Aims. Lower limb reconstruction (LLR) has a profound impact on patients, affecting multiple areas of their lives. Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are employed to assess these impacts; however, there are concerns that they do not adequately capture all outcomes important to patients, and may lack content validity in this context. This review explored whether PROMs used with adults requiring, undergoing, or after undergoing LLR exhibited content validity and adequately captured outcomes considered relevant and important to patients. Methods. A total of 37 PROMs were identified. Systematic searches were performed to retrieve content validity studies in the adult LLR population, and hand-searches used to find PROM development studies. Content validity assessments for each measure were performed following Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. A mapping exercise compared all PROMs to a conceptual framework previously developed by the study team (‘the PROLLIT framework’) to explore whether each PROM covered important and relevant concepts. Results. The systematic searches found 13 studies, while hand searches found 50 PROM development studies, and copies of all 37 measures. Although several studies discussed content validity, none were found which formally assessed this measurement property in the adult LLR population. Development of many PROMs was rated as inadequate, no PROM had sufficient content validity in the study population, and none covered all areas of the PROLLIT framework. The LIMB-Q was the most promising and comprehensive measure assessed, although further validation in a wider sample of LLR patients was recommended. Conclusion. Current PROMs used in adults requiring, undergoing, or after undergoing LLR lack content validity and do not assess all important and relevant outcomes. There is an urgent need for improved outcome measurement in this population. This can be achieved through development of a new PROM, or through validation of existing measures in representative samples. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1049–1066

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are being used increasingly in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We conducted a systematic review aimed at identifying psychometrically sound PROMs by appraising their measurement properties. Studies concerning the development and/or evaluation of the measurement properties of PROMs used in a TKA population were systematically retrieved via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. Ratings for methodological quality and measurement properties were conducted according to updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Of the 155 articles on 34 instruments included, nine PROMs met the minimum requirements for psychometric validation and can be recommended to use as measures of TKA outcome: Oxford Knee Score (OKS); OKS–Activity and Participation Questionnaire (OKS-APQ); 12-item short form Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS-12); KOOS Physical function Short form (KOOS-PS); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index-Total Knee Replacement function short form (WOMAC-TKR); Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS); Forgotten Joint Score (FJS); Patient’s Knee Implant Performance (PKIP); and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score. The pain and function subscales in WOMAC, as well as the pain, function, and quality of life subscales in KOOS, were validated psychometrically as standalone subscales instead of as whole instruments. However, none of the included PROMs have been validated for all measurement properties. Thus, further studies are still warranted to evaluate those PROMs. Use of the other 25 scales and subscales should be tempered until further studies validate their measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(3):203–217

Aims. Open lower limb fracture is a life-changing injury affecting 11.5 per 100,000 adults each year, and causes significant morbidity and resource demand on trauma infrastructures. This study aims to identify what, and how, outcomes have been reported for people following open lower limb fracture over ten years. Methods. Systematic literature searches identified all clinical studies reporting outcomes for adults following open lower limb fracture between January 2009 and July 2019. All outcomes and outcome measurement instruments were extracted verbatim. An iterative process was used to group outcome terms under standardized outcome headings categorized using an outcome taxonomy. Results. A total of 532 eligible studies were identified, reporting 1,803 outcomes with 786 unique outcome terms, which collapsed to 82 standardized outcome headings. Overall 479 individual outcome measurement instruments were identified, including 298 outcome definitions, 27 patient- and 18 clinician-reported outcome measures, and six physical performance measures. The most-reported outcome was ‘bone union/healing’ reported in over 50% of included studies, while health-related quality of life was only measured in 6% of included studies. Conclusion. Outcomes reported for people recovering from open lower limb fracture are heterogeneous, liable to outcome reporting bias, and vary widely in the definitions and the measurement tools used to collect them. Outcomes likely to be important to patients, such as quality of life and measures of physical functioning, have been neglected. This systematic review identifies the need to unify outcome measures reported on patients recovering from open lower limb fracture; this may be addressed by creating a core outcome set. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(2):138–146

