Aims

Classifying trochlear dysplasia (TD) is useful to determine the treatment options for patients suffering from patellofemoral instability (PFI). There is no consensus on which classification system is more reliable and reproducible for the purpose of guiding clinicians’ management of PFI. There are also concerns about the validity of the Dejour Classification (DJC), which is the most widely used classification for TD, having only a fair reliability score. The Oswestry-Bristol Classification (OBC) is a recently proposed system of classification of TD, and the authors report a fair-to-good interobserver agreement and good-to-excellent intraobserver agreement in the assessment of TD. The aim of this study was to compare the reliability and reproducibility of these two classifications.

Classifying trochlear dysplasia (TD) is useful to determine the treatment options for patients suffering from patellofemoral instability (PFI). There is no consensus on which classification system is more reliable and reproducible for this purpose to guide clinicians in order to treat PFI. There are also concerns about validity of the Dejour classification (DJC), which is the most widely used classification for TD, having only a fair reliability score.

The Oswestry-Bristol classification (OBC) is a recently proposed system of classification of TD and the authors report a fair-to-good interobserver agreement and good-to-excellent intra-observer agreement in the assessment of TD. The aim of this study was to compare the reliability and reproducibility of these two classifications.

6 assessors (4 consultants and 2 registrars) independently evaluated 100 magnetic resonance axial images of the patella-femoral joint for TD and classified them according to OBC and DJC. These assessments were again repeated by all raters after 4 weeks. The inter and intra-observer reliability scores were calculated using Cohen's kappa and Cronbach's alpha.

Both classifications showed good to excellent interobserver reliability with high alpha scores. The OBC classification showed a substantial intra-observer agreement (mean kappa 0.628)[p<0.005] whereas the DJC showed a moderate agreement (mean kappa 0.572) [p<0.005]. There was no significant difference in the kappa values when comparing the assessments by consultants to those by registrars, in either classification systems.

This large study from a non-founding institute shows both classification systems to be reliable for classifying TD based on magnetic resonance axial images of the patella-femoral joint, with the simple to use OBC having a higher intra-observer reliability score compared to the DJC.

Introduction

Magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) is the investigation of choice in young adults with symptoms of femero acetabular impingement. The aim of the study is to assess the accuracy of MRA when correlated with surgical findings on hip arthroscopy.

We prospectively studied 29 patients with distal femoral fractures stabilised using the less invasive stabilisation system [LISS]. Four patients were excluded from the final follow up [3 deaths and 1 case of quadriplegia]. The mean age of the remaining 25 patients [9 males] was 60.9 years and the mean follow up 18 months [12–24]. Eleven patients were tertiary referrals from other hospitals [7 cases were referred due to failure of primary fixation]. Overall, there were 12 cases of high-energy trauma [7 open fractures]. According to the AO classification there were 5 Type 33A, 2 Type 33B and 12 Type 33C fractures and 4 Type 32A, 1 Type 32B, 1 Type 32C fractures. Functional assessment was performed using the Modified HSS and the Schatzker and Lambert scores. The average time to union in 22 cases was 3.5 months [range, 2–5]. None of the acute cases required bone grafting with a 100% union rate. There were 3/7 cases of non-union in the salvage group still undergoing treatment. The overall results in the acute cases were good and in the salvage cases fair. While this is a small series of patients, our preliminary data indicate favourable results using the LISS in stabilizing acute distal femoral fractures. However, when the LISS is used as a revision tool despite the concept of preserving the bone biology, the results seem to be less satisfactory. The system appears to be user friendly and no technical difficulties were encountered.

