Aims. To identify unanswered questions about the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and delivery of care of first-time soft-tissue knee injuries (ligament injuries, patella dislocations, meniscal injuries, and articular cartilage) in children (aged 12 years and older) and adults. Methods. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology for Priority Setting Partnerships was followed. An initial survey invited patients and healthcare professionals from the UK to submit any uncertainties regarding soft-tissue knee injury prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and delivery of care. Over 1,000 questions were received. From these, 74 questions (identifying common concerns) were formulated and checked against the best available evidence. An interim survey was then conducted and 27 questions were taken forward to the final workshop, held in January 2023, where they were discussed, ranked, and scored in multiple rounds of prioritization. This was conducted by healthcare professionals, patients, and carers. Results. The top ten included questions regarding prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation. The number one question was, ‘How urgently do soft-tissue knee injuries need to be treated for the best outcome?’. This reflects the concerns of patients, carers, and the wider multidisciplinary team. Conclusion. This validated process has generated ten important priorities for future soft-tissue knee injury research. These have been submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Research. All 27 questions in the final workshop have been published on the JLA website. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3):232–239

Aims. This study aims to identify the top unanswered research priorities in the field of knee surgery using consensus-based methodology. Methods. Initial research questions were generated using an online survey sent to all 680 members of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK). Duplicates were removed and a longlist was generated from this scoping exercise by a panel of 13 experts from across the UK who provided oversight of the process. A modified Delphi process was used to refine the questions and determine a final list. To rank the final list of questions, each question was scored between one (low importance) and ten (high importance) in order to produce the final list. Results. This consensus exercise took place between December 2020 and April 2022. A total of 286 clinicians from the BASK membership provided input for the initial scoping exercise, which generated a list of 105 distinct research questions. Following review and prioritization, a longlist of 51 questions was sent out for two rounds of the Delphi process. A total of 42 clinicians responded to the first round and 24 responded to the second round. A final list of 24 research questions was then ranked by 36 clinicians. The topics included arthroplasty, infection, meniscus, osteotomy, patellofemoral, cartilage, and ligament pathologies. The management of early osteoarthritis was the highest-ranking question. Conclusion. A Delphi exercise involving the BASK membership has identified the future research priorities in knee surgery. This list of questions will allow clinicians, researchers, and funders to collaborate in order to deliver high-quality research in knee surgery and further advance the care provided to patients with knee pathology. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):662–668

Aims. The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty. Methods. The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting. Results. A total of 769 questions were received during the initial survey with national reach across the UK. These were refined into 32 unique questions by an independent information specialist. The interim prioritization survey was completed by 201 respondents and 25 questions were taken to a final consensus group meeting between patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Consensus was reached for ranking the top ten questions for publication and dissemination. Conclusions. The top ten research priorities focused on pain, infection, stiffness, health service configuration, surgical and non-surgical management strategies, and outcome measures. This list will guide funders and help focus research efforts within the knee arthroplasty community. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1176–1182

Aims. Prolonged waits for hip and knee arthroplasty have raised questions about the equity of current approaches to waiting list prioritization for those awaiting surgery. We therefore set out to understand key stakeholder (patient and surgeon) preferences for the prioritization of patients awaiting such surgery, in order to guide future waiting list redesign. Methods. A combined qualitative/quantitative approach was used. This comprised a Delphi study to first inform which factors patients and surgeons designate as important for prioritization of patients on hip and knee arthroplasty waiting lists, followed by a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine how the factors should be weighed against each other. Coefficient values for each included DCE attribute were used to construct a ‘priority score’ (weighted benefit score) that could be used to rank individual patients waiting for surgery based on their respective characteristics. Results. In total, 43 people participated in the initial round of the Delphi study (16 patients and 27 surgeons), with a 91% completion rate across all three rounds. Overall, 73 surgeons completed the DCE. Following the final consensus meeting of the Delphi component, the seven final factors designated for inclusion were Pain, Mobility/Function, Activities of Daily Living, Inability to Work/Care, Length of Time Waited, Radiological Severity, and Mental Wellbeing. Output from the adjusted multinomial regression revealed radiological severity to be the most significant factor (coefficient 2.27 (SD 0.31); p < 0.001), followed by pain (coefficient 1.08 (SD 0.13); p < 0.001) and time waited (coefficient for one month additional wait 0.12 (SD 0.02); p < 0.001). Conclusion. These results present a new robust method for determining comparative priority for those on primary hip and knee hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(1):89–96

Aims

This study aims to define the epidemiology of trauma presenting to a single centre providing all orthopaedic trauma care for a population of ∼ 900,000 over the first 40 days of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to that presenting over the same period one year earlier. The secondary aim was to compare this with population mobility data obtained from Google.