Aims. Machine learning (ML), a branch of artificial intelligence that uses algorithms to learn from data and make predictions, offers a pathway towards more personalized and tailored surgical treatments. This approach is particularly relevant to prevalent joint diseases such as osteoarthritis (OA). In contrast to end-stage disease, where joint arthroplasty provides excellent results, early stages of OA currently lack effective therapies to halt or reverse progression. Accurate prediction of OA progression is crucial if timely interventions are to be developed, to enhance patient care and optimize the design of clinical trials. Methods. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on 5 May 2024 for studies utilizing ML to predict OA progression. Titles and abstracts were independently screened, followed by full-text reviews for studies that met the eligibility criteria. Key information was extracted and synthesized for analysis, including types of data (such as clinical, radiological, or biochemical), definitions of OA progression, ML algorithms, validation methods, and outcome measures. Results. Out of 1,160 studies initially identified, 39 were included. Most studies (85%) were published between 2020 and 2024, with 82% using publicly available datasets, primarily the Osteoarthritis Initiative. ML methods were predominantly supervised, with significant variability in the definitions of OA progression: most studies focused on structural changes (59%), while fewer addressed pain progression or both. Deep learning was used in 44% of studies, while automated ML was used in 5%. There was a lack of standardization in evaluation metrics and limited external validation. Interpretability was explored in 54% of studies, primarily using SHapley Additive exPlanations. Conclusion. Our systematic review demonstrates the feasibility of ML models in predicting OA progression, but also uncovers critical limitations that currently restrict their clinical applicability. Future priorities should include diversifying data sources, standardizing outcome measures, enforcing rigorous validation, and integrating more sophisticated algorithms. This paradigm shift from predictive modelling to actionable clinical tools has the potential to transform patient care and disease management in orthopaedic practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1216–1222

Aims. To systematically review the efficacy of split tendon transfer surgery on gait-related outcomes for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP) and spastic equinovarus foot deformity. Methods. Five databases (CENTRAL, CINAHL, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science) were systematically screened for studies investigating split tibialis anterior or split tibialis posterior tendon transfer for spastic equinovarus foot deformity, with gait-related outcomes (published pre-September 2022). Study quality and evidence were assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies, the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Results. Overall, 17 studies (566 feet) were included: 13 studies used clinical grading criteria to report a postoperative ‘success’ of 87% (75% to 100%), 14 reported on orthotic use with 88% reduced postoperative use, and one study reported on ankle kinematics improvements. Ten studies reported post-surgical complications at a rate of 11/390 feet (2.8%), but 84 feet (14.8%) had recurrent varus (68 feet, 12%) or occurrence of valgus (16 feet, 2.8%). Only one study included a patient-reported outcome measure (pain). Conclusion. Split tendon transfers are an effective treatment for children and youth with CP and spastic equinovarus foot deformities. Clinical data presented can be used for future study designs; a more standardized functional and patient-focused approach to evaluating outcomes of surgical intervention of gait may be warranted. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):283–298

Aims. To systematically review the predominant complication rates and changes to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation for shoulder instability. Methods. This systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO, involved a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Key search terms included “allograft”, “shoulder”, “humerus”, and “glenoid”. The review encompassed 37 studies with 456 patients, focusing on primary outcomes like failure rates and secondary outcomes such as PROMs and functional test results. Results. A meta-analysis of primary outcomes across 17 studies revealed a dislocation rate of 5.1% and an increase in reoperation rates from 9.3% to 13.7% post-publication bias adjustment. There was also a noted rise in conversion to total shoulder arthroplasty and incidence of osteoarthritis/osteonecrosis over longer follow-up periods. Patient-reported outcomes and functional tests generally showed improvement, albeit with notable variability across studies. A concerning observation was the consistent presence of allograft resorption, with rates ranging from 33% to 80%. Comparative studies highlighted similar efficacy between distal tibial allografts and Latarjet procedures in most respects, with some differences in specific tests. Conclusion. OCA transplantation presents a promising treatment option for shoulder instability, effectively addressing both glenoid and humeral head defects with favourable patient-reported outcomes. These findings advocate for the inclusion of OCA transplantation in treatment protocols for shoulder instability, while also emphasizing the need for further high-quality, long-term research to better understand the procedure’s efficacy profile. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):570–580

