The surface design of titanium implants influences not only the local biological reactions but also affects at least the clinical result in orthopaedic application. During the last decades, strong efforts have been made to improve osteointegration and prevent bacterial adhesion to these surfaces. Following the rule of “smaller, faster, cheaper”, nanotechnology has encountered clinical application. It is evident that the hierarchical implant surface micro- and nanotopography orchestrate the biological cascades of early peri-implant endosseous healing or implant loosening. This review of the literature gives a brief overview of nanostructured titanium-base biomaterials designed to improve osteointegration and prevent from bacterial infection.

Background In the course of digitization, smartphones are affecting an increasing number of areas of users’ lives, giving them almost ubiquitous access to the internet and other web applications. Mobile health (mHealth) has become an integral part of some areas of patient care. In contrast to other disciplines, routine integration of mobile devices in orthopedics and trauma surgery in Germany is still in its infancy. Objective This study aimed to investigate physicians’ current state of opinion regarding acceptance, future prospects, and risks of medical apps in the field of orthopedics and trauma surgery in Germany. Methods A web-based survey among orthopedics and trauma surgeons in German university hospitals on the use of medical apps in everyday clinical practice was conducted between September 2018 and February 2019. The survey consisted of 13 open- and closed-ended or multiple-choice questions. A logistic regression analysis was performed to ascertain the effects of interindividual characteristics on the likelihood of participants’ app and smartphone usage behavior. Results A total of 206 physicians participated in the survey. All of the participants (206/206, 100%) owned a smartphone, and 79.1% (159/201) used the device, while 64.7% (130/201) used apps regularly in everyday clinical practice. Medical apps were perceived as beneficial, given their substantial future promise, by 90.1% (181/201) of the participants. However, 62.5% (120/192) of the participants were not satisfied with the current supply of medical apps in app stores. Desired specifications for future apps were “intuitive usability” (167/201, 83.1%), “no advertising” (145/201, 72.1%), and “free apps” (92/201, 45.8%). The attributes “transparent app development and app sponsoring” (75/201, 37.3%) and the existence of an “easy-to-understand privacy statement” (50/201, 24.9%) were of minor relevance. The majority of the participants (162/194, 83.5%) considered that future apps in the field of “medical research” would provide the greatest benefit. The greatest predicted risks were “data misuse” (147/189, 77.8%), “usage of untrustworthy apps” (135/189, 71.4%), and “alienation from patients” (51/189, 27.0%). Increasing age was significantly associated with a reduction in the likelihood of regular smartphone (odds ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.97; P=.002) and app (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.96; P=.001) usage, while the medical profession grade had no significant impact on the usage behavior. Conclusions The study demonstrates that young German doctors in orthopedics and trauma surgery already use smartphones and apps in everyday clinical practice. Medical apps are considered to play an important role in the future. However, a significant discrepancy exists between the supply and demand of mHealth applications, which creates a legal and ethical vacuum with regard to data protection.

No abstract

The recently ratified Digital Healthcare Act – DVG – has paved the way, among other issues, for the prescription of health apps. The German DVG creates an entitlement to health apps for the very first time. However, this entitlement is initially limited to low-risk medical devices that have been included in the publicly accessible Register for Digital Health Applications by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. Listing in the register is granted, if the manufacturer has submitted a health app and verified that it meets basic requirements for medical devices and data security as well as positive health care effects. It is questionable, whether the DVG will lead to sustainable improvements in future patient care. In order to pursue this question and align the DGOUCʼs digitization strategy closely with its basis, an online survey was conducted among the respective members on the DVGʼs content and its associated opportunities and risks. A total of 461 German-speaking, predominantly male, experienced and elderly physicians in leading positions took part in the survey. In this study, it was shown that the majority of the participating German orthopaedic and trauma surgeons is not familiar with the DVGʼs contents. Despite a fundamentally positive attitude towards digitization, scepticism about the use of “apps on prescription” and potential risks still prevails at present. The closing of ranks between medicine, IT and the legislature via interdisciplinary expert groups and the involvement of medical societies might be obligatory.

Background: Core decompression is a common surgical technique to treat osteonecrosis of the femoral head. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of the parameters "age" and "sex" on the outcome of this type of treatment. Methods: A prospective cohort study was performed. Eighty-six osteonecrotic hips with a mean follow-up of 32.5 months (± 24.8) after advanced core decompression were analysed regarding age-and sex-dependent treatment failure. Additionally, the modified Harris Hip Score and Numeric Rating Scale were compared regarding the parameters age and sex. Results: The mean hip survival of the male participants was 51.3 months (39.4% treatment failure), whereas females presented a longer, thus not significant, mean survival of 61.4 months (30% therapy failure; p = 0.48). The further evaluation revealed significantly better survival in the patients aged < 40 years (mean survival 66.09 months, 16% treatment failure) in comparison to those aged ≥ 40 years (mean survival 50.14 months, 46% therapy failure; p = 0.03). The modified Harris Hip Score and Numeric Rating Scale results of patients whose treatment did not fail during the study period were similar, irrespective of the patient's sex or age. Conclusions: The study shows that the number of therapy failures is significantly higher in older patients, with 40 years of age marking the borderline. Patients' sex does not seem to affect the outcome of treatment, and postoperative clinical scores appear to be identical with individuals not affected by therapy failure. Since age and sex are unalterable parameters, the study helps to provide valuable predictions regarding the chances of long-term hip survival after treatment of osteonecrosis.