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess orthopaedic oncologic patient morbidity resulting from COVID-19 related institutional delays and surgical shutdowns during the first wave of the pandemic in New York, USA. Methods. A single-centre retrospective observational study was conducted of all orthopaedic oncologic patients undergoing surgical evaluation from March to June 2020. Patients were prioritized as level 0-IV, 0 being elective and IV being emergent. Only priority levels 0 to III were included. Delay duration was measured in days and resulting morbidities were categorized into seven groups: prolonged pain/disability; unplanned preoperative radiation and/or chemotherapy; local tumour progression; increased systemic disease; missed opportunity for surgery due to progression of disease/lost to follow up; delay in diagnosis; and no morbidity. Results. Overall, 25 patients met inclusion criteria. There were eight benign tumours, seven metastatic, seven primary sarcomas, one multiple myeloma, and two patients without a biopsy proven diagnosis. There was no priority level 0, two priority level I, six priority level II, and 17 priority level III cases. The mean duration of delay for priority level I was 114 days (84 to 143), priority level II was 88 days (63 to 133), and priority level III was 77 days (35 to 269). Prolonged pain/disability and delay in diagnosis, affecting 52% and 40%,respectively, represented the two most frequent morbidities. Local tumour progression and increased systemic disease affected 32% and 24% respectively. No patients tested positive for COVID-19. Conclusion. COVID-19 related delays in surgical management led to major morbidity in this studied orthopaedic oncologic patient population. By understanding these morbidities through clearer hindsight, a thoughtful approach can be developed to balance the risk of COVID-19 exposure versus delay in treatment, ensuring optimal care for orthopedic oncologic patients as the pandemic continues with intermittent calls for halting surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(4):236–242

Aims. The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). Results. The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. Conclusion. The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753–758

Aims. Restarting planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is a clinical and societal priority, but it is unknown whether it can be done safely and include high-risk or complex cases. We developed a Surgical Prioritization and Allocation Guide (SPAG). Here, we validate its effectiveness and safety in COVID-free sites. Methods. A multidisciplinary surgical prioritization committee developed the SPAG, incorporating procedural urgency, shared decision-making, patient safety, and biopsychosocial factors; and applied it to 1,142 adult patients awaiting orthopaedic surgery. Patients were stratified into four priority groups and underwent surgery at three COVID-free sites, including one with access to a high dependency unit (HDU) or intensive care unit (ICU) and specialist resources. Safety was assessed by the number of patients requiring inpatient postoperative HDU/ICU admission, contracting COVID-19 within 14 days postoperatively, and mortality within 30 days postoperatively. Results. A total of 1,142 patients were included, 47 declined surgery, and 110 were deemed high-risk or requiring specialist resources. In the ten-week study period, 28 high-risk patients underwent surgery, during which 68% (13/19) of Priority 2 (P. 2. , surgery within one month) patients underwent surgery, and 15% (3/20) of P. 3. (< three months) and 16% (11/71) of P. 4. (> three months) groups. Of the 1,032 low-risk patients, 322 patients underwent surgery. Overall, 21 P. 3. and P. 4. patients were expedited to ‘Urgent’ based on biopsychosocial factors identified by the SPAG. During the study period, 91% (19/21) of the Urgent group, 52% (49/95) of P. 2. , 36% (70/196) of P. 3. , and 26% (184/720) of P. 4. underwent surgery. No patients died or were admitted to HDU/ICU, or contracted COVID-19. Conclusion. Our widely generalizable model enabled the restart of planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, without compromising patient safety or excluding high-risk or complex cases. Patients classified as Urgent or P. 2. were most likely to undergo surgery, including those deemed high-risk. This model, which includes assessment of biopsychosocial factors alongside disease severity, can assist in equitably prioritizing the substantial list of patients now awaiting planned orthopaedic surgery worldwide. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):134–140

