Aims

Meniscal allograft transplantation is undertaken to improve pain and function in patients with a symptomatic meniscal deficient knee compartment. While case series have shown improvements in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), its efficacy has not been rigorously evaluated. This study aimed to compare PROMs in patients having meniscal transplantation with those having personalized physiotherapy at 12 months.

Aims

The optimal treatment for independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip remains controversial. The recognised alternatives are hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. At present there is no established standard of care, with both types of arthroplasty being used in many centres.

Aims

Fractures of the distal femur are an important cause of morbidity. Their optimal management remains controversial. Contemporary implants include angular-stable anatomical locking plates and locked intramedullary nails (IMNs). We compared the long-term patient-reported functional outcome of fixation of fractures of the distal femur using these two methods of treatment.

Aims

The aim of this study was to inform a definitive trial which could determine the clinical effectiveness of the X-Bolt Dynamic Hip Plating System compared with the sliding hip screw for patients with complex pertrochanteric fragility fractures of the femur.

Hip fracture is a global public health problem. The National Hip Fracture Database provides a framework for service evaluation in this group of patients in the United Kingdom, but does not collect patient-reported outcome data and is unable to provide meaningful data about the recovery of quality of life.

We report one-year patient-reported outcomes of a prospective cohort of patients treated at a single major trauma centre in the United Kingdom who sustained a hip fracture between January 2012 and March 2014.

There was an initial marked decline in quality of life from baseline measured using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions score (EQ-5D). It was followed by a significant improvement to 120 days for all patients. Although their quality of life improved during the year after the fracture, it was still significantly lower than before injury irrespective of age group or cognitive impairment (mean reduction EQ-5D 0.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.26). There was strong evidence that quality of life was lower for patients with cognitive impairment. There was a mean reduction in EQ-5D of 0.28 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.35) in patients <  80 years of age. This difference was consistent (and fixed) throughout follow-up. Quality of life does not improve significantly during recovery from hip fracture in patients over 80 years of age (p = 0.928). Secondary measures of function showed similar trends.

Hip fracture marks a step down in the quality of life of a patient: it accounts for approximately 0.22 disability adjusted life years in the first year after fracture. This is equivalent to serious neurological conditions for which extensive funding for research and treatment is made available.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:372–82.

The extent and depth of routine health care data are growing at an ever-increasing rate, forming huge repositories of information. These repositories can answer a vast array of questions. However, an understanding of the purpose of the dataset used and the quality of the data collected are paramount to determine the reliability of the result obtained.

This Editorial describes the importance of adherence to sound methodological principles in the reporting and publication of research using ‘big’ data, with a suggested reporting framework for future Bone & Joint Journal submissions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1575–7.

The Bone & Joint Journal provides the latest evidence to guide the clinical practice of orthopaedic surgeons. The benefits of one intervention compared with another are presented using outcome measures; some may be specific to a limb or joint and some are more general health-related quality of life measures. Readers will be familiar with many of these outcome measures and will be able to judge the relative benefits of different interventions when measured using the same outcome tool; for example, different treatments for pain in the knee measured using a particular knee score. But, how should readers compare outcomes between different clinical areas using different outcome measures? This article explores the use of standardised effect sizes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:853–4.

We compared a new fixation system, the Targon Femoral Neck (TFN) hip screw, with the current standard treatment of cannulated screw fixation. This was a single-centre, participant-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Patients aged 65 years and over with either a displaced or undisplaced intracapsular fracture of the hip were eligible. The primary outcome was the risk of revision surgery within one year of fixation.

A total of 174 participants were included in the trial. The absolute reduction in risk of revision was of 4.7% (95% CI 14.2 to 22.5) in favour of the TFN hip screw (chi-squared test, p = 0.741), which was less than the pre-specified level of minimum clinically important difference. There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcome measures.

We found no evidence of a clinical difference in the risk of revision surgery between the TFN hip screw and cannulated screw fixation for patients with an intracapsular fracture of the hip.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:652–7.

The importance for observing the intention-to-treat approach in clinical studies is explained.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1443–4.