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. Day-case knee and hip replacement, in which patients are discharged on the day of surgery, has been gaining popularity during the last two decades, and particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review presents the evidence comparing day-case to inpatient-stay surgery. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed of MEDLINE, Embase, and grey literature databases to include all studies which compare day-case with inpatient knee and hip replacement. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate using a random effects model. The protocol was registered prospectively (PROSPERO CRD42023392811). Results. A total of 38 studies were included, with a total of 83,888 day-case procedures. The studies were predominantly from the USA and Canada, observational, and with a high risk of bias. Day-case patients were a mean of 2.08 years younger (95% CI 1.05 to 3.12), were more likely to be male (odds ratio (OR) 1.3 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.41)), and had a lower mean BMI and American Society of Anesthesiologists grades compared with inpatients. Overall, day-case surgery was associated with significantly lower odds of readmission (OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.96); p = 0.009), subsequent emergency department attendance (OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.79); p < 0.001), and complications (OR 0.7 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.89) p = 0.004), than inpatient surgery. There were no significant differences in the rates of reoperation or mortality. The overall rate of successful same-day discharge for day-case surgery was 85% (95% CI 81 to 88). Patient-reported outcome measures and cost-effectiveness were either equal or favoured day-case. Conclusion. Within the limitations of the literature, in particular the substantial risk of selection bias, the outcomes following day-case knee and hip replacement appear not to be inferior to those following an inpatient stay. The evidence is more robust for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) than for total knee replacement (TKR) or total hip replacement (THR). The rate of successful same-day discharge is highest in UKR, followed by TKR and comparatively lower in THR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1385–1392

Aims. Clinical management of open fractures is challenging and frequently requires complex reconstruction procedures. The Gustilo-Anderson classification lacks uniform interpretation, has poor interobserver reliability, and fails to account for injuries to musculotendinous units and bone. The Ganga Hospital Open Injury Severity Score (GHOISS) was designed to address these concerns. The major aim of this review was to ascertain the evidence available on accuracy of the GHOISS in predicting successful limb salvage in patients with mangled limbs. Methods. We searched electronic data bases including PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies that employed the GHOISS risk tool in managing complex limb injuries published from April 2006, when the score was introduced, until April 2021. Primary outcome was the measured sensitivity and specificity of the GHOISS risk tool for predicting amputation at a specified threshold score. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, need for plastic surgery, deep infection rate, time to fracture union, and functional outcome measures. Diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis was performed using a random effects bivariate binomial model. Results. We identified 1,304 records, of which six prospective cohort studies and two retrospective cohort studies evaluating a total of 788 patients were deemed eligible for inclusion. A diagnostic test meta-analysis conducted on five cohort studies, with 474 participants, showed that GHOISS at a threshold score of 14 has a pooled sensitivity of 93.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.4 to 98.2) and a specificity of 95% (95% CI 88.7 to 97.9) for predicting primary or secondary amputations in people with complex lower limb injuries. Conclusion. GHOISS is highly accurate in predicting success of limb salvage, and can inform management and predict secondary outcomes. However, there is a need for high-quality multicentre trials to confirm these findings and investigate the effectiveness of the score in children, and in predicting secondary amputations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):21–28

