This paper outlines the recent development of an exchange Travelling Fellowship scheme between the British and American Orthopaedic Research Societies

Objectives. As tumours of bone and soft tissue are rare, multicentre prospective collaboration is essential for meaningful research and evidence-based advances in patient care. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators encountered in large-scale collaborative research by orthopaedic oncological surgeons involved or interested in prospective multicentre collaboration. Methods. All surgeons who were involved, or had expressed an interest, in the ongoing Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial were invited to participate in a focus group to discuss their experiences with collaborative research in this area. The discussion was digitally recorded, transcribed and anonymised. The transcript was analysed qualitatively, using an analytic approach which aims to organise the data in the language of the participants with little theoretical interpretation. Results. The 13 surgeons who participated in the discussion represented orthopaedic oncology practices from seven countries (Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Denmark, United States and Canada). Four categories and associated themes emerged from the discussion: the need for collaboration in the field of orthopaedic oncology due to the rarity of the tumours and the need for high level evidence to guide treatment; motivational factors for participating in collaborative research including establishing proof of principle, learning opportunity, answering a relevant research question and being part of a collaborative research community; barriers to participation including funding, personal barriers, institutional barriers, trial barriers, and administrative barriers and facilitators for participation including institutional facilitators, leadership, authorship, trial set-up, and the support of centralised study coordination. Conclusions. Orthopaedic surgeons involved in an ongoing international randomised controlled trial (RCT) were motivated by many factors to participate. There were a number of barriers to and facilitators for their participation. There was a collective sense of fatigue experienced in overcoming these barriers, which was mirrored by a strong collective sense of the importance of, and need for, collaborative research in this field. The experiences were described as essential educational first steps to advance collaborative studies in this area. Knowledge gained from this study will inform the development of future large-scale collaborative research projects in orthopaedic oncology. Cite this article: J. S. Rendon, M. Swinton, N. Bernthal, M. Boffano, T. Damron, N. Evaniew, P. Ferguson, M. Galli Serra, W. Hettwer, P. McKay, B. Miller, L. Nystrom, W. Parizzia, P. Schneider, A. Spiguel, R. Vélez, K. Weiss, J. P. Zumárraga, M. Ghert. Barriers and facilitators experienced in collaborative prospective research in orthopaedic oncology: A qualitative study. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–314. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2016-0192.R1

Aims. The aim of this study was to examine the association between postoperative glycaemic variability and adverse outcomes following orthopaedic surgery. Patients and Methods. This retrospective study analyzed data on 12 978 patients (1361 with two operations) who underwent orthopaedic surgery at a single institution between 2001 and 2017. Patients with a minimum of either two postoperative measurements of blood glucose levels per day, or more than three measurements overall, were included in the study. Glycaemic variability was assessed using a coefficient of variation (CV). The length of stay (LOS), in-hospital complications, and 90-day readmission and mortality rates were examined. Data were analyzed with linear and generalized linear mixed models for linear and binary outcomes, adjusting for various covariates. Results. The cohort included 14 339 admissions, of which 3302 (23.0%) involved diabetic patients. Patients with CV values in the upper tertile were twice as likely to have an in-hospital complication compared with patients in the lowest tertile (19.4% versus 9.0%, p < 0.001), and almost five times more likely to die compared with those in the lowest tertile (2.8% versus 0.6%, p < 0.001). Results of the adjusted analyses indicated that the mean LOS was 1.28 days longer in the highest versus the lowest CV tertile (p < 0.001), and the odds of an in-hospital complication and 90-day mortality in the highest CV tertile were respectively 1.91 (p < 0.001) and 2.10 (p = 0.001) times larger than the odds of these events in the lowest CV tertile. These associations were significant even for non-diabetic patients. After adjusting for hypoglycaemia, the relationships remained significant, except that the CV tertile no longer predicted mortality in diabetics. Conclusion. These results indicate that higher glycaemic variability is associated with longer LOS and in-hospital complications. Glycaemic variability also predicted death, although that primarily held for non-diabetic patients in the highest CV tertile following orthopaedic surgery. Prospective studies should examine whether ensuring low postoperative glycaemic variability may reduce complication rates and mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1125–32

Aims. The importance of accurate identification and reporting of surgical site infection (SSI) is well recognised but poorly defined. Public Health England (PHE) mandated collection of orthopaedic SSI data in 2004. Data submission is required in one of four categories (hip prosthesis, knee prosthesis, repair of neck of femur, reduction of long bone fracture) for one quarter per year. Trusts are encouraged to carry out post-discharge surveillance but this is not mandatory. Recent papers in the orthopaedic literature have highlighted the importance of SSI surveillance and the heterogeneity of surveillance methods. However, details of current orthopaedic SSI surveillance practice has not been described or quantified. Patients and Methods. All 147 NHS trusts in England were audited using a structured questionnaire. Data was collected in the following categories: data collection; data submission to PHE; definitions used; resource constraints; post-discharge surveillance and SSI rates in the four PHE categories. The response rate was 87.7%. Results. Variation in practice was clear in all categories in terms of methods and timings of data collection and data submission. There was little agreement on SSI definitions. At least six different definitions were used, some trusts using more than one definition. Post-discharge surveillance was carried out by 62% of respondents but there was again variation in both the methods and staff used. More than half of the respondents felt that SSI surveillance in their unit was limited by resource constraints. SSI rates ranged from 0% to 10%. Conclusion. This paper quantifies the heterogeneity of SSI surveillance in England. It highlights the importance of adequate resourcing and the unreliability of relying on voluntary data collection and submission. Conformity of definitions and methods are recommended to enable meaningful SSI data to be collated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:171–4

