Aims. Children with spinal dysraphism can develop various musculoskeletal deformities, necessitating a range of orthopaedic interventions, causing significant morbidity, and making considerable demands on resources. This systematic review aimed to identify what outcome measures have been reported in the literature for children with spinal dysraphism who undergo orthopaedic interventions involving the lower limbs. Methods. A PROSPERO-registered systematic literature review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. All relevant studies published until January 2023 were identified. Individual outcomes and outcome measurement tools were extracted verbatim. The measurement tools were assessed for reliability and validity, and all outcomes were grouped according to the Outcome Measures Recommended for use in Randomized Clinical Trials (OMERACT) filters. Results. From 91 eligible studies, 27 individual outcomes were identified, including those related to clinical assessment (n = 12), mobility (n = 4), adverse events (n = 6), investigations (n = 4), and miscellaneous (n = 1). Ten outcome measurement tools were identified, of which Hoffer’s Functional Ambulation Scale was the most commonly used. Several studies used unvalidated measurement tools originally developed for other conditions, and 26 studies developed new measurement tools. On the OMERACT filter, most outcomes reported pathophysiology and/or the impact on life. There were only six patient- or parent-reported outcomes, and none assessed the quality of life. Conclusion. The outcomes that were reported were heterogenous, lack validation and failed to incorporate patient or family perceptions. Until outcomes can be reported unequivocally, research in this area will remain limited. Our findings should guide the development of a core outcome set, which will allow consistency in the reporting of outcomes for this condition. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3):277–285

Aims. Evidence exists of a consistent decline in the value and time that medical schools place upon their undergraduate orthopaedic placements. This limited exposure to trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) during medical school will be the only experience in the speciality for the majority of doctors. This review aims to provide an overview of undergraduate orthopaedic training in the UK. Methods. This review summarizes the relevant literature from the last 20 years in the UK. Articles were selected from database searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Cochrane, and Web of Science. A total of 16 papers met the inclusion criteria. Results. The length of exposure to T&O is declining; the mean total placement duration of two to three weeks is significantly less than the four- to six-week minimum advised by most relevant sources. The main teaching methods described in the literature included didactic lectures, bedside teaching, and small group case-based discussions. Students preferred interactive, blended learning teaching styles over didactic methods. This improvement in satisfaction was reflected in improvements in student assessment scores. However, studies failed to assess competencies in clinical skills and examinations, which is consistent with the opinions of UK foundation year doctors, approximately 40% of whom report a “poor” understanding of orthopaedics. Furthermore, the majority of UK doctors are not exposed to orthopaedics at the postgraduate level, which only serves to amplify the disparity between junior and generalist knowledge, and the standards expected by senior colleagues and professional bodies. Conclusion. There is a deficit in undergraduate orthopaedic training within the UK which has only worsened in the last 20 years, leaving medical students and foundation doctors with a potentially significant lack of orthopaedic knowledge. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):549–556

Aims. The aim of this study is to define a core outcome set (COS) to allow consistency in outcome reporting amongst studies investigating the management of orthopaedic treatment in children with spinal dysraphism (SD). Methods. Relevant outcomes will be identified in a four-stage process from both the literature and key stakeholders (patients, their families, and clinical professionals). Previous outcomes used in clinical studies will be identified through a systematic review of the literature, and each outcome will be assigned to one of the five core areas, defined by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT). Additional possible outcomes will be identified through consultation with patients affected by SD and their families. Results. Outcomes identified in these stages will be included in a two-round Delphi process that will involve key stakeholders in the management of SD. A final list including the identified outcomes will then be summarized in a consensus meeting attended by representatives of the key stakeholders groups. Conclusion. The best approach to provision of orthopaedic care in patients with SD is yet to be decided. The reporting of different outcomes to define success among studies, often based on personal preferences and local culture, has made it difficult to compare the effect of treatments for this condition. The development of a COS for orthopaedic management in SD will enable meaningful reporting and facilitate comparisons in future clinical trials, thereby assisting complex decision-making in the clinical management of these children. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):54–60

Aims. Orthopaedic infection is a potentially serious complication of elective and emergency trauma and orthopaedic procedures, with a high associated burden of morbidity and cost. Optimization of vitamin D levels has been postulated to be beneficial in the prevention of orthopaedic infection. This study explores the role of vitamin D in orthopaedic infection through a systematic review of available evidence. Methods. A comprehensive search was conducted on databases including Medline and Embase, as well as grey literature such as Google Scholar and The World Health Organization Database. Pooled analysis with weighted means was undertaken. Results. Pooled analysis of four studies including 651 patients found the mean 25(OH)D level to be 50.7 nmol/l with a mean incidence of infection of 70%. There was a paucity of literature exploring prophylactic 25(OH)D supplementation on reducing orthopaedic infection, however, there was evidence of association between low 25(OH)D levels and increased incidence of orthopaedic infection. Conclusion. The results indicate a significant proportion of orthopaedic patients have low 25(OH]D levels, as well as an association between low 25(OH)D levels and orthopaedic infection, but more randomized controlled trials need to be conducted to establish the benefit of prophylactic supplementation and the optimum regimen by dose and time. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):721–727

