Aims. Ankle fractures are common injuries and the third most common fragility fracture. In all, 40% of ankle fractures in the frail are open and represent a complex clinical scenario, with morbidity and mortality rates similar to hip fracture patients. They have a higher risk of complications, such as wound infections, malunion, hospital-acquired infections, pressure sores, veno-thromboembolic events, and significant sarcopaenia from prolonged bed rest. Methods. A modified Delphi method was used and a group of experts with a vested interest in best practice were invited from the British Foot and Ankle Society (BOFAS), British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), Orthopaedic Trauma Society (OTS), British Association of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgeons (BAPRAS), British Geriatric Society (BGS), and the British Limb Reconstruction Society (BLRS). Results. In the first stage, there were 36 respondents to the survey, with over 70% stating their unit treats more than 20 such cases per year. There was a 50:50 split regarding if the timing of surgery should be within 36 hours, as per the hip fracture guidelines, or 72 hours, as per the open fracture guidelines. Overall, 75% would attempt primary wound closure and 25% would utilize a local flap. There was no orthopaedic agreement on fixation, and 75% would permit weightbearing immediately. In the second stage, performed at the BLRS meeting, experts discussed the survey results and agreed upon a consensus for the management of open elderly ankle fractures. Conclusion. A mutually agreed consensus from the expert panel was reached to enable the best practice for the management of patients with frailty with an open ankle fracture: 1) all units managing lower limb fragility fractures should do so through a cohorted multidisciplinary pathway. This pathway should follow the standards laid down in the "care of the older or frail orthopaedic trauma patient" British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guideline. These patients have low bone density, and we should recommend full falls and bone health assessment; 2) all open lower limb fragility fractures should be treated in a single stage within 24 hours of injury if possible; 3) all patients with fragility fractures of the lower limb should be considered for mobilisation on the day following surgery; 4) all patients with lower limb open fragility fractures should be considered for tissue sparing, with judicious debridement as a default; 5) all patients with open lower limb fragility fractures should be managed by a consultant plastic surgeon with primary closure wherever possible; and 6) the method of fixation must allow for immediate unrestricted weightbearing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):236–242

Aims. Acetabular fractures are associated with long-term morbidity. Our prospective cohort study sought to understand the recovery trajectory of this injury over five years. Methods. Eligible patients at a level I trauma centre were recruited into a longitudinal registry of surgical acetabular fractures between June 2004 and August 2019. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS), were recorded at baseline pre-injury recall and six months, one year, two years, and five years postoperatively. Comparative analyses were performed for elementary and associated fracture patterns. The proportion of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was determined. The rate of, and time to, conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) was also established. Results. We recruited 251 patients (253 fractures), with a 4:1 male to female ratio and mean age of 46.1 years (SD 16.4). Associated fracture patterns accounted for 56.5% of fractures (n = 143). Trajectory analysis showed all timepoints had significant disability versus baseline, including final follow-up (p < 0.001). Elementary fractures had higher SF-36 PCS at six months (p = 0.023) and one year (p = 0.007) compared to associated fractures, but not at two years (p = 0.135) or five years (p = 0.631). The MCID in SF-36 PCS was observed in 37.3% of patients (69/185) between six months and one year, 26.9% of patients (39/145) between one and two years, and 23.3% of patients (20/86) between two and five years, highlighting the long recovery potential of these injuries. A significant proportion of patients failed to attain the MCID after five years (38.1%; 40/105). Conversion to THA occurred in 13.1% of patients (11/110 elementary and 22/143 associated fractures). Approximately two-thirds of THAs (21/33 patients; 63.6%) were performed within two years of index surgery. Conclusion. Acetabular fractures significantly impact physical function. Recovery trajectory is often elongated beyond one year, with two-thirds of our patients displaying persistent clinically relevant long-term disability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):69–76

Aims. Frailty greatly increases the risk of adverse outcome of trauma in older people. Frailty detection tools appear to be unsuitable for use in traumatically injured older patients. We therefore aimed to develop a method for detecting frailty in older people sustaining trauma using routinely collected clinical data. Methods. We analyzed prospectively collected registry data from 2,108 patients aged ≥ 65 years who were admitted to a single major trauma centre over five years (1 October 2015 to 31 July 2020). We divided the sample equally into two, creating derivation and validation samples. In the derivation sample, we performed univariate analyses followed by multivariate regression, starting with 27 clinical variables in the registry to predict Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS; range 1 to 9) scores. Bland-Altman analyses were performed in the validation cohort to evaluate any biases between the Nottingham Trauma Frailty Index (NTFI) and the CFS. Results. In the derivation cohort, five of the 27 variables were strongly predictive of the CFS (regression coefficient B = 6.383 (95% confidence interval 5.03 to 7.74), p < 0.001): age, Abbreviated Mental Test score, admission haemoglobin concentration (g/l), pre-admission mobility (needs assistance or not), and mechanism of injury (falls from standing height). In the validation cohort, there was strong agreement between the NTFI and the CFS (mean difference 0.02) with no apparent systematic bias. Conclusion. We have developed a clinically applicable tool using easily and routinely measured physiological and functional parameters, which clinicians and researchers can use to guide patient care and to stratify the analysis of quality improvement and research projects. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):412–418

