Aims. Healthcare systems have been rapidly restructured to meet COVID-19 demand. Clinicians are working to novel clinical guidelines, treating new patient cohorts and working in unfamiliar environments. Trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) has experienced cancellation of routine clinics and operating, with redistribution of the workload and human resources. To date, no studies have evaluated the mental health impact of these changes on the T&O workforce. We report the results of a novel survey on the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of our orthopaedic workforce and the contributory factors. Methods. A 20-question survey-based cross-sectional study of orthopaedic team members was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary objective was to identify the impact of the pandemic on mental health in the form of major depressive disorder (MDD) and general anxiety disorder (GAD). The survey incorporated the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-2), which is validated for screening of MDD, and the generalized anxiety disorder questionnaire (GAD-2), which is validated for screening of GAD. Results. There were 62 respondents (18 females and 44 males). As compared to the general population, we noted a greater estimated prevalence of GAD (17.7% vs 5.9%, p = 0.0009297) and MDD (19.4% vs 3.3%, p = 0.0000007731). The prevalence of MDD symptoms was greatest among senior house officers (SHOs) (p = 0.02216). Female respondents scored higher for symptoms of MDD (p = 0.03583) and GAD (p = 0.0001086). Those identifying as ‘Black, African, Caribbean or Black British’ displayed a higher prevalence of GAD symptoms (p = 0.001575) and felt least supported at work (p = 0.001341). Conclusion. Our study, in the first of its kind, shows a significant prevalence of GAD and MDD in the workforce. We found that SHOs, females and those of Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British origin were disproportionately affected. Action should be taken to help prevent adverse mental health outcomes for our colleagues during the pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:316–325

Aim. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents significant challenges to healthcare systems globally. Orthopaedic surgeons are at risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their close contact with patients in both outpatient and theatre environments. The aim of this review was to perform a literature review, including articles of other coronaviruses, to formulate guidelines for orthopaedic healthcare staff. Methods. A search of Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, World Health Organization (WHO), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) databases was performed encompassing a variety of terms including ‘coronavirus’, ‘covid-19’, ‘orthopaedic’, ‘personal protective environment’ and ‘PPE’. Online database searches identified 354 articles. Articles were included if they studied any of the other coronaviruses or if the basic science could potentially applied to COVID-19 (i.e. use of an inactivated virus with a similar diameter to COVID-19). Two reviewers independently identified and screened articles based on the titles and abstracts. 274 were subsequently excluded, with 80 full-text articles retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of these, 66 were excluded as they compared personal protection equipment to no personal protection equipment or referred to prevention measures in the context of bacterial infections. Results. There is a paucity of high quality evidence surrounding COVID-19. This review collates evidence from previous coronavirus outbreaks to put forward recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic. The key findings have been summarized and interpreted for application to the orthopaedic operative setting. Conclusion. For COVID-19 positive patients, minimum suggested PPE includes N95 respirator, goggles, face shield, gown, double gloves, and surgical balaclava. Space suits not advised. Be trained in the correct technique of donning and doffing PPE. Use negative pressure theatres if available. Minimize aerosolization and its effects (smoke evacuation and no pulse lavage). Minimize further unnecessary patient-staff contact (dissolvable sutures, clear dressings, split casts)

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. 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. 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. 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

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

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

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

Musculoskeletal diseases are having a growing impact worldwide. It is therefore crucial to have an evidence base to most effectively and efficiently implement future health services across different healthcare systems. International trials are an opportunity to address these challenges and have many potential benefits. They are, however, complex to set up and deliver, which may impact on the efficient and timely delivery of a project. There are a number of models of how international trials are currently being delivered across a range of orthopaedic patient populations, which are discussed here. The examples given highlight that the key to overcoming these challenges is the development of trusted and equal partnerships with collaborators in each country. International trials have the potential to address a global burden of disease, and in turn optimize the benefit to patients in the collaborating countries and those with similar health services and care systems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):719–722

Aims. The purpose of this survey study was to examine the demographic and lifestyle factors of women currently in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. An electronic survey was conducted of practising female orthopaedic surgeons based in the USA through both the Ruth Jackson Society and the online Facebook group “Women of Orthopaedics”. Results. The majority of surveyed female orthopaedic surgeons reported being married (76.4%; 285/373) and having children (67.6%; 252/373). In all, 66.5% (247/373) were collegiate athletes; 82.0% (306/373) reported having no female orthopaedic surgeon mentors in undergraduate and medical school. Their mean height is 65.8 inches and average weight is 147.3 lbs. Conclusion. The majority of female orthopaedic surgeons did not have female mentorship during their training. Additionally, biometrically, their build is similar to that of the average American woman. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):419–425

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. Biofilm infections are among the most challenging complications in orthopaedics, as bacteria within the biofilms are protected from the host immune system and many antibiotics. Halicin exhibits broad-spectrum activity against many planktonic bacteria, and previous studies have demonstrated that halicin is also effective against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms grown on polystyrene or polypropylene substrates. However, the effectiveness of many antibiotics can be substantially altered depending on which orthopaedically relevant substrates the biofilms grow. This study, therefore, evaluated the activity of halicin against less mature and more mature S. aureus biofilms grown on titanium alloy, cobalt-chrome, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), devitalized muscle, or devitalized bone. Methods. S. aureus-Xen36 biofilms were grown on the various substrates for 24 hours or seven days. Biofilms were incubated with various concentrations of halicin or vancomycin and then allowed to recover without antibiotics. Minimal biofilm eradication concentrations (MBECs) were defined by CFU counting and resazurin reduction assays, and were compared with the planktonic minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs). Results. Halicin continued to exert significantly (p < 0.01) more antibacterial activity against biofilms grown on all tested orthopaedically relevant substrates than vancomycin, an antibiotic known to be affected by biofilm maturity. For example, halicin MBECs against both less mature and more mature biofilms were ten-fold to 40-fold higher than its MIC. In contrast, vancomycin MBECs against the less mature biofilms were 50-fold to 200-fold higher than its MIC, and 100-fold to 400-fold higher against the more mature biofilms. Conclusion. Halicin is a promising antibiotic that should be tested in animal models of orthopaedic infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(3):101–109

In 2017, the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children’s orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):422–424