Aims. A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial. Methods. We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment. Results. Recruiters faced four common obstacles when recruiting to a surgical orthopaedic trial: patient preferences for an intervention; a complex recruitment pathway; various logistical issues; and conflicting views on equipoise. Clinicians expressed concerns that the trial may not show significant differences in the treatments, validating their equipoise. However, they experienced role conflicts due to their own preference and perceived patient preference for an intervention arm. Conclusion. This study provided initial information about barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial. We shared these findings in an all-site investigators’ meeting and encouraged researchers to find solutions to identified barriers; this led to the successful completion of recruitment. Complex trials may benefit for using of a mixed-methods approach to mitigate against recruitment failure, and to improve patient participation and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):631–637

Aims. Gender bias and sexual discrimination (GBSD) have been widely recognized across a range of fields and are now part of the wider social consciousness. Such conduct can occur in the medical workplace, with detrimental effects on recipients. The aim of this review was to identify the prevalence and impact of GBSD in orthopaedic surgery, and to investigate interventions countering such behaviours. Methods. A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline, EMCARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library Database in April 2020, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to which we adhered. Original research papers pertaining to the prevalence and impact of GBSD, or mitigating strategies, within orthopaedics were included for review. Results. Of 570 papers, 27 were eligible for inclusion. These were published between 1998 and 2020. A narrative review was performed in light of the significant heterogeneity displayed by the eligible studies. A total of 13 papers discussed the prevalence of GBSD, while 13 related to the impact of these behaviours, and six discussed mitigating strategies. GBSD was found to be common in the orthopaedic workplace, with all sources showing women to be the subjects. The impact of this includes poor workforce representation, lower salaries, and less career success, including in academia, for women in orthopaedics. Mitigating strategies in the literature are focused on providing female role models, mentors, and educational interventions. Conclusion. GBSD is common in orthopaedic surgery, with a substantial impact on sufferers. A small number of mitigating strategies have been tested but these are limited in their scope. As such, the orthopaedic community is obliged to participate in more thoughtful and proactive strategies that mitigate against GBSD, by improving female recruitment and retention within the specialty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1446–1456

Aims. Computer-based applications are increasingly being used by orthopaedic surgeons in their clinical practice. With the integration of technology in surgery, augmented reality (AR) may become an important tool for surgeons in the future. By superimposing a digital image on a user’s view of the physical world, this technology shows great promise in orthopaedics. The aim of this review is to investigate the current and potential uses of AR in orthopaedics. Materials and Methods. A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases up to January 2019 using the keywords ‘orthopaedic’ OR ‘orthopedic AND augmented reality’ was performed by two independent reviewers. Results. A total of 41 publications were included after screening. Applications were divided by subspecialty: spine (n = 15), trauma (n = 16), arthroplasty (n = 3), oncology (n = 3), and sports (n = 4). Out of these, 12 were clinical in nature. AR-based technologies have a wide variety of applications, including direct visualization of radiological images by overlaying them on the patient and intraoperative guidance using preoperative plans projected onto real anatomy, enabling hands-free real-time access to operating room resources, and promoting telemedicine and education. Conclusion. There is an increasing interest in AR among orthopaedic surgeons. Although studies show similar or better outcomes with AR compared with traditional techniques, many challenges need to be addressed before this technology is ready for widespread use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1479–1488

Trauma and orthopaedics is the largest of the surgical specialties and yet attracts a disproportionately small fraction of available national and international funding for health research. With the burden of musculoskeletal disease increasing, high-quality research is required to improve the evidence base for orthopaedic practice. Using the current research landscape in the United Kingdom as an example, but also addressing the international perspective, we highlight the issues surrounding poor levels of research funding in trauma and orthopaedics and indicate avenues for improving the impact and success of surgical musculoskeletal research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1578–85