The June 2024 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Skin antisepsis before surgical fixation of limb fractures; Comparative analysis of intramedullary nail versus plate fixation for fibula fracture in supination external rotation type IV ankle injury; Early weightbearing versus late weightbearing after intramedullary nailing for distal femoral fracture (AO/OTA 33) in elderly patients: a multicentre propensity-matched study; Long-term outcomes with spinal versus general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery; Operative versus nonoperative management of unstable medial malleolus fractures: a randomized clinical trial; Impact of smoking status on fracture-related infection characteristics and outcomes; Reassessing empirical antimicrobial choices in fracture-related infections; Development and validation of the Nottingham Trauma Frailty Index (NTFI) for older trauma patients

Aims. The first death in the UK caused by COVID-19 occurred on 5 March 2020. We aim to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of major trauma and orthopaedic patients admitted in the early COVID-19 era. Methods. A prospective trauma registry was reviewed at a Level 1 Major Trauma Centre. We divided patients into Group A, 40 days prior to 5 March 2020, and into Group B, 40 days after. Results. A total of 657 consecutive trauma and orthopaedic patients were identified with a mean age of 55 years (8 to 98; standard deviation (SD) 22.52) and 393 (59.8%) were males. In all, 344 (approximately 50%) of admissions were major trauma. Group A had 421 patients, decreasing to 236 patients in Group B (36%). Mechanism of injury (MOI) was commonly a fall in 351 (52.4%) patients, but road traffic accidents (RTAs) increased from 56 (13.3%) in group A to 51 (21.6%) in group B (p = 0.030). ICU admissions decreased from 26 (6.2%) in group A to 5 (2.1%) in group B. Overall, 39 patients tested positive for COVID-19 with mean age of 73 years (28 to 98; SD 17.99) and 22 (56.4%) males. Common symptoms were dyspnoea, dry cough, and pyrexia. Of these patients, 27 (69.2%) were nosocomial infections and two (5.1%) of these patients required intensive care unit (ICU) admission with 8/39 mortality (20.5%). Of the patients who died, 50% were older and had underlying comorbidities (hypertension and cardiovascular disease, dementia, arthritis). Conclusion. Trauma admissions decreased in the lockdown phase with an increased incidence of RTAs. Nosocomial infection was common in 27 (69.2%) of those with COVID-19. Symptoms and comorbidities were consistent with previous reports with noted inclusion of dementia and arthritis. The mortality rate of trauma and COVID-19 was 20.5%, mainly in octogenarians, and COVID-19 surgical mortality was 15.4%. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:330–338

The August 2024 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Does topical vancomycin prevent fracture-related infections in closed fractures undergoing open reduction and internal fixation? A randomized controlled trial; Is postoperative splinting advantageous after upper limb fracture surgery?; Does suprapatellar nailing resolve knee pain?; Locking versus non-locking plate fixation in comminuted talar neck fractures: a biomechanical study using cadaveric specimens; Revolutionizing recovery metrics: PROMIS versus SMFA in orthopaedic trauma care; Dorsal hook plating of patella fractures: reliable fixation and satisfactory outcomes; The impact of obesity on subtrochanteric femur fracture outcomes; Low-dose NSAIDs (ketorolac) and cytokine modulation in orthopaedic polytrauma: a detailed analysis

