Whole-body staging guidelines in sarcoma; Intraoperative marrow margin frozen section in limb bone sarcoma resection; Vacuum-assisted closure and paediatric oncological limb salvage; Treatment differences and long-term outcomes in adults and children with Ewing’s sarcoma; Survival, complications, and functional outcomes of uncemented distal femoral endoprosthesis with short, curved stem for patients with bone tumours.

The December 2024 Children’s orthopaedics Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Establishing best practice for managing idiopathic toe walking in children: a UK consensus; Long-term outcomes of below-elbow casting in paediatric diaphyseal forearm fractures; Residual dysplasia risk persists in developmental dysplasia of the hip patients after Pavlik harness treatment; 3D printing in paediatricorthopaedics: enhancing surgical efficiency and patient outcomes; Pavlik harness treatment for hip dysplasia does not delay motor skill development in children; High prevalence of hip dysplasia found in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis on routine spine radiographs; Minifragment plates as effective growth modulation for ulnar deformities of the distal radius in children; Long-term success of Chiari pelvic osteotomy in preserving hip function: 30-year follow-up study.

Aims. This Delphi study assessed the challenges of diagnosing soft-tissue knee injuries (STKIs) in acute settings among orthopaedic healthcare stakeholders. Methods. This modified e-Delphi study consisted of three rounds and involved 32 orthopaedic healthcare stakeholders, including physiotherapists, emergency nurse practitioners, sports medicine physicians, radiologists, orthopaedic registrars, and orthopaedic consultants. The perceived importance of diagnostic components relevant to STKIs included patient and external risk factors, clinical signs and symptoms, special clinical tests, and diagnostic imaging methods. Each round required scoring and ranking various items on a ten-point Likert scale. The items were refined as each round progressed. The study produced rankings of perceived importance across the various diagnostic components. Results. In Round 1, the study revealed widespread variability in stakeholder opinions on diagnostic components of STKIs. Round 2 identified patterns in the perceived importance of specific items within each diagnostic component. Round 3 produced rankings of perceived item importance within each diagnostic component. Noteworthy findings include the challenges associated with accurate and readily available diagnostic methods in acute care settings, the consistent acknowledgment of the importance of adopting a patient-centred approach to diagnosis, and the transition from divergent to convergent opinions between Rounds 2 and 3. Conclusion. This study highlights the potential for a paradigm shift in acute STKI diagnosis, where variability in the understanding of STKI diagnostic components may be addressed by establishing a uniform, evidence-based framework for evaluating these injuries. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(11):984–991

Aims. A review of the literature on elbow replacement found no consistency in the clinical outcome measures which are used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The aim of this study was to define core outcome domains for elbow replacement. Methods. A real-time Delphi survey was conducted over four weeks using outcomes from a scoping review of 362 studies on elbow replacement published between January 1990 and February 2021. A total of 583 outcome descriptors were rationalized to 139 unique outcomes. The survey consisted of 139 outcomes divided into 18 domains. The readability and clarity of the survey was determined by an advisory group including a patient representative. Participants were able to view aggregated responses from other participants in real time and to revisit their responses as many times as they wished during the study period. Participants were able to propose additional items for inclusion. A Patient and Public Inclusion and Engagement (PPIE) panel considered the consensus findings. Results. A total of 45 respondents completed the survey. Nine core mandatory domains were identified: ‘return to work or normal daily role’; delivery of care was measured in the domains ‘patient satisfaction with the outcome of surgery’ and ‘would the patient have the same operation again’; ‘pain’; ‘revision’; ‘elbow function’; ‘independence in activities of daily living’; ‘health-related quality of life’; and ‘adverse events’. ‘Elbow range of motion’ was identified as important by consensus but was felt to be less relevant by the PPIE panel. The PPIE panel unanimously stated that pain should be used as the primary outcome domain. Conclusion. This study defined core domains for the clinical outcomes of elbow replacement obtained by consensus from patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Pain may be used as the primary outcome in future studies, where appropriate. Further work is required to define the instruments that should be used. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):xxx–xxx

Aims

Extensive literature exists relating to the management of shoulder instability, with a more recent focus on glenoid and humeral bone loss. However, the optimal timing for surgery following a dislocation remains unclear. There is concern that recurrent dislocations may worsen subsequent surgical outcomes, with some advocating stabilization after the first dislocation. The aim of this study was to determine if the recurrence of instability following arthroscopic stabilization in patients without significant glenoid bone loss was influenced by the number of dislocations prior to surgery.

