The use of wearable sensors to track activity is increasing. Therefore, a survey among AO Trauma members was conducted to provide an overview of their current utilization and determine future needs and directions. A cross sectional expert opinion survey was administered to members of AO Trauma. Respondents were surveyed concerning their experience, subspeciality, current use characteristics, as well as future needs concerning wearable technology. Three hundred and thirty-three survey sets were available for analysis (Response Rate 16.2%). 20.7% of respondents already use wearable technology as part of their clinical treatment. The most prevalent technology was accelerometry combined with smartphones (75.4%) to measure general patient activity. To facilitate the use of wearable technology in the future, the most pressing issues were cost, patient compliance and validity of results. Wearable activity monitors are currently being used in trauma surgery. Surgeons employing these technologies mostly measure simple activity or activity associated parameters. Cost was the greatest perceived barrier to implementation. Further research, especially concerning the interpretation of the outcome values obtained, is required to facilitate wearable activity monitoring as an objective patient outcome measurement tool.

Background and Objectives: Outcome data from wearable devices are increasingly used in both research and clinics. Traditionally, a dedicated device is chosen for a given study or clinical application to collect outcome data as soon as the patient is included in a study or undergoes a procedure. The current study introduces a new measurement strategy, whereby patients’ own devices are utilized, allowing for both a pre-injury baseline measure and ability to show achievable results. Materials and Methods: Patients with a pre-existing musculoskeletal injury of the upper and lower extremity were included in this exploratory, proof-of-concept study. They were followed up for a minimum of 6 weeks after injury, and their wearable outcome data (from a smartphone and/or a body-worn sensor) were continuously acquired during this period. A descriptive analysis of the screening characteristics and the observed and achievable outcome patterns was performed. Results: A total of 432 patients was continuously screened for the study, and their screening was analyzed. The highest success rate for successful inclusion was in younger patients. Forty-eight patients were included in the analysis. The most prevalent outcome was step count. Three distinctive activity data patterns were observed: patients recovering, patients with slow or no recovery, and patients needing additional measures to determine treatment outcomes. Conclusions: Measuring outcomes in trauma patients with the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) strategy is feasible. With this approach, patients were able to provide continuous activity data without any dedicated equipment given to them. The measurement technique is especially suited to particular patient groups. Our study’s screening log and inclusion characteristics can help inform future studies wishing to employ the BYOD design.

The use of wearable technology is steadily increasing. In orthopedic trauma surgery, where the musculoskeletal system is directly affected, focus has been directed towards assessing aspects of physical functioning, activity behavior, and mobility/disability. This includes sensors and algorithms to monitor real-world walking speed, daily step counts, ground reaction forces, or range of motion. Several specific reviews have focused on this domain. In other medical fields, wearable sensors and algorithms to monitor digital biometrics have been used with a focus on domain-specific health aspects such as heart rate, sleep, blood oxygen saturation, or fall risk. This review explores the most common clinical and research use cases of wearable sensors in other medical domains and, from it, derives suggestions for the meaningful transfer and application in an orthopedic trauma context.

Case: A 29-year-old man sustained a near-complete laceration to the left pectoralis major muscle belly. The muscle and epimysium were repaired using the Kragh technique—a combination of running interlocked and Mason-Allen stitches. At the 6-year follow-up, the patient had an excellent outcome as measured by clinical scores (Short Form Survey-36, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score), bench press, cosmesis, and magnetic resonance imaging. Conclusions: Acute traumatic open pectoralis muscle belly tears may be successfully repaired in select patients using the Kragh technique with excellent postoperative function and cosmesis.

Background/Objectives: Wearable activity monitors and sensor-based devices are increasingly used to quantify mobility, load, and recovery in orthopaedic patients, yet clinicians lack practical guidance on selection, implementation, and interpretation. This qualitative expert consensus study synthesized real-world experiences from leaders in orthopaedics, rehabilitation, biomechanics, and digital health who implemented wearables at scale. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 experts (64% response rate) recruited via hybrid purposive and snowball sampling. Participants included orthopaedic surgeons and research scientists with 124 cumulative years of wearable experience across over 9000 monitored patients. Interviews addressed device selection, clinical workflow, data management, and adoption barriers. Data were charted into a structured extraction matrix and analyzed using Inductive Thematic Analysis and a Framework Approach, reported per COREQ guidelines. Results: Experts utilized diverse sensor platforms across arthroplasty, trauma, spine, and sports medicine. Four key themes emerged: (1) device selection prioritized usability and patient compliance over technical sophistication; (2) workflow required defined team roles to manage data volume and avoid clinical burden; (3) patient engagement favored simplified, actionable feedback amid divergent views on data transparency; (4) future outlook anticipated AI-driven proactive risk prediction. Conclusions: No single wearable suits all orthopaedic practices; success hinges on aligning sensor placement with clinical questions, rigorous data quality checks, and integration into care plans. This study offers a practical checklist and roadmap for point-of-care adoption.