In recent years, machine learning (ML) and artificial neural networks (ANNs), a particular subset of ML, have been adopted by various areas of healthcare. A number of diagnostic and prognostic algorithms have been designed and implemented across a range of orthopaedic sub-specialties to date, with many positive results. However, the methodology of many of these studies is flawed, and few compare the use of ML with the current approach in clinical practice. Spinal surgery has advanced rapidly over the past three decades, particularly in the areas of implant technology, advanced surgical techniques, biologics, and enhanced recovery protocols. It is therefore regarded an innovative field. Inevitably, spinal surgeons will wish to incorporate ML into their practice should models prove effective in diagnostic or prognostic terms. The purpose of this article is to review published studies that describe the application of neural networks to spinal surgery and which actively compare ANN models to contemporary clinical standards allowing evaluation of their efficacy, accuracy, and relatability. It also explores some of the limitations of the technology, which act to constrain the widespread adoption of neural networks for diagnostic and prognostic use in spinal care. Finally, it describes the necessary considerations should institutions wish to incorporate ANNs into their practices. In doing so, the aim of this review is to provide a practical approach for spinal surgeons to understand the relevant aspects of neural networks. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1442–1448

Aims. The goal of the current systematic review was to assess the impact of implant placement accuracy on outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases in order to assess the impact of the patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) and implant placement accuracy on outcomes following TKA. Studies assessing the impact of implant alignment, rotation, size, overhang, or condylar offset were included. Study quality was assessed, evidence was graded (one-star: no evidence, two-star: limited evidence, three-star: moderate evidence, four-star: strong evidence), and recommendations were made based on the available evidence. Results. A total of 49 studies were identified for inclusion. With respect to PROMs, there was two-star evidence in support of mechanical axis alignment (MAA), femorotibial angle (FTA), femoral coronal angle (FCA), tibial coronal angle (TCA), femoral sagittal angle (FSA), femoral rotation, tibial and combined rotation/mismatch, and implant size/overhang or offset on PROMs, and one-star evidence in support of tibial sagittal angle (TSA), impacting PROMs. With respect to survival, there was three- to four-star evidence in support FTA, FCA, TCA, and TSA, moderate evidence in support of femoral rotation, tibial and combined rotation/mismatch, and limited evidence in support of MAA, FSA, and implant size/overhang or offset impacting survival. Conclusion. Overall, there is limited evidence to suggest that PROMs are impacted by the accuracy of implant placement, and malalignment does not appear to be a significant driver of the observed high rates of patient dissatisfaction following TKA. However, FTA, FCA, TCA, TSA, and implant rotation demonstrate a moderate-strong relationship with implant survival. Efforts should be made to improve the accuracy of these parameters in order to improve TKA survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1449–1456

Aims. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a widely accepted form of surgical treatment for patients with an early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary arthroplasty. The outcome of DAIR after revision arthroplasty, however, has not been reported. The aim of this study was to report the success rate of DAIR after revision arthroplasty with a follow-up of two years. Methods. This retrospective study, conducted at the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, included 88 patients who underwent DAIR within 90 days of revision total hip or total knee arthroplasty between 2012 and 2019. Details of the surgical procedures and PJI were collected. Univariate analysis and a subgroup analysis of the culture-positive group were performed. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were constructed. Results. The overall success rate of DAIR, with respect to the retention of components and the cure of infection, was 68% after two years. DAIR performed with an interval of > 30 days after the index revision procedure (odds ratio (OR) 0.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.72); p = 0.008), a repeated DAIR within 90 days (OR 0.37 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.97); p = 0.040), and the use of an immunosuppressive agent (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.67); p = 0.012) were associated with a significantly reduced success rate. In the culture-positive group, a mismatch between the antibiotic treatment and the susceptibility of the organism was associated with a significantly lower success rate (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.62); p = 0.007). Conclusion. DAIR is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for patients with a suspected early PJI after revision arthroplasty of the hip or knee. DAIRs performed after a prolonged interval, multiple DAIRs, and antibiotic mismatches were significantly associated with an increased risk of failure. Optimization of the host immune response and the prevention of antibiotic mismatch are modifiable factors that may improve the outcome. The high rate of mismatches was an important finding, underlining the need for a review of the local microbiological data, which might improve the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):464–471