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

Salter-Harris II fractures of the distal tibia affect children frequently, and when they are displaced present a treatment dilemma. Treatment primarily aims to restore alignment and prevent premature physeal closure, as this can lead to angular deformity, limb length difference, or both. Current literature is of poor methodological quality and is contradictory as to whether conservative or surgical management is superior in avoiding complications and adverse outcomes. A state of clinical equipoise exists regarding whether displaced distal tibial Salter-Harris II fractures in children should be treated with surgery to achieve anatomical reduction, or whether cast treatment alone will lead to a satisfactory outcome. Systematic review and meta-analysis has concluded that high-quality prospective multicentre research is needed to answer this question. The Outcomes of Displaced Distal tibial fractures: Surgery Or Casts in KidS (ODD SOCKS) trial, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, aims to provide this high-quality research in order to answer this question, which has been identified as a top-five research priority by the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):471–473

Aims. Multiligament knee injuries (MLKI) are devastating injuries that can result in significant morbidity and time away from sport. There remains considerable variation in strategies employed for investigation, indications for operative intervention, outcome reporting, and rehabilitation following these injuries. At present no study has yet provided a comprehensive overview evaluating the extent, range, and overall summary of the published literature pertaining to MLKI. Our aim is to perform a methodologically rigorous scoping review, mapping the literature evaluating the diagnosis and management of MLKI. Methods. This scoping review will address three aims: firstly, to map the current extent and nature of evidence for diagnosis and management of MLKI; secondly, to summarize and disseminate existing research findings to practitioners; and thirdly, to highlight gaps in current literature. A three-step search strategy as described by accepted methodology will be employed to identify peer-reviewed literature including reviews, technical notes, opinion pieces, and original research. An initial limited search will be performed to determine suitable search terms, followed by an expanded search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science). Two reviewers will independently screen identified studies for final inclusion. Dissemination. We will map key concepts and evidence, and disseminate existing research findings to the wider orthopaedic and sports medicine community, through both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature, and conference and in-person communications. We will highlight gaps in the current literature and determine future priorities for further research. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):894–897

Aims. High-quality clinical research in children’s orthopaedic surgery has lagged behind other surgical subspecialties. This study used a consensus-based approach to identify research priorities for clinical trials in children’s orthopaedics. Methods. A modified Delphi technique was used, which involved an initial scoping survey, a two-round Delphi process and an expert panel formed of members of the British Society of Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery. The survey was conducted amongst orthopaedic surgeons treating children in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Results. A total of 86 clinicians contributed to both rounds of the Delphi process, scoring priorities from one (low priority) to five (high priority). Elective topics were ranked higher than those relating to trauma, with the top ten elective research questions scoring higher than the top question for trauma. Ten elective, and five trauma research priorities were identified, with the three highest ranked questions relating to the treatment of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (mean score 4.6/ 5), Perthes’ disease (4.5) and bone infection (4.5). Conclusion. This consensus-based research agenda will guide surgeons, academics and funders to improve the evidence in children’s orthopaedic surgery and encourage the development of multicentre clinical trials. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:680–4

Aims. The aim of this study is to determine the effects of the UK lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic on the orthopaedic admissions, operations, training opportunities, and theatre efficiency in a large district general hospital. Methods. The number of patients referred to the orthopaedic team between 1 April 2020 and 30 April 2020 were collected. Other data collected included patient demographics, number of admissions, number and type of operations performed, and seniority of primary surgeon. Theatre time was collected consisting of anaesthetic time, surgical time, time to leave theatre, and turnaround time. Data were compared to the same period in 2019. Results. There was a significant increase in median age of admitted patients during lockdown (70.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 46.25 to 84) vs 57 (IQR 27 to 79.75); p = 0.017) with a 26% decrease in referrals from 303 to 224 patients and 37% decrease in admissions from 177 to 112 patients, with a significantly higher proportion of hip fracture admissions (33% (n = 37) vs 19% (n = 34); p = 0.011). Paediatric admissions decreased by 72% from 32 to nine patients making up 8% of admissions during lockdown compared to 18.1% the preceding year (p = 0.002) with 66.7% reduction in paediatric operations, from 18 to 6. There was a significant increase in median turnaround time (13 minutes (IQR 12 to 33) vs 60 minutes (IQR 41 to 71); p < 0.001) although there was no significant difference in the anaesthetic time or surgical time. There was a 38% (61 vs 38) decrease in trainee-led operations. Discussion. The lockdown resulted in large decreases in referrals and admissions. Despite this, hip fracture admissions were unaffected and should remain a priority for trauma service planning in future lockdowns. As plans to resume normal elective and trauma services begin, hospitals should focus on minimising theatre turnaround time to maximize theatre efficiency while prioritizing training opportunities. Clinical relevance. Lockdown has resulted in decreases in the trauma burden although hip fractures remain unaffected requiring priority. Theatre turnaround times and training opportunities are affected and should be optimised prior to the resumption of normal services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:494–499

