header advert
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 6 | Pages 1047 - 1054
1 Jun 2021
Keene DJ Knight R Bruce J Dutton SJ Tutton E Achten J Costa ML

Aims

To identify the prevalence of neuropathic pain after lower limb fracture surgery, assess associations with pain severity, quality of life and disability, and determine baseline predictors of chronic neuropathic pain at three and at six months post-injury.

Methods

Secondary analysis of a UK multicentre randomized controlled trial (Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma; WHiST) dataset including adults aged 16 years or over following surgery for lower limb major trauma. The trial recruited 1,547 participants from 24 trauma centres. Neuropathic pain was measured at three and six months using the Doleur Neuropathique Questionnaire (DN4); 701 participants provided a DN4 score at three months and 781 at six months. Overall, 933 participants provided DN4 for at least one time point. Physical disability (Disability Rating Index (DRI) 0 to 100) and health-related quality-of-life (EuroQol five-dimension five-level; EQ-5D-5L) were measured. Candidate predictors of neuropathic pain included sex, age, BMI, injury mechanism, concurrent injury, diabetes, smoking, alcohol, analgaesia use pre-injury, index surgery location, fixation type, Injury Severity Score, open injury, and wound care.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 4 | Pages 522 - 526
1 Apr 2018
Tutton E Achten J Lamb SE Willett K Costa ML

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore the patients’ experience of recovery from open fracture of the lower limb in acute care.

Patients and Methods

A purposeful sample of 20 participants with a mean age of 40 years (20 to 82) (16 males, four females) were interviewed a mean of 12 days (five to 35) after their first surgical intervention took place between July 2012 and July 2013 in two National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England, United Kingdom. The qualitative interviews drew on phenomenology and analysis identified codes, which were drawn together into categories and themes.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 2 | Pages 147 - 150
1 Feb 2017
Costa ML Tutton E Achten J Grant R Slowther AM

Traditionally, informed consent for clinical research involves the patient reading an approved Participant Information Sheet, considering the information presented and having as much time as they need to discuss the study information with their friends and relatives, their clinical care and the research teams. This system works well in the ‘planned’ or ‘elective’ setting. But what happens if the patient requires urgent treatment for an injury or emergency?

This article reviews the legal framework which governs informed consent in the emergency setting, discusses how the approach taken may vary according to the details of the emergency and the treatment required, and reports on the patients’ view of providing consent following a serious injury. We then provide some practical tips for managing the process of informed consent in the context of injuries and emergencies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:147–150.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1714 - 1720
1 Dec 2013
Hamilton TW Hutchings L Alsousou J Tutton E Hodson E Smith CH Wakefield J Gray B Symonds S Willett K

We investigated whether, in the management of stable paediatric fractures of the forearm, flexible casts that can be removed at home are as clinically effective, cost-effective and acceptable to both patient and parent as management using a cast conventionally removed in hospital. A single-centre randomised controlled trial was performed on 317 children with a mean age of 9.3 years (2 to 16). No significant differences were seen in the change in Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire index score (p = 0.10) or EuroQol 5-Dimensions domain scores between the two groups one week after removal of the cast or the absolute scores at six months. There was a significantly lower overall median treatment cost in the group whose casts were removed at home (£150.88 (sem 1.90) vs £251.62 (sem 2.68); p <  0.001). No difference was seen in satisfaction between the two groups (p = 0.48).

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1714–20.