Aims. The effect of pelvic tilt (PT) and sagittal balance in hips with pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with acetabular retroversion (AR) is controversial. It is unclear if patients with AR have a rotational abnormality of the iliac wing. Therefore, we asked: are parameters for sagittal balance, and is rotation of the iliac wing, different in patients with AR compared to a control group?; and is there a correlation between iliac rotation and acetabular version?. Methods. A retrospective, review board-approved, controlled study was performed including 120 hips in 86 consecutive patients with symptomatic FAI or hip dysplasia. Pelvic CT scans were reviewed to calculate parameters for sagittal balance (pelvic incidence (PI), PT, and sacral slope), anterior pelvic plane angle, pelvic inclination, and external rotation of the iliac wing and were compared to a control group (48 hips). The 120 hips were allocated to the following groups: AR (41 hips), hip dysplasia (47 hips) and cam FAI with normal acetabular morphology (32 hips). Subgroups of total AR (15 hips) and high acetabular anteversion (20 hips) were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction. Results. PI and PT were significantly decreased comparing AR (PI 42° (SD 10°), PT 4° (SD 5°)) with dysplastic hips (PI 55° (SD 12°), PT 10° (SD 6°)) and with the control group (PI 51° (SD 9°) and PT 13° (SD 7°)) (p < 0.001). External rotation of the iliac wing was significantly increased comparing AR (29° (SD 4°)) with dysplastic hips (20°(SD 5°)) and with the control group (25° (SD 5°)) (p < 0.001). Correlation between external rotation of the iliac wing and acetabular version was significant and strong (r = 0.81; p < 0.001). Correlation between PT and acetabular version was significant and moderate (r = 0.58; p < 0.001). Conclusion. These findings could contribute to a better understanding of hip pain in a sitting position and extra-articular subspine FAI of patients with AR. These patients have increased iliac external rotation, a rotational abnormality of the iliac wing. This has implications for surgical therapy with hip arthroscopy and acetabular rim trimming or anteverting periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):813–824

Aims. With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases. Methods. A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS). Results. At mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years. Conclusion. Dislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229–235

Aims. This systematic review asked which patterns of complications are associated with the three reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) prosthetic designs, as classified by Routman et al, in patients undergoing RTSA for the management of cuff tear arthropathy, massive cuff tear, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. The three implant design philosophies investigated were medial glenoid/medial humerus (MGMH), medial glenoid/lateral humerus (MGLH), and lateral glenoid/medial humerus (LGMH). Methods. A systematic review of the literature was performed via a search of MEDLINE and Embase. Two reviewers extracted data on complication occurrence and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Meta-analysis was conducted on the reported proportion of complications, weighted by sample size, and PROMs were pooled using the reported standardized mean difference (SMD). Quality of methodology was assessed using Wylde’s non-summative four-point system. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020193041). Results. A total of 42 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Rates of scapular notching were found to be significantly higher in MGMH implants (52% (95% confidence interval (CI) 40 to 63)) compared with MGLH ((18% (95% CI 6 to 34)) and LGMH (12% (95% CI 3 to 26)). Higher rates of glenoid loosening were seen in MGMH implants (6% (95% CI 3 to 10)) than in MGLH implants (0% (95% CI 0 to 2)). However, strength of evidence for this finding was low. No significant differences were identified in any other complication, and there were no significant differences observed in PROMs between implant philosophies. Conclusion. This systematic review has found significant improvement in PROMS and low complication rates across the implant philosophies studied. Scapular notching was the only complication found definitely to have significantly higher prevalence with the MGMH implant design. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):813–821

Aims. The Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) tool designed to assess artificial prosthesis awareness during daily activities following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) is the minimum cut-off value that corresponds to a patient’s satisfactory state-of-health. Despite the validity and reliability of the FJS-12 having been previously demonstrated, the PASS has yet to be clearly defined. This study aims to define the PASS of the FJS-12 following primary THA. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent primary elective THA from 2019 to 2020, and answered both the FJS-12 and the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement (HOOS, JR) questionnaires one-year postoperatively. HOOS, JR score was used as the anchor to estimate the PASS of FJS-12. Two statistical methods were employed: the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve point, which maximized the Youden index; and 75th percentile of the cumulative percentage curve of patients who had the HOOS, JR score difference larger than the cut-off value. Results. This study included 780 patients. The mean one-year FJS-12 score was 65.42 (SD 28.59). The mean one-year HOOS, JR score was 82.70 (SD 16.57). A high positive correlation between FJS-12 and HOOS, JR was found (r = 0.74; p<0.001), making the HOOS, JR a valid external anchor. The threshold score of the FJS-12 that maximized the sensitivity and specificity for detecting a PASS was 66.68 (area under the curve = 0.8). The cut-off score value computed with the 75th percentile approach was 92.20. Conclusion. The PASS threshold for the FJS-12 at one year following primary THA was 66.68 and 92.20 using the ROC curve and 75th percentile approaches, respectively. These values can be used to achieve consensus about meaningful postoperative improvement to maximize the utility of the FJS-12 to evaluate and counsel patients undergoing THA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):307–313