Aims. Preprint servers allow authors to publish full-text manuscripts or interim findings prior to undergoing peer review. Several preprint servers have extended their services to biological sciences, clinical research, and medicine. The purpose of this study was to systematically identify and analyze all articles related to Trauma & Orthopaedic (T&O) surgery published in five medical preprint servers, and to investigate the factors that influence the subsequent rate of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Methods. All preprints covering T&O surgery were systematically searched in five medical preprint servers (medRxiv, OSF Preprints, Preprints.org, PeerJ, and Research Square) and subsequently identified after a minimum of 12 months by searching for the title, keywords, and corresponding author in Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, and the Web of Science. Subsequent publication of a work was defined as publication in a peer-reviewed indexed journal. The rate of publication and time to peer-reviewed publication were assessed. Differences in definitive publication rates of preprints according to geographical origin and level of evidence were analyzed. Results. The number of preprints increased from 2014 to 2020 (p < 0.001). A total of 38.6% of the identified preprints (n = 331) were published in a peer-reviewed indexed journal after a mean time of 8.7 months (SD 5.4 (1 to 27)). The highest proportion of missing subsequent publications was in the preprints originating from Africa, Asia/Middle East, and South America, or in those that covered clinical research with a lower level of evidence (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Preprints are being published in increasing numbers in T&O surgery. Depending on the geographical origin and level of evidence, almost two-thirds of preprints are not subsequently published in a peer-reviewed indexed journal after one year. This raises major concerns regarding the dissemination and persistence of potentially wrong scientific work that bypasses peer review, and the orthopaedic community should discuss appropriate preventive measures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):582–588

Aims. Arthroplasty is being increasingly used for the management of distal humeral fractures (DHFs) in elderly patients. Arthroplasty options include total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA); both have unique complications and there is not yet a consensus on which implant is superior. This systematic review asked: in patients aged over 65 years with unreconstructable DHFs, what differences are there in outcomes, as measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), and complications, between distal humeral HA and TEA?. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was performed via a search of MEDLINE and Embase. Two reviewers extracted data on PROMs, ROM, and complications. PROMs and ROM results were reported descriptively and a meta-analysis of complications was conducted. Quality of methodology was assessed using Wylde’s non-summative four-point system. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021228329). Results. A total of 29 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) score was 19.6 (SD 7.5) for HA and 38 (SD 11.9) for TEA and the mean abbreviated version of DASH was 17.2 (SD 13.2) for HA and 24.9 (SD 4.8) for TEA. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score was the most commonly reported PROM across included studies, with a mean of 87 (SD 5.3) in HA and 88.3 (SD 5) in TEA. High complication rates were seen in both HA (22% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5 to 44)) and TEA (21% (95% CI 13 to 30), but no statistically significant difference identified. Conclusion. This systematic review has indicated PROMs and ROM mostly favouring HA, but with a similarly high complication rate in the two procedures. However, due to the small sample size and heterogeneity between studies, strength of evidence for these findings is low. We propose further research in the form of a national randomized controlled trial. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):559–566

Aims. This systematic review aims to compare the precision of component positioning, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and learning curves of MAKO robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) with manual medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA). Methods. Searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were performed in November 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-­Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “unicompartmental”, “knee”, and “arthroplasty”. Published clinical research articles reporting the learning curves and cost-effectiveness of MAKO RAUKA, and those comparing the component precision, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mUKA, were included for analysis. Results. A total of 179 articles were identified from initial screening, of which 14 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The papers analyzed include one on learning curve, five on implant positioning, six on functional outcomes, five on complications, six on survivorship, and three on cost. The learning curve was six cases for operating time and zero for precision. There was consistent evidence of more precise implant positioning with MAKO RAUKA. Meta-analysis demonstrated lower overall complication rates associated with MAKO RAUKA (OR 2.18 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 4.49); p = 0.040) but no difference in re-intervention, infection, Knee Society Score (KSS; mean difference 1.64 (95% CI -3.00 to 6.27); p = 0.490), or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score (mean difference -0.58 (95% CI -3.55 to 2.38); p = 0.700). MAKO RAUKA was shown to be a cost-effective procedure, but this was directly related to volume. Conclusion. MAKO RAUKA was associated with improved precision of component positioning but was not associated with improved PROMs using the KSS and WOMAC scores. Future longer-term studies should report functional outcomes, potentially using scores with minimal ceiling effects and survival to assess whether the improved precision of MAKO RAUKA results in better outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):541–548

