A national screening programme has existed in the UK for the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) since 1969. However, every aspect of screening and treatment remains controversial. Screening programmes throughout the world vary enormously, and in the UK there is significant variation in screening practice and treatment pathways. We report the results of an attempt by the British Society for Children\'s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) to identify a nationwide consensus for the management of DDH in order to unify treatment and suggest an approach for screening.
A Delphi consensus study was performed among the membership of BSCOS. Statements were generated by a steering group regarding aspects of the management of DDH in children aged under three months, namely screening and surveillance (15 questions), the technique of ultrasound scanning (eight questions), the initiation of treatment (19 questions), care during treatment with a splint (ten questions), and on quality, governance, and research (eight questions). A two-round Delphi process was used and a consensus document was produced at the final meeting of the steering group.
A total of 60 statements were graded by 128 clinicians in the first round and 132 in the second round. Consensus was reached on 30 out of 60 statements in the first round and an additional 12 in the seond. This was summarized in a consensus statement and distilled into a flowchart to guide clinical practice.
We identified agreement in an area of medicine that has a long history of controversy and varied practice. None of the areas of consensus are based on high-quality evidence. This document is thus a framework to guide clinical practice and on which high-quality clinical trials can be developed.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):209-214.

OBJECTIVE: Prevention of postoperative surgical site infections is indeed feasible. The aim of this work is to analyses adherence to international guidelines for the prevention of infections in elective orthopedic prosthetic surgery by means of a survey of a representative sample of Spanish orthopedic surgeons, with the purpose to establish general recommendations.
METHODS: A population survey was conducted in online format consisting of 78 questions to analyze the usual clinical practice of Spanish orthopedic surgeons in the face of periprosthetic infections of the hip and knee, and their adherence to international guidelines.
RESULTS: The results of the survey (n=138) show in clinical practice of Spanish orthopedic surgeons a high adherence to most of the international recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: The integration high adherence of individual clinical practice with the best available scientific evidence based on the recommendations of international guidelines is the best way to adequately manage the prevention of periprosthetic infection in elective surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to gain an agreement on the management of idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV) up to walking age in order to provide a benchmark for practitioners and guide consistent, high-quality care for children with CTEV.
METHODS: The consensus process followed an established Delphi approach with a predetermined degree of agreement. The process included the following steps: establishing a steering group; steering group meetings, generating statements, and checking them against the literature; a two-round Delphi survey; and final consensus meeting. The steering group members and Delphi survey participants were all British Society of Children\'s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) members. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis of the Delphi survey results. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation checklist was followed for reporting of the results.
RESULTS: The BSCOS-selected steering group, the steering group meetings, the Delphi survey, and the final consensus meeting all followed the pre-agreed protocol. A total of 153/243 members voted in round 1 Delphi (63%) and 132 voted in round 2 (86%). Out of 61 statements presented to round 1 Delphi, 43 reached \'consensus in\', no statements reached \'consensus out\', and 18 reached \'no consensus\'. Four statements were deleted and one new statement added following suggestions from round 1. Out of 15 statements presented to round 2, 12 reached \'consensus in\', no statements reached \'consensus out\', and three reached \'no consensus\' and were discussed and included following the final consensus meeting. Two statements were combined for simplicity. The final consensus document includes 57 statements allocated into six successive stages.
CONCLUSIONS: We have produced a consensus document for the treatment of idiopathic CTEV up to walking age. This will provide a benchmark for standard of care in the UK and will help to reduce geographical variability in treatment and outcomes. Appropriate dissemination and implementation will be key to its success. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):758-764.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected most healthcare systems around the world. Routine care operations such as outpatient clinics and elective surgery remain badly hit. This situation cannot continue for long as it puts patients at a higher risk for complications due to delayed management. Hence, it is essential to resume routine, especially elective surgery. Regarding orthopaedic practice, various authors and organisations have come out with guidelines to resume elective surgeries. However, clear consensus and common strategies need be derived. With this motive, we conducted a review of the literature for guidelines to resume elective orthopaedic surgery amid COVID-19 pandemic and shortlisted scholarly publications and information from regional organisations. We have summarised the information and derived an organised algorithm considering the guidelines provided by various sources. In this extraordinary time, guidelines come in as a relief for every surgeon who is in a dilemma whether to resume electives or not. Putting safety first, these guidelines or suitable versions should be followed at all levels wherever possible to avoid the lack of trained manpower in the event of staff morbidity.

UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to describe variation in hip fracture treatment in Norway expressed as adherence to international and national evidence-based treatment guidelines, to study factors influencing deviation from guidelines, and to analyze consequences of non-adherence.
UNASSIGNED: International and national guidelines were identified and treatment recommendations extracted. All 43 hospitals routinely treating hip fractures in Norway were characterized. From the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR), hip fracture patients aged > 65 years and operated in the period January 2014 to December 2018 for fractures with conclusive treatment guidelines were included (n = 29,613: femoral neck fractures (n = 21,325), stable trochanteric fractures (n = 5,546), inter- and subtrochanteric fractures (n = 2,742)). Adherence to treatment recommendations and a composite indicator of best practice were analyzed. Patient survival and reoperations were evaluated for each recommendation.
UNASSIGNED: Median age of the patients was 84 (IQR 77 to 89) years and 69% (20,427/29,613) were women. Overall, 79% (23,390/29,613) were treated within 48 hours, and 80% (23,635/29,613) by a surgeon with more than three years\' experience. Adherence to guidelines varied substantially but was markedly better in 2018 than in 2014. Having a dedicated hip fracture unit (OR 1.06, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.11) and a hospital hip fracture programme (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27) increased the probability of treatment according to best practice. Surgery after 48 hours increased one-year mortality significantly (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.22; p = 0.001). Alternative treatment to arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs) increased mortality after 30 days (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.62)) and one year (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.72), and also increased the number of reoperations (OR 4.61, 95% CI 3.73 to 5.71). An uncemented stem increased the risk of reoperation significantly (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48; p = 0.030).
UNASSIGNED: Our study demonstrates a substantial variation between hospitals in adherence to evidence-based guidelines for treatment of hip fractures in Norway. Non-adherence can be ascribed to in-hospital factors. Poor adherence has significant negative consequences for patients in the form of increased mortality rates at 30 and 365 days post-treatment and in reoperation rates.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:644-653.

Hip and knee arthroplasties have revolutionised the management of degenerative joint diseases and, due to an ageing population, are becoming increasingly common. Follow-up of joint prostheses is to identify problems in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients due to infection, osteolysis, bone loss or potential periprosthetic fracture, enabling timely intervention to prevent catastrophic failure at a later date. Early revision is usually more straight-forward surgically and less traumatic for the patient. However, routine long-term follow-up is costly and requires considerable clinical time. Therefore, some centres in the UK have curtailed this aspect of primary hip and knee arthroplasty services, doing so without an evidence base that such disinvestment is clinically or cost-effective.
Given the timeline from joint replacement to revision, conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine potential consequences of disinvestment in hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up is not feasible. Furthermore, the low revision rates of modern prostheses, less than 10% at 10 years, would necessitate thousands of patients to adequately power such a study. The huge variation in follow-up practice across the UK also limits the generalisability of an RCT. This study will therefore use a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Four interconnected work packages will be completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from five national data sets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery; (2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery; (3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models and (4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document which includes a stratification algorithm to determine appropriate follow-up care for an individual patient.
Favourable ethical opinion has been obtained for WP2a (RO-HES) (220520) and WP2B (220316) from the National Research Ethics Committee. Following advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0122), data controllers for the data sets used in WP2a (RO-HES) - NHS Digital and The Phoenix Partnership - confirmed that Section 251 support was not required as no identifiable data was flowing into or out of these parties. Application for approval of WP2a (RO-HES) from the Independent Group Advising on the Release of Data (IGARD) at NHS Digital is in progress (DARS-NIC-147997). Section 251 support (17/CAG/0030) and NHS Digital approval (DARS-NIC-172121-G0Z1H-v0.11) have been obtained for WP2a (NJR-HES-PROMS). ISAC (11_050MnA2R2) approval has been obtained for WP2a (CPRD-HES).

BACKGROUND: Surgeons still use a range of criteria to determine whether amputation is indicated. In addition, there is considerable debate regarding immediate postoperative management, especially concerning the use of \'immediate/delayed fitting\' versus conservative elastic bandaging.
OBJECTIVE: To produce an evidence-based guideline for the amputation and prosthetics of the lower extremities. This guideline provides recommendations in support of daily practice and is based on the results of scientific research and further discussions focussed on establishing good medical practice. Part 1 focuses on amputation surgery and postoperative management.
METHODS: Systematic literature design.
METHODS: Literature search in five databases. Quality assessment on the basis of evidence-based guideline development.
RESULTS: An evidence-based multidisciplinary guideline on amputation and prosthetics of the lower extremity.
CONCLUSIONS: The best care (in general) for patients undergoing amputation of a lower extremity is presented and discussed. This part of the guideline provides recommendations for diagnosis, referral, assessment, and undergoing amputation of a lower extremity and can be used to provide patient information.
CONCLUSIONS: This guideline provides recommendations in support of daily practice and is based on the results of scientific research and further discussions focussed on establishing good medical practice.