Artificial intelligence and machine-learning analytics have gained extensive popularity in recent years due to their clinically relevant applications. A wide range of proof-of-concept studies have demonstrated the ability of these analyses to personalize risk prediction, detect implant specifics from imaging, and monitor and assess patient movement and recovery. Though these applications are exciting and could potentially influence practice, it is imperative to understand when these analyses are indicated and where the data are derived from, prior to investing resources and confidence into the results and conclusions. In this article, we review the current benefits and potential limitations of machine-learning for the orthopaedic surgeon with a specific emphasis on data quality

Aims. This study aims to answer the following questions in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA): are patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) affected by the location of the maximum severity of pain?; are PROMs affected by the presence of non-groin pain?; are PROMs affected by the severity of pain?; and are PROMs affected by the number of pain locations?. Methods. We reviewed 336 hips (305 patients) treated with THA for hip OA from December 2016 to November 2019 using pain location/severity questionnaires, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) score, and radiological analysis. Descriptive statistics, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and Spearman partial correlation coefficients were used. Results. There was a significant difference in iHOT-12 scores between groups experiencing the most severe pain in the groin and the trochanter (p = 0.039). Additionally, more favourable mHHS scores were related to the presence of preoperative pain in trochanter (p = 0.049), lower back (p = 0.056), lateral thigh (p = 0.034), and posterior thigh (p = 0.005). Finally, the maximum severity of preoperative pain and number of pain locations had no significant relationship with PROMs (maximum severity: HHS: p = 0.928, HOS: p = 0.163, iHOT-12 p = 0.233; number of pain locations: HHS: p = 0.211; HOS: p = 0.801; iHOT-12: p = 0.112). Conclusion. Although there was a significant difference in iHOT-12 scores between patients with the most severe pain in the groin or trochanter, and the presence of pain in the trochanter, lower back, lateral thigh, or posterior thigh was related to higher mHHS scores, the majority of preoperative pain characteristics did not have a significant impact on outcomes. Therefore, a broad array of patients with hip OA might expect similar, favourable outcomes from THA notwithstanding preoperative pain characteristics. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):332–339

Aims. It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery. Methods. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review was performed to identify clinical data for patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. Data were extracted from the literature and pooled for analysis. Complication and reoperation rates were analyzed using a meta-analysis of proportion, and continuous variables underwent comparative subgroup analysis. Results. A total of 112 studies (5,379 shoulders) were eligible for inclusion, although complete clinical data was not ubiquitous. Indications for revision included component loosening 20% (601/3,041), instability 19% (577/3,041), rotator cuff failure 17% (528/3,041), and infection 16% (490/3,041). Intraoperative complication and postoperative complication and reoperation rates were 8% (230/2,915), 22% (825/3,843), and 13% (584/3,843) respectively. Intraoperative and postoperative complications included iatrogenic humeral fractures (91/230, 40%) and instability (215/825, 26%). Revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), rather than revision to anatomical TSA from any index prosthesis, resulted in lower complication rates and superior Constant scores, although there was no difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. Conclusion. Satisfactory improvement in patient-reported outcome measures are reported following revision shoulder arthroplasty; however, revision surgery is associated with high complication rates and better outcomes may be evident following revision to reverse TSA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):618–630

Aims. Socioeconomic and racial disparities have been recognized as impacting the care of patients with cancer, however there are a lack of data examining the impact of these disparities on patients with bone sarcoma. The purpose of this study was to examine socioeconomic and racial disparities that impact the oncological outcomes of patients with bone sarcoma. Methods. We reviewed 4,739 patients diagnosed with primary bone sarcomas from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry between 2007 and 2015. We examined the impact of race and insurance status associated with the presence of metastatic disease at diagnosis, treatment outcome, and overall survival (OS). Results. Patients with Medicaid (odds ratio (OR) 1.41; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.72) and uninsured patients (OR 1.90; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.86) had higher risks of metastatic disease at diagnosis compared to patients with health insurance. Compared to White patients, Black (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.85) and Asian/Pacific Islander (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.91) were less likely to undergo surgery. In addition, Black patients were less likely to receive chemotherapy (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.91) compared to White patients. In patients with chondrosarcoma, those with Medicaid had worse OS compared to patients with insurance (hazard ratio (HR) 1.65, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56). Conclusion. In patients with a bone sarcoma, the cancer stage at diagnosis varied based on insurance status, and racial disparities were identified in treatment. Further studies are needed to identify modifiable factors which can mitigate socioeconomic and racial disparities found in patients with bone sarcomas. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(5):278–291

