• Wearable sensors, in particular inertial measurement units (IMUs) allow the objective, valid, discriminative and responsive assessment of physical function during functional tests such as gait, stair climbing or sit-to-stand.

• Applied to various body segments, precise capture of time-to-task achievement, spatiotemporal gait and kinematic parameters of demanding tests or specific to an affected limb are the most used measures.

• In activity monitoring (AM), accelerometry has mainly been used to derive energy expenditure or general health related parameters such as total step counts.

• In orthopaedics and the elderly, counting specific events such as stairs or high intensity activities were clinimetrically most powerful; as were qualitative parameters at the ‘micro-level’ of activity such as step frequency or sit-stand duration.

• Low cost and ease of use allow routine clinical application but with many options for sensors, algorithms, test and parameter definitions, choice and comparability remain difficult, calling for consensus or standardisation.

Cite this article: Grimm B, Bolink S. Evaluating physical function and activity in the elderly patient using wearable motion sensors. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:112–120. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160022.

• Digitization in orthopaedics and traumatology is an enormously fast-evolving field with numerous players and stakeholders. It will be of utmost importance that the different groups of technologists, users, patients, and actors in the healthcare systems learn to communicate in a language with a common basis.

• Understanding the requirements of technologies, the potentials of digital application, their interplay, and the combined aim to improve health of patients, would lead to an extraordinary chance to improve health care.

• Patients' expectations and surgeons’ capacities to use digital technologies must be transparent and accepted by both sides.

• The management of big data needs tremendous care as well as concepts for the ethics in handling data and technologies have to be established while also considering the impact of withholding or delaying benefits thereof.

• This review focuses on the available technologies such as Apps, wearables, robotics, artificial intelligence, virtual and augmented reality, smart implants, and telemedicine.

• It will be necessary to closely follow the future developments and carefully pay attention to ethical aspects and transparency.

• There are many digital solutions which assist the orthopaedic trauma surgeon. This already broad field is rapidly expanding, making a complete overview of the existing solutions difficult.

• The AO Foundation has established a task force to address the need for an overview of digital solutions in the field of orthopaedic trauma surgery.

• Areas of new technology which will help the surgeon gain a greater understanding of these possible solutions are reviewed.

• We propose a categorization of the current needs in orthopaedic trauma surgery matched with available or potential digital solutions, and provide a narrative overview of this broad topic, including the needs, solutions and basic rules to ensure adequate use in orthopaedic trauma surgery. We seek to make this field more accessible, allowing for technological solutions to be clearly matched to trauma surgeons’ needs.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:408-420. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200021

• The objectives of the 1st EFORT European Consensus on ‘Medical and Scientific Research Requirements for the Clinical Introduction of Artificial Joint Arthroplasty Devices’ were foremost to focus on patient safety by establishing performance requirements for medical devices.

• The 1st EFORT European Consensus applied an a priori-defined, modified Delphi methodology to produce unbiased, high-quality recommendation statements, confirmed by consensus voting of a European expert panel.

• Intended key outcomes are practical guidelines justified by the current stage of knowledge and based on a broad European Expert Consensus, to maintain innovation and optimisation of orthopaedic devices within the boundaries of MDR 2017/745.

• Twenty-one main research areas of relevance were defined relying on input from the EFORT IPSI WG1 ‘Introduction of Innovation’ recommendations and a related survey.

• A modified Delphi approach with a preparatory literature review and work in small groups were used to prepare answers to the research questions in the form of 32 draft Consensus statements.

• A Consensus Conference in a hybrid format, on-site in the Carl Gustav Carus University of Dresden was organised to further refine the draft statements and define consensus within the complete group of participants by final voting, intended to further quantify expert opinion knowledge.

• The modified Delphi approach provides practical guidelines for hands-on orientation for orthopaedic surgeons, research institutes and laboratories, orthopaedic device manufacturers, patient representatives, Notified Bodies, National Institutes and authorities.

• For the first time, initiated by the EFORT IPSI (WG1 ‘Introduction of Innovation’), knowledge of all related stakeholders was combined in the 1st EFORT European Consensus to develop guidelines and result in a comprehensive set of recommendations.