There is a legal and ethical obligation to gain informed consent before treatment commences. A number of bodies have issued guidelines for obtaining consent and these include the Department of Health, the GMC, The Royal College Surgeons of England, and the B.O.A. For a patient to give their informed consent to surgery they must receive sufficient information about their illness, proposed treatment and its prognosis. There are no specific guidelines regarding joint replacement. With this in mind a retrospective case note study was undertaken involving 100 patients who had undergone a hip replacement. Noting the documented discussion at all stages of patient contact.Fifty percent of patients had been seen and listed in the Outpatients by a Consultant, 25% were discussed with the Consultant responsible and the remainder were listed without Consultant input. In only 33 % of cases were any specific risks recorded. This had fallen to 4% on their visit to pre operative assessment clinic. All the consent forms were completed at the time of admission for surgery. Forty percent of these on the day of surgery. The majority were completed by SHOs (58%), while only 4% were completed by consultants. None of the forms noted the lead surgeon. All the consent forms noted some frequently occurring risks. However there was a large variance in the details recorded. The study highlights that the majority of complications are only documented on the consent form, with little note of the dialogue leading up to it. It is also apparent that there is no agreement as to what represents a significant or frequent complication.

This review raises a number of important issues. There needs to be a national standardisation of the process of consent. We propose the introduction of a specific consent form for hip replacements that provide improved documentation of the standardised risks involved. This should also include guidelines regarding prosthesis choice, surgical approach and the extent of trainee involvement. In addition we would also suggest there is a need to improve sequential documented discussion up to the point of surgery and introduce specific training for juniors carrying out consent.

Aims: To evaluate whether in children with knee pathology there is any correlation between clinical diagnosis, magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopy. Methods: Between 1993 and 2001 children age 3–16 years old, who presented in the orthopaedic clinics of our institution with knee pathology were included in this study. All of them underwent MRI investigation. Their history, physical examination and clinical diagnosis were ascertained from their case notes. Some of these children underwent arthroscopic surgery of the knee and þndings were also recorded. Clinical data, MRI þndings and arthroscopic þndings were computerised and analysed. Results were analysed and compared in the following 3 groups: a) clinical data versus MRI þndings, b) clinical data versus arthroscopic þndings and c) MRI report versus arthroscopic þndings. Comparisons were rated in one of three categories: total agreement, partial agreement or total disagreement. Partial agreement was deþned as the partial correlation of þndings. Results: 130 children (131 knees, one bilateral) were included in this study. The mean age was 8.5 years (range 3–16). Conclusion: In this study 1/3 of the knee MRI was normal and there was only 26% of total agreement between the clinical and MRI þndings. Further more in 50% of cases that underwent arthroscopy, there was no correlation of arthroscopic and MRI þndings.This study supports the view that knee MRI investigation in children may not provide a reliable diagnosis and guidance in children with knee pathology.

Aims: To evaluate whether in children with knee pathology there is any correlation between clinical diagnosis, magnetic resonance imaging and arthros-copy.

Methods: Between 1993 and 2001 children age 3-16 years old, who presented in the orthopaedic clinics of our institution with knee pathology were included in this study. All of them underwent MRI investigation. Their history, physical examination and clinical diagnosis were ascertained from their case notes. Some of these children underwent arthroscopic surgery of the knee and findings were also recorded. Clinical data, MRI find-ings and arthroscopic findings were computerised and analysed.

Results: were analysed and compared in the following 3 groups: a) clinical data versus MRI findings, b) clinical data versus arthroscopic findings and c) MRI report versus arthroscopic findings. Comparisons were rated in one of three categories: total agreement, partial agreement or total disagreement. Partial agreement was defined as the partial correlation of findings.

Results: 130 children (131 knees, one bilateral) were included in this study. The mean age was 8.5 years (range 3-16). 81 were male and 49 were female, ratio 1.7:1. 38 (30%) patients underwent arthroscopy. 43 (33%) of the MRI scans were reported as normal. Lesions reported on MRI included meniscal and ACL tears, osteochondritis dessicans, osteochondral fractures and discoid lateral meniscus. Overall, the results between the comparison of the 3 groups are summarised as follows:

Conclusion: In this study 1/3 of the knee MRI were normal and there was only 26% of total agreement between the clinical and MRI findings. Further more in 50% of cases that underwent arthroscopy, there was no correlation of arthroscopic and MRI findings.This study supports the view that knee MRI investigation in children may not provide a reliable diagnosis and guidance in children with knee pathology.