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. The outcome of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange, and to determine whether the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) stage is associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all repeat septic revision TKAs which were undertaken after a failed one-stage exchange between 2004 and 2017. A total of 33 repeat septic revisions (29 one-stage and four two-stage) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up from repeat septic revision was 68.2 months (8.0 months to 16.1 years). The proportion of patients who had a subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision was reported and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints was determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS staging system, and the association with subsequent infection was analyzed. Results. At the most recent follow-up, 17 repeat septic revisions (52%) had a subsequent infection-related failure and the five-year infection-free survival was 59% (95% confidence interval (CI) 39 to 74). A total of 19 underwent a subsequent all-cause revision (58%) and the five-year all-cause revision-free survival was 47% (95% CI 28 to 64). The most common indication for the first subsequent aseptic revision was loosening. The MSIS stage of the host status (p = 0.663) and limb status (p = 1.000) were not significantly associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Conclusion. Repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange TKA for PJI is associated with a high rate of subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision. Patients should be counselled appropriately to manage expectations. The host and limb status according to the MSIS staging system were not associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):386–393

Aims. Endoprosthetic reconstruction with a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) can be used to treat distal femoral bone loss from oncological and non-oncological causes. This study reports the short-term implant survivorship, complications, and risk factors for patients who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of 75 patients from a single institution who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications, including aseptic loosening or mechanical failure of a previous prosthesis (n = 25), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 23), and native or periprosthetic distal femur fracture or nonunion (n = 27). Patients with less than 24 months’ follow-up were excluded. We collected patient demographic data, complications, and reoperations. Reoperation for implant failure was used to calculate implant survivorship. Results. Overall one- and five-year implant survivorship was 87% and 76%, respectively. By indication for DFA, mechanical failure had one- and five-year implant survivorship of 92% and 68%, PJI of 91% and 72%, and distal femur fracture/nonunion of 78% and 70% (p = 0.618). A total of 37 patients (49%) experienced complications and 27 patients (36%) required one or more reoperation. PJI (n = 16, 21%), aseptic loosening (n = 9, 12%), and wound complications (n = 8, 11%) were the most common complications. Component revision (n = 10, 13.3%) and single-stage exchange for PJI (n = 9, 12.0 %) were the most common reoperations. Only younger age was significantly associated with increased complications (mean 67 years (SD 9.1)) with complication vs 71 years (SD 9.9) without complication; p = 0.048). Conclusion. DFA is a viable option for distal femoral bone loss from a range of non-oncological causes, demonstrating acceptable short-term survivorship but with high overall complication rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):173–181

Aims. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic meant that proceeding with elective surgery was restricted to minimize exposure on wards. In order to maintain throughput of elective cases, our hospital (St Michaels Hospital, Toronto, Canada) was forced to convert as many cases as possible to same-day procedures rather than overnight admission. In this retrospective analysis, we review the cases performed as same-day arthroplasty surgeries compared to the same period in the previous 12 months. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasties over a three-month period between October and December in 2019, and again in 2020, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient demographics, number of outpatient primary arthroplasty cases, length of stay for admissions, 30-day readmission, and complications were collated. Results. In total, 428 patient charts were reviewed for October to December of 2019 (n = 195) and 2020 (n = 233). Of those, total hip arthroplasties (THAs) comprised 60% and 58.8% for 2019 and 2020, respectively. Demographic data was comparable with no statistical difference for age, sex, contralateral joint arthroplasty, or BMI. American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I was more highly prevalent in the 2020 cohort (5.1-times increase; n = 13 vs n = 1). Degenerative disc disease and fibromyalgia were less significantly prevalent in the 2020 cohort. There was a significant increase in same day discharges for non-direct anterior approach THAs (two-times increase) and total knee arthroplasty (ten-times increase), with a reciprocal decrease in next day discharges. There were significantly fewer reported superficial wound infections in 2020 (5.6% vs 1.7%) and no significant differences in readmissions or emergency department visits (3.1% vs 3.0%). Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic meant that hospitals and patients were hopeful to minimize the exposure to the wards, and minimize strain on the already taxed inpatient beds. With few positives during the COVID-19 crisis, the pandemic was the catalyst to speed up the outpatient arthroplasty programme that has resulted in our institution being more efficient, and with no increase in readmissions or early complications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):545–551