The global economy has been facing a financial crisis. Healthcare costs are spiraling, and there is a projected £30 billion health funding gap by 2020 in the UK. 1. This has prompted a drive for efficiency in healthcare provision in the UK, and in 2012, the Health and Social Care Act was introduced, heralding a fundamental change to the structure of the National Health Service, especially in the way that healthcare is funded in England. 2. What is happening in the UK is a reflection of a global problem. Rationing of healthcare is a topic of much discussion; as unless spending is capped, providing healthcare will become unsustainable. Who decides how money is spent, and which services should be rationed? . In this article we aim to discuss the impact that rationing may have on orthopaedic surgery, and we will discuss our own experiences of attempts to ration local services. 3. We also seek to inform and educate the general orthopaedic community on this topic

The use of robots in orthopaedic surgery is an emerging field that is gaining momentum. It has the potential for significant improvements in surgical planning, accuracy of component implantation and patient safety. Advocates of robot-assisted systems describe better patient outcomes through improved pre-operative planning and enhanced execution of surgery. However, costs, limited availability, a lack of evidence regarding the efficiency and safety of such systems and an absence of long-term high-impact studies have restricted the widespread implementation of these systems. We have reviewed the literature on the efficacy, safety and current understanding of the use of robotics in orthopaedics. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:292–9

Aims. The principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) are the foundation of modern medical practice. Surgeons are familiar with the commonly used statistical techniques to test hypotheses, summarize findings, and provide answers within a specified range of probability. Based on this knowledge, they are able to critically evaluate research before deciding whether or not to adopt the findings into practice. Recently, there has been an increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze information and derive findings in orthopaedic research. These techniques use a set of statistical tools that are increasingly complex and may be unfamiliar to the orthopaedic surgeon. It is unclear if this shift towards less familiar techniques is widely accepted in the orthopaedic community. This study aimed to provide an exploration of understanding and acceptance of AI use in research among orthopaedic surgeons. Methods. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out on a sample of 12 orthopaedic surgeons. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. Results. The four intersecting themes identified were: 1) validity in traditional research, 2) confusion around the definition of AI, 3) an inability to validate AI research, and 4) cautious optimism about AI research. Underpinning these themes is the notion of a validity heuristic that is strongly rooted in traditional research teaching and embedded in medical and surgical training. Conclusion. Research involving AI sometimes challenges the accepted traditional evidence-based framework. This can give rise to confusion among orthopaedic surgeons, who may be unable to confidently validate findings. In our study, the impact of this was mediated by cautious optimism based on an ingrained validity heuristic that orthopaedic surgeons develop through their medical training. Adding to this, the integration of AI into everyday life works to reduce suspicion and aid acceptance. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):696–703

Implant-associated infection is a major source of morbidity in orthopaedic surgery. There has been extensive research into the development of materials that prevent biofilm formation, and hence, reduce the risk of infection. Silver nanoparticle technology is receiving much interest in the field of orthopaedics for its antimicrobial properties, and the results of studies to date are encouraging. Antimicrobial effects have been seen when silver nanoparticles are used in trauma implants, tumour prostheses, bone cement, and also when combined with hydroxyapatite coatings. Although there are promising results with in vitro and in vivo studies, the number of clinical studies remains small. Future studies will be required to explore further the possible side effects associated with silver nanoparticles, to ensure their use in an effective and biocompatible manner. Here we present a review of the current literature relating to the production of nanosilver for medical use, and its orthopaedic applications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:582–9

Prophylactic antibiotics can decrease the risk of wound infection and have been routinely employed in orthopaedic surgery for decades. Despite their widespread use, questions still surround the selection of antibiotics for prophylaxis, timing and duration of administration. The health economic costs associated with wound infections are significant, and the judicious but appropriate use of antibiotics can reduce this risk. This review examines the evidence behind commonly debated topics in antibiotic prophylaxis and highlights the uses and advantages of some commonly used antibiotics. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1014–19

While the demand for orthopaedic surgical expertise in the developing world is in critically short supply, short-term remedy from visiting doctors cannot solve this long-term healthcare problem. Capacity building by senior and training orthopaedic surgeons from established Western training programmes can offer a significant contribution to the orthopaedic patient in the developing world and the gains for those visiting are extremely valuable. We report on several visits by a UK orthopaedic team to a hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan and discuss the operative and non-operative case mix and the benefits in terms of local capacity building and the unique experience of those visiting