Aims. The aim of this study was to gain a consensus for best practice of the assessment and management of children with idiopathic toe walking (ITW) in order to provide a benchmark for practitioners and guide the best consistent care. Methods. An established Delphi approach with predetermined steps and degree of agreement based on a standardized protocol was used to determine consensus. The steering group members and Delphi survey participants included members from the British Society of Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) and the Association of Paediatric Chartered Physiotherapists (APCP). The statements included definition, assessment, treatment indications, nonoperative and operative interventions, and outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis of the Delphi survey results. The AGREE checklist was followed for reporting the results. Results. A total of 227 participants (54% APCP and 46% BSCOS members) completed the first round, and 222 participants (98%) completed the second round. Out of 54 proposed statements included in the first round Delphi, 17 reached ‘consensus in’, no statements reached ‘consensus out’, and 37 reached ‘no consensus’. These 37 statements were then discussed, reworded, amalgamated, or deleted before the second round Delphi of 29 statements. A total of 12 statements reached ‘consensus in’, four ‘consensus out’, and 13 ‘no consensus’. In the final consensus meeting, 13 statements were voted upon. Five were accepted, resulting in a total of 31 approved statements. Conclusion. In the aspects of practice where sufficient evidence is not available, a consensus statement can provide a strong body of opinion that acts as a benchmark for excellence in clinical care. This statement can assist clinicians managing children with ITW to ensure consistent and reliable practice, and reduce geographical variability in practice and outcomes. It will enable those treating ITW to share the published consensus document with both carers and patient groups. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1190–1196

Aims. This study aimed to gather insights from elbow experts using the Delphi method to evaluate the influence of patient characteristics and fracture morphology on the choice between operative and nonoperative treatment for coronoid fractures. Methods. A three-round electronic (e-)modified Delphi survey study was performed between March and December 2023. A total of 55 elbow surgeons from Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America participated, with 48 completing all questionnaires (87%). The panellists evaluated the factors identified as important in literature for treatment decision-making, using a Likert scale ranging from "strongly influences me to recommend nonoperative treatment" (1) to "strongly influences me to recommend operative treatment" (5). Factors achieving Likert scores ≤ 2.0 or ≥ 4.0 were deemed influential for treatment recommendation. Stable consensus is defined as an agreement of ≥ 80% in the second and third rounds. Results. Of 68 factors considered important in the literature for treatment choice for coronoid fractures, 18 achieved a stable consensus to be influential. Influential factors with stable consensus that advocate for operative treatment were being a professional athlete, playing overhead sports, a history of subjective dislocation or subluxation during trauma, open fracture, crepitation with range of movement, > 2 mm opening during varus stress on radiological imaging, and having an anteromedial facet or basal coronoid fracture (O’Driscoll type 2 or 3). An anterolateral coronoid tip fracture ≤ 2 mm was the only influential factor with a stable consensus that advocates for nonoperative treatment. Most disagreement existed regarding the treatment for the terrible triad injury with an anterolateral coronoid tip fracture fragment ≤ 2 mm (O’Driscoll type 1 subtype 1). Conclusion. This study gives insights into areas of consensus among surveyed elbow surgeons in choosing between operative and nonoperative management of coronoid fractures. These findings should be used in conjunction with previous patient cohort studies when discussing treatment options with patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1150–1157

Aims

To explore key stakeholder views around feasibility and acceptability of trials seeking to prevent post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) following knee injury, and provide guidance for next steps in PTOA trial design.

The August 2024 Children’s orthopaedics Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Antibiotic prophylaxis and infection rates in paediatric supracondylar humerus fractures; Clinical consensus recommendations for the non-surgical treatment of children with Perthes’ disease in the UK; Health-related quality of life in idiopathic toe walkers: a multicentre prospective cross-sectional study; Children with spinal dysraphism: a systematic review of reported outcomes; No delay in age of crawling, standing, or walking with Pavlik harness treatment: a prospective cohort study; No value found with routine early postoperative radiographs after implant removal in paediatric patients; What do we know about the natural history of spastic hip dysplasia and pain in total-involvement cerebral palsy?; Evaluating the efficacy and safety of preoperative gallows traction for hip open reduction in infants

Aims

Weightbearing instructions after musculoskeletal injury or orthopaedic surgery are a key aspect of the rehabilitation pathway and prescription. The terminology used to describe the weightbearing status of the patient is variable; many different terms are used, and there is recognition and evidence that the lack of standardized terminology contributes to confusion in practice.

Aims. This study aims to identify the top unanswered research priorities in the field of knee surgery using consensus-based methodology. Methods. Initial research questions were generated using an online survey sent to all 680 members of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK). Duplicates were removed and a longlist was generated from this scoping exercise by a panel of 13 experts from across the UK who provided oversight of the process. A modified Delphi process was used to refine the questions and determine a final list. To rank the final list of questions, each question was scored between one (low importance) and ten (high importance) in order to produce the final list. Results. This consensus exercise took place between December 2020 and April 2022. A total of 286 clinicians from the BASK membership provided input for the initial scoping exercise, which generated a list of 105 distinct research questions. Following review and prioritization, a longlist of 51 questions was sent out for two rounds of the Delphi process. A total of 42 clinicians responded to the first round and 24 responded to the second round. A final list of 24 research questions was then ranked by 36 clinicians. The topics included arthroplasty, infection, meniscus, osteotomy, patellofemoral, cartilage, and ligament pathologies. The management of early osteoarthritis was the highest-ranking question. Conclusion. A Delphi exercise involving the BASK membership has identified the future research priorities in knee surgery. This list of questions will allow clinicians, researchers, and funders to collaborate in order to deliver high-quality research in knee surgery and further advance the care provided to patients with knee pathology. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):662–668

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):425–429.