Aims. To explore staff experiences of a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nails and circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures. Methods. A purposeful sample of 19 staff (nine surgeons) involved in the study participated in an interview. Interviews explored participants’ experience and views of the study and the treatments. The interviews drew on phenomenology, were face-to-face or by telephone, and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results. The findings identify that for the treatment of segmental tibial fractures equipoise was a theoretical ideal that was most likely unattainable in clinical practice. This was conveyed through three themes: the ambiguity of equipoise, where multiple definitions of equipoise and a belief in community equipoise were evident; an illusion of equipoise, created by strong treatment preferences and variation in collective surgical skills; and treating the whole patient, where the complexity and severity of the injury required a patient-centred approach and doing the best for the individual patient took priority over trial recruitment. Conclusion. Equipoise can be unattainable for rare injuries such as segmental tibial fractures, where there are substantially different surgical treatments requiring specific expertise, high levels of complexity, and a concern for poor outcomes. Surgeons are familiar with community equipoise. However, a shared understanding of factors that limit the feasibility of RCTs may identify instances where community equipoise is unlikely to translate into practice. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):486–492

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. The aim of this study was to prepare a scoping review to investigate the use of biologic therapies in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in professional and Olympic athletes. Methods. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O’Malley frameworks were followed. A three-step search strategy identified relevant published primary and secondary studies, as well as grey literature. The identified studies were screened with criteria for inclusion comprising clinical studies evaluating the use of biologic therapies in professional and Olympic athletes, systematic reviews, consensus statements, and conference proceedings. Data were extracted using a standardized tool to form a descriptive analysis and a thematic summary. Results. A total of 202 studies were initially identified, and 35 met criteria for the scoping review; 33 (94.3%) were published within the last eight years, and 18 (51.4%) originated from the USA. Platelet rich plasma was the most studied biologic therapy, being evaluated in 33 (94.3%) studies. Ulnar collateral ligament and hamstring injuries were the conditions most studied (nine (25.7%) studies and seven (20.0%) studies, respectively). Athletes most frequently participated in baseball, soccer, and American football. Only two (5.7%) studies were level 1 evidence, with interpretation and comparison between studies limited by the variations in the injury profile, biologic preparations, and rehabilitation protocols. Conclusion. There is diverse use of biologic therapies in the management of musculoskeletal injuries in professional and Olympic athletes. There is currently insufficient high-level evidence to support the widespread use of biologic therapies in athletes. Further research priorities include the development of condition/pathology-specific preparations of biologic therapies, and of outcome measures and imaging modalities sufficiently sensitive to detect differences in outcomes, should they exist. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1189–1196

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to assess the independent association of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on postoperative mortality for patients undergoing orthopaedic and trauma surgery. The secondary aim was to identify factors that were associated with developing COVID-19 during the postoperative period. Methods. A multicentre retrospective study was conducted of all patients presenting to nine centres over a 50-day period during the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2020 to 19 April 2020) with a minimum of 50 days follow-up. Patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, priority (urgent or elective), procedure type, COVID-19 status, and postoperative mortality were recorded. Results. During the study period, 1,659 procedures were performed in 1,569 patients. There were 68 (4.3%) patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19. There were 85 (5.4%) deaths postoperatively. Patients who had COVID-19 had a significantly lower survival rate when compared with those without a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection (67.6% vs 95.8%, p < 0.001). When adjusting for confounding variables (older age (p < 0.001), female sex (p = 0.004), hip fracture (p = 0.003), and increasing ASA grade (p < 0.001)) a diagnosis of COVID-19 was associated with an increased mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.12; p = 0.014). A total of 62 patients developed COVID-19 postoperatively, of which two were in the elective and 60 were in the urgent group. Patients aged > 77 years (odds ratio (OR) 3.16; p = 0.001), with increasing ASA grade (OR 2.74; p < 0.001), sustaining a hip (OR 4.56; p = 0.008) or periprosthetic fracture (OR 14.70; p < 0.001) were more likely to develop COVID-19 postoperatively. Conclusion. Perioperative COVID-19 nearly doubled the background postoperative mortality risk following surgery. Patients at risk of developing COVID-19 postoperatively (patients > 77 years, increasing morbidity, sustaining a hip or periprosthetic fracture) may benefit from perioperative shielding. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1774–1781