We aimed to determine quality of life and burnout among Dutch orthopaedic trainees following a modern orthopaedic curriculum, with strict compliance to a 48-hour working week. We also evaluated the effect of the clinical climate of learning on their emotional well-being. We assessed burnout, quality of life and the clinical climate of learning in 105 orthopaedic trainees using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, linear analogue scale self-assessments, and Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test (D-RECT), respectively. A total of 19 trainees (18%) had poor quality of life and 49 (47%) were dissatisfied with the balance between their personal and professional life. Some symptoms of burnout were found in 29 trainees (28%). Higher D-RECT scores (indicating a better climate of learning) were associated with a better quality of life (r = 0.31, p = 0.001), more work-life balance satisfaction (r = 0.31, p = 0.002), fewer symptoms of emotional exhaustion (r = -0.21, p = 0.028) and depersonalisation (r = -0,28, p = 0.04). A reduced quality of life with evidence of burnout were still seen in a significant proportion of orthopaedic trainees despite following a modern curriculum with strict compliance to a 48-hour working week. It is vital that further work is undertaken to improve the quality of life and reduce burnout in this cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1133–8

Aims. Orthopaedic surgery requires grafts with sufficient mechanical strength. For this purpose, decellularized tissue is an available option that lacks the complications of autologous tissue. However, it is not widely used in orthopaedic surgeries. This study investigated clinical trials of the use of decellularized tissue grafts in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Using the ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) databases, we comprehensively surveyed clinical trials of decellularized tissue use in orthopaedic surgeries registered before 1 September 2022. We evaluated the clinical results, tissue processing methods, and commercial availability of the identified products using academic literature databases and manufacturers’ websites. Results. We initially identified 4,402 clinical trials, 27 of which were eligible for inclusion and analysis, including nine shoulder surgery trials, eight knee surgery trials, two ankle surgery trials, two hand surgery trials, and six peripheral nerve graft trials. Nine of the trials were completed. We identified only one product that will be commercially available for use in knee surgery with significant mechanical load resistance. Peracetic acid and gamma irradiation were frequently used for sterilization. Conclusion. Despite the demand for decellularized tissue, few decellularized tissue products are currently commercially available, particularly for the knee joint. To be viable in orthopaedic surgery, decellularized tissue must exhibit biocompatibility and mechanical strength, and these requirements are challenging for the clinical application of decellularized tissue. However, the variety of available decellularized products has recently increased. Therefore, decellularized grafts may become a promising option in orthopaedic surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(3):179–188

Aims. In the UK, the agricultural, military, and construction sectors have stringent rules about the use of hearing protection due to the risk of noise-induced hearing loss. Orthopaedic staff may also be at risk due to the use of power tools. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have clear standards as to what are deemed acceptable occupational levels of noise on A-weighted and C-weighted scales. The aims of this review were to assess the current evidence on the testing of exposure to noise in orthopaedic operating theatres to see if it exceeds these regulations. Methods. A search of PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. The review was registered prospectively in PROSPERO. Studies which assessed the exposure to noise for orthopaedic staff in operating theatres were included. Data about the exposure to noise were extracted from these studies and compared with the A-weighted and C-weighted acceptable levels described in the HSE regulations. Results. A total of 15 studies were deemed eligible. These included a total of 386 orthopaedic operations and the use of 64 orthopaedic instruments. A total of 294 operations (76%) and 45 instruments (70%) exceeded the regulations on an A-weighted scale, and 22% (10 of 46) of operations exceeded the maximum C-weighted peak acceptable level of noise. Noise-induced hearing loss was reported in 28 of 55 orthopaedic staff members (50.9%). Conclusion. Safe levels of noise can be exceeded in orthopaedic operations, and when using orthopaedic instruments. Employers have clear policies about exposure to noise in the workplace but have yet to identify orthopaedic theatres as a potential at-risk area. Orthopaedic staff need education, monitoring, and protection, while employers should consider regular assessments of staff in orthopaedic theatres and offer methods to prevent noise-induced hearing loss. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):602–609

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. Methods. A prospective, multicentre, national collaborative audit was designed and delivered by a trainee-led collaborative group. Data were collected over three months (1 April 2021 to 30 June 2021) for all patients presenting with MBD. A data collection tool allowed investigators at each hospital to compare practice against guidelines. Data were collated and analyzed centrally to quantify compliance from 84 hospitals in the UK for a total of 1,137 patients who were eligible for inclusion. Results. A total of 846 patients with pelvic and appendicular MBD were analyzed, after excluding those with only spinal metastatic disease. A designated MBD lead was not present in 39% of centres (33/84). Adequate radiographs were not performed in 19% of patients (160/846), and 29% (247/846) did not have an up-to-date CT of thorax, abdomen, and pelvis to stage their disease. Compliance was low obtaining an oncological opinion (69%; 584/846) and prognosis estimations (38%; 223/846). Surgery was performed in 38% of patients (319/846), with the rates of up-to-date radiological investigations and oncology input with prognosis below the expected standard. Of the 25% (215/846) presenting with a solitary metastasis, a tertiary opinion from a MBD centre and biopsy was sought in 60% (130/215). Conclusion. Current practice in the UK does not comply with national guidelines, especially regarding investigations prior to surgery and for patients with solitary metastases. This study highlights the need for investment and improvement in care. The recent publication of British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma (BOAST) defines auditable standards to drive these improvements for this vulnerable patient group. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1115–1122