Aims. The amount of glenoid bone loss is an important factor in deciding between soft-tissue and bony reconstruction when managing anterior shoulder instability. Accurate and reproducible measurement of glenoid bone loss is therefore vital in evaluation of shoulder instability and recommending specific treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the range methods and measurement techniques employed in clinical studies treating glenoid bone loss. Methods. A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was undertaken to cover a ten-year period from February 2011 to February 2021. We identified clinical studies that incorporated bone loss assessment in the methodology as part of the decision-making in the management of patients with anterior shoulder instability. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) were used. Results. A total of 5,430 articles were identified from the initial search, of which 82 studies met the final inclusion criteria. A variety of imaging methods were used: three studies did not specify which modality was used, and a further 13 used CT or MRI interchangeably. There was considerable heterogeneity among the studies that specified the technique used to quantify glenoid bone loss. A large proportion of the studies did not specify the technique used. Conclusion. This systematic review has identified significant heterogeneity in both the imaging modality and method used to measure glenoid bone loss. The recommendation is that as a minimum for publication, authors should be required to reference the specific measurement technique used. Without this simple standardization, it is impossible to determine whether any published paper should influence clinical practice or should be dismissed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):12–18

Objectives. This review aims to summarize the outcomes used to describe effectiveness of treatments for paediatric wrist fractures within existing literature. Method. We searched the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Ovid Medline for studies pertaining to paediatric wrist fractures. Three authors independently identified and reviewed eligible studies. This resulted in a list of outcome domains and outcomes measures used within clinical research. Outcomes were mapped onto domains defined by the COMET collaborative. Results. Our search terms identified 4,262 different papers. Screening of titles excluded 2,975, leaving 1,287 papers to be assessed for eligibility. Of this 1,287, 30 studies were included for full analysis. Overall, five outcome domains, 16 outcome measures, and 28 measurement instruments were identified as outcomes within these studies. 24 studies used at least one measurement pertaining to the physiological/clinical outcome domain. The technical, life impact, and adverse effect domains were recorded in 23, 20, and 11 of the studies respectively. Within each domain it was common for different measurement instruments to be used to assess each outcome measure. The most commonly reported outcome measures were range of movement, a broad array of “radiological measures” and pain intensity, which were used in 24, 23, and 12 of the 30 studies. Conclusion. This study highlights the heterogeneity in outcomes reported within clinical effectiveness studies of paediatric wrist fractures. We provided an overview of the types of outcomes reported in paediatric wrist fracture studies and identified a list of potentially relevant outcomes required for the development of a core outcome set

Aims. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA) in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries, regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and risk of secondary surgery. The aim was to conclusively determine the best available treatment based on the most complete and recent evidence available. Methods. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus. Additionally, ongoing trial registers and reference lists of included articles were screened. Risk of bias (RoB) and level of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The random and fixed-effect models were used for the statistical analysis. Results. A total of 20 studies were selected for this review, of which 12 were comparative studies fit for meta-analysis, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This resulted in a total analyzed population of 392 patients treated with ORIF and 249 patients treated with PA. The mean differences between the two groups in American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), VAS, and SF-36 scores were -7.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) -13.31 to -1.51), 0.77 (95% CI -0.85 to 2.39), and -1.20 (95% CI -3.86 to 1.46), respectively. Conclusion. This is the first study to find a statistically significant difference in PROMs, as measured by the AOFAS score, in favour of PA for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, this difference may not be clinically relevant, and therefore drawing a definitive conclusion requires confirmation by a large prospective high-quality RCT. Such a study should also assess cost-effectiveness, as cost considerations might be decisive in decision-making. Level of Evidence: I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):842–849

