Background The incidence of osteoporotic pelvic fractures in elderly patient is rising. This brings an increasing burden on health and social care systems as these injuries often lead to prolonged hospital admissions, loss of independence, morbidity and mortality. Some centres now advocate stabilisation of these injuries to reduce pain, facilitate early mobilisation, decrease hospital stay and restore independence. A systematic review of the literature was planned to establish the evidence for this intervention. Methods A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A clinical librarian performed a search of the following databases: NHS Evidence, TRIP, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Seventeen eligible studies were identified with 766 patients. Results The quality of evidence was poor with no good quality randomised trials. The majority of injuries were minimally displaced. Posterior ring injuries were most often stabilised with percutaneous screws which were sometimes augmented with void filler. A number of techniques were described for stabilisation of the anterior ring although fixation of the anterior ring was frequently not performed. There was consistent evidence from the included studies that operative intervention significantly improved pain. Complications were minimal but there were increased failure rates when a single unaugmented sacroiliac joint screw was used. The limited availability of non-operative comparators made it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy of surgical over non-surgical management in these patients. Conclusions Operative management of fragility fractures of the pelvis should be considered for patients failing a brief period of non-operative management, however prospective randomised trials need to be performed to provide improved evidence for this intervention. Surgeons should consider which fixation techniques for fragility fractures of the pelvis are robust enough to allow immediate weightbearing, whilst minimising operative morbidity and post-operative complications. PROSPERO Systematic Review ID: CRD42020171237.

Increased rates of IAC following LA have been identified in some studies. Our series shows that, in a centre with adequate MIS experience, the IAC rate following LA is comparable to that of the open approach and should not deter surgeons with adequate support and resources.

Insertion of the bearing can be challenging due to patient body habitus or limited exposure when using a minimally invasive technique. We describe a novel way of inserting the bearing not previously described in the literature. The bearing is positioned on the femoral component in full flexion. Then, with a gentle extension of the knee, the bearing snaps into position and is seated correctly on a consistent basis.

Aims The aim of this study was to investigate whether the prevalence of hearing loss among arthroplasty surgeons was comparable to clinicians from other medical specialties and to explore the factors associated with hearing loss. Methods A cross-sectional prevalence study was carried out. Arthroplasty surgeons and non-surgical clinicians were recruited from orthopaedic and medical conferences. All participants were given a paper questionnaire including demographic details, hearing history and the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey. All participants were screened for hearing loss in a quiet room using the HearCheck Screener™ (HCS; Siemens, Munich, Germany). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with hearing loss. All statistical models were adjusted for age, gender, smoking status and personal noise exposure. Results The HEARS (Hearing Evaluation of ARthroplasty Surgeons) study recruited 188 participants (106 arthroplasty surgeons; 82 non-surgical clinicians). Prevalence of hearing loss identified by the HCS was 31% for arthroplasty surgeons vs 11% for non-surgical clinicians. The odds of failing the HCS were 3.7 times higher in arthroplasty surgeons compared to their non-surgical colleagues (p < 0.004). The odds of self-reported hearing using the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey were 2.79 times higher among arthroplasty surgeons (p < 0.003). Conclusion The prevalence of hearing loss among arthroplasty surgeons is significantly higher than in their non-surgical colleagues. Noise generated during arthroplasty surgery should be recognised and managed to create safer working conditions.