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly growing across many domains, of which the medical field is no exception. AI is an umbrella term defining the practical application of algorithms to generate useful output, without the need of human cognition. Owing to the expanding volume of patient information collected, known as ‘big data’, AI is showing promise as a useful tool in healthcare research and across all aspects of patient care pathways. Practical applications in orthopaedic surgery include: diagnostics, such as fracture recognition and tumour detection; predictive models of clinical and patient-reported outcome measures, such as calculating mortality rates and length of hospital stay; and real-time rehabilitation monitoring and surgical training. However, clinicians should remain cognizant of AI’s limitations, as the development of robust reporting and validation frameworks is of paramount importance to prevent avoidable errors and biases. The aim of this review article is to provide a comprehensive understanding of AI and its subfields, as well as to delineate its existing clinical applications in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, this narrative review expands upon the limitations of AI and future direction. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(7):447–454

Aims. The use of fluoroscopy in orthopaedic surgery creates risk of radiation exposure to surgeons. Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) can help mitigate this. The primary aim of this study was to assess if current radiation protection in orthopaedic trauma is safe. The secondary aims were to describe normative data of radiation exposure during common orthopaedic procedures, evaluate ways to improve any deficits in protection, and validate the use of electronic personal dosimeters (EPDs) in assessing radiation dose in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Radiation exposure to surgeons during common orthopaedic trauma operations was prospectively assessed using EPDs and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Normative data for each operation type were calculated and compared to recommended guidelines. Results. Current PPE appears to mitigate more than 90% of ionizing radiation in orthopaedic fluoroscopic procedures. There is a higher exposure to the inner thigh during seated procedures. EPDs provided results for individual procedures. Conclusion. PPE currently used by surgeons in orthopaedic trauma theatre adequately reduces radiation exposure to below recommended levels. Normative data per trauma case show specific anatomical areas of higher exposure, which may benefit from enhanced radiation protection. EPDs can be used to assess real-time radiation exposure in orthopaedic surgery. There may be a role in future medical wearables for orthopaedic surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):907–912

Aims. Global literature suggests that female surgical trainees have lower rates of independent operating (operative autonomy) than their male counterparts. The objective of this study was to identify any association between gender and lead/independent operating in speciality orthopaedic trainees within the UK national training programme. Methods. This was a retrospective case-control study using electronic surgical logbook data from 2009 to 2021 for 274 UK orthopaedic trainees. Total operative numbers and level of supervision were compared between male and female trainees, with correction for less than full-time training (LTFT), prior experience, and time out during training (OOP). The primary outcome was the percentage of cases undertaken as lead surgeon (supervised and unsupervised) by UK orthopaedic trainees by gender. Results. All participants gave permission for their data to be used. In total, 274 UK orthopaedic trainees submitted data (65% men (n = 177) and 33% women (n = 91)), with a total of 285,915 surgical procedures logged over 1,364 trainee-years. Males were lead surgeon (under supervision) on 3% more cases than females (61% (115,948/189,378) to 58% (50,285/86,375), respectively; p < 0.001), and independent operator (unsupervised) on 1% more cases. A similar trend of higher operative numbers in male trainees was seen for senior (ST6 to 8) trainees (+5% and +1%; p < 0.001), those with no time OOP (+6% and +8%; p < 0.001), and those with orthopaedic experience prior to orthopaedic specialty training (+7% and +3% for lead surgeon and independent operator, respectively; p < 0.001). The gender difference was less marked for those on LTFT training, those who took time OOP, and those with no prior orthopaedic experience. Conclusion. This study showed that males perform 3% more cases as the lead surgeon than females during UK orthopaedic training (p < 0.001). This may be due to differences in how cases are recorded, but must engender further research to ensure that all surgeons are treated equitably during their training. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):821–832