Aims. This study evaluates the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) reported in childhood fracture trials and recommends outcome measures to assess and report physical function, functional capacity, and quality of life using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) standards. Methods. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review of OVID Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to identify all PROMs reported in trials. A search of OVID Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO was performed to identify all PROMs with validation studies in childhood fractures. Development studies were identified through hand-searching. Data extraction was undertaken by two reviewers. Study quality and risk of bias was evaluated by COSMIN guidelines and recorded on standardized checklists. Results. Searches yielded 13,672 studies, which were screened to identify 124 trials and two validation studies. Review of the 124 trials identified 16 reported PROMs, of which two had validation studies. The development papers were retrieved for all PROMs. The quality of the original development studies was adequate for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Mobility and Upper Extremity and doubtful for the EuroQol Five Dimension Youth questionnaire (EQ-5D-Y). All other PROMs were found to have inadequate development studies. No content validity studies were identified. Reviewer-rated content validity was acceptable for six PROMs: Activity Scale for Kids (ASK), Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire, PROMIS Upper Extremity, PROMIS Mobility, EQ-5D-Y, and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL4.0). The Modified Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire was shown to have indeterminate reliability and convergence validity in one study and PROMIS Upper Extremity had insufficient convergence validity in one study. Conclusion. There is insufficient evidence to recommend strongly the use of any single PROM to assess and report physical function or quality of life following childhood fractures. There is a need to conduct validation studies for PROMs. In the absence of these studies, we cautiously recommend the use of the PROMIS or ASK-P for physical function and the PedsQL4.0 or EQ-5D-Y for quality of life. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1599–1607

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. 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. The value of core decompression (CD) in the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether CD combined with other treatments could improve the clinical and radiological outcomes of ONFH patients compared with CD alone. Methods. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until June 2020. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) comparing CD alone and CD combined with other measures (CD + cell therapy, CD + bone grafting, CD + porous tantalum rod, etc.) for the treatment of ONFH were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes of interest were Harris Hip Score (HHS), ONFH stage progression, structural failure (collapse) of the femoral head, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The pooled data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Results. A total of 20 studies with 2,123 hips were included (CD alone = 768, CD combined with other treatments = 1,355). The combination of CD with other therapeutic interventions resulted in a higher HHS (mean difference (MD) = 6.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.10 to 10.83, p = 0.004) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score (MD = −10.92, 95% CI = -21.41 to -4.03, p = 0.040) and a lower visual analogue scale (VAS) score (MD = −0.99, 95% CI = -1.56 to -0.42, p < 0.001) than CD alone. For the rates of disease stage progression, 91 (20%) progressed in the intervention group compared to 146 (36%) in the control group (odds ratio (OR) = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.64, p = 0.001). In addition, the intervention group had a more significant advantage in delaying femoral head progression to the collapsed stage (OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.61, p < 0.001) and reducing the odds of conversion to THA (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.55, p < 0.001) compared to the control group. There were no serious adverse events in either group. Subgroup analysis showed that the addition of cell therapy significantly improved clinical and radiological outcomes compared to CD alone, and this approach appeared to be more effective than other therapies, particularly in precollapse (stage I to II) ONFH patients. Conclusion. There was marked heterogeneity in the studies. There is a trend towards improved clinical outcomes with the addition of stem cell therapy to CD. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(7):445–458

Aims

Conventional patient-reported surveys, used for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), are limited by subjectivity and recall bias. Objective functional evaluation, such as gait analysis, to delineate a patient’s functional capacity and customize surgical interventions, may address these shortcomings. This systematic review endeavours to investigate the application of objective functional assessments in appraising individuals undergoing THA.