The variation in surgical performance, both between centres and individual surgeons, has recently been of significant political, media and public interest. Within the United Kingdom, a government agenda to increase accountability amongst surgeons has led to the online publication of ‘surgeon-level’ data. Surgeons, journalists and the public need to understand these data if they are to be useful in driving up standards of surgical care. This Editorial describes the use of Funnel Plots, which are the common means by which such data are presented, and discusses how the plots are generated.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1156–7.

The ideal form of fixation for displaced, extra-articular fractures of the distal tibia remains controversial. In the UK, open reduction and internal fixation with locking-plates and intramedullary nailing are the two most common forms of treatment. Both techniques provide reliable fixation but both are associated with specific complications. There is little information regarding the functional recovery following either procedure.

We performed a randomised pilot trial to determine the functional outcome of 24 adult patients treated with either a locking-plate (n = 12) or an intramedullary nailing (n = 12). At six months, there was an adjusted difference of 13 points in the Disability Rating Index in favour of the intramedullary nail. However, this was not statistically significant in this pilot trial (p = 0.498). A total of seven patients required further surgery in the locking-plate group and one in the intramedullary nail group.

This study suggests that there may be clinically relevant, functional differences in patients treated with nail versus locking-plate fixation for fractures of the distal tibia and differences in related complications. Further trials are required to confirm the findings of this pilot investigation.

Concerns have been reported to the United Kingdom National Patient Safety Agency, warning that cementing the femoral component during hip replacement surgery for fracture of the proximal femur may increase peri-operative mortality.

The National Hip Fracture Database collects demographic and outcome data about patients with a fracture of the proximal femur from over 100 participating hospitals in the United Kingdom. We conducted a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of this dataset to determine whether peri-operative mortality was increased in patients who had undergone either hemiarthroplasty or total hip replacement using a cemented femoral component. A total of 16 496 patients from 129 hospitals were included in the analysis, which showed a small but significant adjusted survival benefit associated with cementing (odds ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.96). Other statistically significant variables in predicting death at discharge, listed in order of magnitude of effect, were gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, age, walking accompanied outdoors and arthroplasty. Interaction terms between cementing and these other variables were sequentially added to, but did not improve, the model.

This study has not shown an increase in peri-operative mortality as a result of cementing the femoral component in patients requiring hip replacement following fracture of the proximal femur.

Between May 1998 and May 2007 we carried out 50 Avon patellofemoral joint replacements in 32 patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis.

There were no revisions in the first five years, giving a cumulative survival of 100% for those with a minimum follow-up of five years. The mean follow-up was 5.3 years (2.1 to 10.2). The median Oxford knee score was 30.5 (interquartile range 22.25 to 42.25). In patients with bilateral replacements the median Euroqol General health score was 50 which was significantly lower than that of 75 in those with a unilateral replacement (p = 0.047). The main complication was progression of disease, which was identified radiologically in 11 knees (22%). This highlights the need for accurate selection of patients. Our findings suggest that the Avon prosthesis survives well and gives a satisfactory functional outcome in the medium term.

We have carried out a prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial to compare the efficacy of a single subacromial injection of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, tenoxicam, with a single injection of methylprednisolone in patients with subacromial impingement. A total of 58 patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Group A received 40 mg of methylprednisolone and group B 20 mg of tenoxicam as a subacromial injection along with lignocaine. The Constant-Murley shoulder score was used as the primary outcome measure and the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) as secondary measures. Six weeks after injection the improvement in the Constant-Murley score was significantly greater in the methylprednisolone group (p = 0.003) than in the tenoxicam group. The improvement in the DASH score was greater in the steroid group and the difference was statistically significant and consistent two (p < 0.01), four (p < 0.01) and six weeks (p < 0.020) after the injection. The improvement in the OSS was consistently greater in the steroid group than in the tenoxicam group. Although the difference was statistically significant at two (p < 0.001) and four (p = 0.003) weeks after the injection, it was not at six weeks (p = 0.055). Subacromial injection of tenoxicam does not offer an equivalent outcome to subacromial injection of corticosteroid at six weeks. Corticosteroid is significantly better than tenoxicam for improving shoulder function in tendonitis of the rotator cuff after six weeks.