Aims. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the highest level of evidence used to inform patient care. However, it has been suggested that the quality of randomization in RCTs in orthopaedic surgery may be low. This study aims to describe the quality of randomization in trials included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Systematic reviews of RCTs testing orthopaedic procedures published in 2022 were extracted from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A random sample of 100 systematic reviews was selected, and all included RCTs were retrieved. To be eligible for inclusion, systematic reviews must have tested an orthopaedic procedure as the primary intervention, included at least one study identified as a RCT, been published in 2022 in English, and included human clinical trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 Tool was used to assess random sequence generation as ‘adequate’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘no information’; we then calculated the proportion of trials in each category. We also collected data to test the association between these categories and characteristics of the RCTs and systematic reviews. Results. We included 917 unique RCTs. We found that 374 RCTs (40.8%) reported adequate sequence generation, 61 (6.7%) were inadequate, 410 (44.7%) lacked information, and 72 (7.9%) were observational studies incorrectly included as RCTs within the systematic review. Publication year, an author with statistical or epidemiological qualifications, and journal impact factor were each associated with adequate randomization. We found that 45 systematic reviews (45%) included at least one inadequately randomized RCT or an observational study incorrectly treated as a RCT. Conclusion. There is evidence of a lack of random allocation in RCTs included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. The conduct of RCTs and systematic reviews should be improved to minimize the risk of bias from inadequate randomization in RCTs and mislabelling of non-randomized studies as RCTs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1072–1080

Economic evaluation provides a framework for assessing the costs and consequences of alternative programmes or interventions. One common vehicle for economic evaluations in the healthcare context is the decision-analytic model, which synthesizes information on parameter inputs (for example, probabilities or costs of clinical events or health states) from multiple sources and requires application of mathematical techniques, usually within a software program. A plethora of decision-analytic modelling-based economic evaluations of orthopaedic interventions have been published in recent years. This annotation outlines a number of issues that can help readers, reviewers, and decision-makers interpret evidence from decision-analytic modelling-based economic evaluations of orthopaedic interventions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):17–20

Aims. In the UK, the NHS generates an estimated 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (4% to 5% of the nation’s total carbon emissions) and produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. There is limited evidence demonstrating the principles of sustainability and its benefits within orthopaedic surgery. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery and the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken to address this. The secondary aim of this study was to describe the barriers to making sustainable changes within orthopaedic surgery. Methods. A literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed libraries using two domains of terms: “orthopaedic surgery” and “environmental sustainability”. Results. A total of 13 studies were included in the final analysis. All papers studied the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery in one of three areas: waste management, resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Waste segregation was a prevalent issue and described by nine studies, with up to 74.4% of hazardous waste being generated. Of this, six studies reported recycling waste and up to 43.9% of waste per procedure was recyclable. Large joint arthroplasties generated the highest amount of recyclable waste per procedure. Three studies investigated carbon emissions from intraoperative consumables, sterilization methods, and through the use of telemedicine. One study investigated water wastage and demonstrated that simple changes to practice can reduce water consumption by up to 63%. The two most common barriers to implementing environmentally sustainable changes identified across the studies was a lack of appropriate infrastructure and lack of education and training. Conclusion. Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery is a growing area with a wide potential for meaningful change. Further research to cumulatively study the carbon footprint of orthopaedic surgery and the wider impact of environmentally sustainable changes is necessary. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):628–640

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. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the provision of orthopaedic care across the UK. During the pandemic orthopaedic specialist registrars were redeployed to “frontline” specialties occupying non-surgical roles. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthopaedic training in the UK is unknown. This paper sought to examine the role of orthopaedic trainees during the COVID-19 and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on postgraduate orthopaedic education. Methods. A 42-point questionnaire was designed, validated, and disseminated via e-mail and an instant-messaging platform. Results. A total of 101 orthopaedic trainees, representing the four nations (Wales, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), completed the questionnaire. Overall, 23.1% (23/101) of trainees were redeployed to non-surgical roles. Of these, 73% (17/23) were redeployed to intensive treatment units (ITUs), 13% (3/23) to A/E, and 13%(3/23%) to general medicine. Of the trainees redeployed to ITU 100%, (17/17) received formal induction. Non-deployed or returning trainees had a significant reduction in sessions. In total, 42.9% (42/101) % of trainees were not timetabled into fracture clinic, 53% (53/101) of trainees had one allocated theatre list per week, and 63.8%(64/101) of trainees did not feel they obtained enough experience in the attached subspecialty and preferred repeating this. Overall, 93% (93/101) of respondents attended at least one weekly online webinar, with 79% (79/101) of trainees rating these as useful or very useful, while 95% (95/101) trainees attended online deanery teaching which was rated as more useful than online webinars (p = 0.005). Conclusion. Orthopaedic specialist trainees occupied an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has had a significant impact on orthopaedic training. It is imperative this is properly understood to ensure orthopaedic specialist trainees achieve competencies set out in the training curriculum. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:676–682