Aims. Machine-learning (ML) prediction models in orthopaedic trauma hold great promise in assisting clinicians in various tasks, such as personalized risk stratification. However, an overview of current applications and critical appraisal to peer-reviewed guidelines is lacking. The objectives of this study are to 1) provide an overview of current ML prediction models in orthopaedic trauma; 2) evaluate the completeness of reporting following the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement; and 3) assess the risk of bias following the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool. Methods. A systematic search screening 3,252 studies identified 45 ML-based prediction models in orthopaedic trauma up to January 2023. The TRIPOD statement assessed transparent reporting and the PROBAST tool the risk of bias. Results. A total of 40 studies reported on training and internal validation; four studies performed both development and external validation, and one study performed only external validation. The most commonly reported outcomes were mortality (33%, 15/45) and length of hospital stay (9%, 4/45), and the majority of prediction models were developed in the hip fracture population (60%, 27/45). The overall median completeness for the TRIPOD statement was 62% (interquartile range 30 to 81%). The overall risk of bias in the PROBAST tool was low in 24% (11/45), high in 69% (31/45), and unclear in 7% (3/45) of the studies. High risk of bias was mainly due to analysis domain concerns including small datasets with low number of outcomes, complete-case analysis in case of missing data, and no reporting of performance measures. Conclusion. The results of this study showed that despite a myriad of potential clinically useful applications, a substantial part of ML studies in orthopaedic trauma lack transparent reporting, and are at high risk of bias. These problems must be resolved by following established guidelines to instil confidence in ML models among patients and clinicians. Otherwise, there will remain a sizeable gap between the development of ML prediction models and their clinical application in our day-to-day orthopaedic trauma practice. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(1):9–19

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. Hand trauma, consisting of injuries to both the hand and the wrist, are a common injury seen worldwide. The global age-standardized incidence of hand trauma exceeds 179 per 100,000. Hand trauma may require surgical management and therefore result in significant costs to both healthcare systems and society. Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common following all surgical interventions, and within hand surgery the risk of SSI is at least 5%. SSI following hand trauma surgery results in significant costs to healthcare systems with estimations of over £450 per patient. The World Health Organization (WHO) have produced international guidelines to help prevent SSIs. However, it is unclear what variability exists in the adherence to these guidelines within hand trauma. The aim is to assess compliance to the WHO global guidelines in prevention of SSI in hand trauma. Methods. This will be an international, multicentre audit comparing antimicrobial practices in hand trauma to the standards outlined by WHO. Through the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network (RSTN), hand surgeons across the globe will be invited to participate in the study. Consultant surgeons/associate specialists managing hand trauma and members of the multidisciplinary team will be identified at participating sites. Teams will be asked to collect data prospectively on a minimum of 20 consecutive patients. The audit will run for eight months. Data collected will include injury details, initial management, hand trauma team management, operation details, postoperative care, and antimicrobial techniques used throughout. Adherence to WHO global guidelines for SSI will be summarized using descriptive statistics across each criteria. Discussion. The Hand and Wrist trauma: Antimicrobials and Infection Audit of Clinical Practice (HAWAII ACP) will provide an understanding of the current antimicrobial practice in hand trauma surgery. This will then provide a basis to guide further research in the field. The findings of this study will be disseminated via conference presentations and a peer-reviewed publication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):361–366

Aims. The primary objective of this study was to develop a validated classification system for assessing iatrogenic bone trauma and soft-tissue injury during total hip arthroplasty (THA). The secondary objective was to compare macroscopic bone trauma and soft-tissues injury in conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA) using this classification system. Methods. This study included 30 CO THAs versus 30 RO THAs performed by a single surgeon. Intraoperative photographs of the osseous acetabulum and periacetabular soft-tissues were obtained prior to implantation of the acetabular component, which were used to develop the proposed classification system. Interobserver and intraobserver variabilities of the proposed classification system were assessed. Results. The BOne trauma and Soft-Tissue Injury classification system in total Hip arthroplasty (BOSTI Hip) grades osseous acetabular trauma and periarticular muscle damage during THA. The classification system has an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.90 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.93) for interobserver agreement and 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93) for intraobserver agreement. RO THA was associated with improved BOSTI Hip scores (p = 0.002) and more pristine osseous surfaces in the anterior superior (p = 0.001) and posterior superior (p < 0.001) acetabular quadrants compared with CO THA. There were no differences between the groups in relation to injury to the gluteus medius (p = 0.084), obturator internus (p = 0.241), piriformis (p = 0.081), superior gamellus (p = 0.116), inferior gamellus (p = 0.132), quadratus femoris (p = 0.208), and vastus lateralis (p = 0.135), but overall combined muscle injury was reduced in RO THA compared with CO THA (p = 0.023). Discussion. The proposed BOSTI Hip classification provides a reproducible grading system for stratifying iatrogenic bone trauma and soft-tissue injury during THA. RO THA was associated with improved BOSTI Hip scores, more pristine osseous acetabular surfaces, and reduced combined periarticular muscle injury compared with CO THA. Further research is required to understand if these intraoperative findings translate to differences in clinical outcomes between the treatment groups. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):898–906