Aims. Giant cell tumours (GCTs) of the proximal femur are rare, and there is no consensus about the best method of filling the defect left by curettage. In this study, we compared the outcome of using a fibular strut allograft and bone cement to reconstruct the bone defect after extended curettage of a GCT of the proximal femur. Methods. In a retrospective study, we reviewed 26 patients with a GCT of the proximal femur in whom the bone defect had been filled with either a fibular strut allograft (n = 12) or bone cement (n = 14). Their demographic details and oncological and nononcological complications were retrieved from their medical records. Limb function was assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score. Results. Mean follow-up was 116 months (SD 59.2; 48 to 240) for the fibular strut allograft group and 113 months (SD 43.7; 60 to 192) for the bone cement group (p = 0.391). The rate of recurrence was not significantly different between the two groups (25% vs 21.4%). The rate of nononcological complications was 16.7% in the strut allograft group and 42.8% in the bone cement group. Degenerative joint disease was the most frequent nononcological complication in the cement group. The mean MSTS score of the patients was 92.4% (SD 11.5%; 73.3% to 100.0%) in the fibular strut allograft group and 74.2% (SD 10.5%; 66.7% to 96.7%) in the bone cement group (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Given the similar rate of recurrence and a lower rate of nononcological complications, fibular strut grafting could be recommended as a method of reconstructing the bone defect left by curettage of a GCT of the proximal femur. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):297–301

Aims

The outcomes following nonoperative management of minimally displaced greater tuberosity (GT) fractures, and the factors which influence patient experience, remain poorly defined. We assessed the early patient-derived outcomes following these injuries and examined the effect of a range of demographic- and injury-related variables on these outcomes.

Aims

The aims of this study were to identify and evaluate the current literature examining the prognostic factors which are associated with failure of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA).

The Bone & Joint Journal has published several consensus statements in recent years, many of which have positively influenced clinical practice and policy.^1-13 However, even the most valued consensus statements have limitations, and all ultimately represent Level V evidence. Consensus studies add greatest value where higher-order evidence to aid decision making is ambiguous or lacking. In all settings, care must be taken to critically appraise standards of methodology, with particular attention to potential biases that may influence the conclusions which are drawn.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):343–346.

Aims. Slipped upper femoral epiphysis (SUFE) has well documented biochemical and mechanical risk factors. Femoral and acetabular morphologies seem to be equally important. Acetabular retroversion has a low prevalence in asymptomatic adults. Hips with dysplasia, osteoarthritis, and Perthes’ disease, however, have higher rates, ranging from 18% to 48%. The aim of our study was to assess the prevalence of acetabular retroversion in patients presenting with SUFE using both validated radiological signs and tomographical measurements. Methods. A retrospective review of all SUFE surgical cases presenting to the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, from 2012 to 2019 were evaluated. Preoperative plain radiographs were assessed for slip angle, validated radiological signs of retroversion, and standardized postoperative CT scans were used to assess cranial and mid-acetabular version. Results. In all, 116 SUFEs presented in 107 patients who underwent surgical intervention; 47 (52%) were male, with a mean age of 12.7 years (7.5 to 16.6). Complete radiological data was available for 91 patients (99 hips) with adequate axial CT imaging of both hips. Overall, 82 patients (82%) underwent pinning in situ (PIS), with subcapital realignment surgery (SRS) performed in 17 patients (18%) (slip angles > 75°). Contralateral prophylactic PIS was performed in 72 patients (87%). On the slip side, 62 patients (68%) had one or more radiological sign of retroversion. Tomographical acetabular retroversion was more pronounced cranially than caudally of the acetabulum on both the affected side and the contralateral side (p < 0.001) as expected in the normal population. Increasing severity of the slip was found to be directly proportional to the degree of reduction in cranial and central acetabular version (p < 0.05) in the SUFE hips. Conclusion. Acetabular retroversion is more prevalent in patients with SUFE than previously reported, and have been shown be correlated to the severity of the slip presentation. The presence of radiological signs of acetabular retroversion could be used to justify prophylactic contralateral pinning. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):158–164