The February 2024 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Posterior malleolus fractures: what about medium-sized fragments?; Acute or delayed total hip arthroplasty after acetabular fracture fixation?; Intrawound antibiotics reduce the risk of deep infections in fracture fixation; Does the VANCO trial represent real world patients?; Can a restrictive transfusion protocol be effective beyond initial resuscitation?; What risk factors result in avascular necrosis of the talus?; Pre-existing anxiety and mood disorders have a role to play in complex regional pain syndrome; Three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures at ten years

The June 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Aspirin or low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis?; Lateral plating or retrograde nailing for distal femur fractures?; Sciatic nerve palsy after acetabular fixation: what about patient position?; How reliable is the new OTA/AO classification for trochanteric hip fractures?; Young hip fractures: is a medial buttress the answer?; When is the best time to ‘flap’ an open fracture?; The mortality burden of nonoperatively managed hip fractures

The October 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Intramedullary nailing versus sliding hip screw in trochanteric fracture management: the INSITE randomized clinical trial; Five-year outcomes for patients with a displaced fracture of the distal tibia; Direct anterior versus anterolateral approach in hip joint hemiarthroplasty; Proximal humerus fractures: treat them all nonoperatively?; Tranexamic acid administration by prehospital personnel; Locked plating versus nailing for proximal tibia fractures: a multicentre randomized controlled trial; A retrospective review of the rate of septic knee arthritis after retrograde femoral nailing for traumatic femoral fractures at a single academic institution

The August 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: A comparison of functional cast and volar-flexion ulnar deviation for dorsally displaced distal radius fractures; Give your stable ankle fractures some AIR!; Early stabilization of rib fractures – an effective thing to do?; Locked plating versus nailing for proximal tibia fractures: A multicentre randomized controlled trial; Time to flap coverage in open tibia fractures; Does tranexamic acid affect the incidence of heterotropic ossification around the elbow?; High BMI – good or bad in surgical fixation of hip fractures?

The December 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Distal femoral arthroplasty: medical risks under the spotlight; Quads repair: tunnels or anchors?; Complex trade-offs in treating severe tibial fractures: limb salvage versus primary amputation; Middle-sized posterior malleolus fractures – to fix?; Bone transport through induced membrane: a randomized controlled trial; Displaced geriatric femoral neck fractures; Risk factors for reoperation to promote union in 1,111 distal femur fractures; New versus old – reliability of the OTA/AO classification for trochanteric hip fractures; Risk factors for fracture-related infection after ankle fracture surgery

The February 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Masquelet versus bone transport in infected nonunion of tibia; Hyperbaric Oxygen for Lower Limb Trauma (HOLLT): an international multicentre randomized clinical trial; Is the T-shaped acetabular fracture really a “T”?; What causes cut-out of proximal femur nail anti-rotation device in intertrochanteric fractures?; Is the common femoral artery at risk with percutaneous fragility pelvis fixation?; Anterior pelvic ring pattern predicts displacement in lateral compression fractures; Differences in age-related characteristics among elderly patients with hip fractures

The April 2024 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: The infra-acetabular screw in acetabular fracture surgery; Is skin traction helpful in patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures?; Reducing pain and improving function following hip fracture surgery; Are postoperative splints helpful following ankle fracture fixation?; Biomechanics of internal fixation in Hoffa fractures: a comparison of four different constructs; Dual-plate fixation of periprosthetic distal femur fractures; Do direct oral anticoagulants necessarily mean a delay to hip fracture surgery?; Plate or retrograde nail for low distal femur fractures?

The April 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Displaced femoral neck fractures in patients aged 55 to 70 years: internal fixation or total hip arthroplasty?; Tibial plateau fractures: continuous passive motion approves range of motion; Lisfranc fractures: to fuse or not to fuse, that is the question; Is hardware removal after clavicle fracture plate fixation beneficial?; Fixation to coverage in Grade IIIB open fractures – what’s the time window?; Nonoperative versus locking plate fixation in the proximal humerus; Retrograde knee nailing or lateral plate for distal femur fractures?

The December 2024 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation is effective in the management of unstable transverse sacral fractures; A systematic review on autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) for chondral knee defects; Stable clinical and radiological outcomes at medium and over five-year follow-up of calcaneus fracture open reduction internal fixation using a sinus tarsi approach; Right or left? It might make a difference; Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar tibial nailing – is there a difference in anterior knee pain and function?; Can patients safely weightbear following ankle fracture fixation?; Anterior-to-posterior or a plate fixation for posterior malleous fractures?; Audio distraction for traction pin insertion: a prospective randomized controlled study; Is intramedullary nailing of femoral diaphyseal fractures in the lateral decubitus position as safe and effective as on a traction table?