Search

Abstract Background Total hip and knee arthroplasty for end stage arthritis are among the most cost-effective interventions available in all of medicine. Success of hip and knee arthroplasties is not universal and approximately one in ten patients are not satisfied with their arthroplasty and 10 to 34% of patients have an unfavourable long term pain outcome. The aim of this edition of Arthroplasty was to identify factors associated with: (1) poor joint specific outcome, (2) poor health related quality of life outcome and (3) dissatisfaction following total hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods The scope was deliberately broad to identify factors (known and unknown) that influence outcome of total hip and knee arthroplasty, and of 40 submissions, eight were selected for this special edition after peer review. Results Many of the included studies reported subjective patient reported outcome measures as their key outcomes but other objective measures such as muscle mass, timed Up-and-Go test, kneeling ability and postoperative pain are also featured. Some studies involved a focus on early rehabilitation after surgery (ERAS) principles and how to optimise pre-rehabilitation and reduce length of hospital stay readmission and reoperation. The effect of metal allergy and drain usage on outcomes is also explored. A variety of methodologies have been used including one randomised control trial, some machine learning and three systematic reviews investigating the effect of metal allergy on outcomes, associations with postoperative pain and the effect of patella resurfacing. Conclusion This special edition has advanced our knowledge of factors influencing to the outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty but has also identified several areas of research that need to be addressed to improve the outcomes of our patients.

Abstract Background Humeral shaft fractures constitute around 1% of adult fractures in the UK, with an annual incidence of approximately 13 per 100,000 population. Historically, these injuries have been primarily managed non-operatively, with operative fixation reserved for specific indications. Although some recent retrospective studies have suggested there are potential benefits of operative fixation over humeral bracing, there is a deficiency in level 1 evidence to support operative management as the primary treatment for humeral shaft fractures. Methods/design This single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial aims to recruit 70 adult patients with an isolated closed fracture of the humeral diaphysis into one of two treatment arms: operative (n = 35) or non-operative (n = 35). The operative arm will undergo open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the fracture using a standard fixation technique (plate and screws). The non-operative arm will be fitted with a prefabricated humeral brace until fracture union. All patients will be followed up for 1 year post-intervention. The primary outcome measure will be the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 3 months post-intervention. Secondary outcome measures will include pain, treatment complications, return to work or sporting activities, shoulder and elbow range of motion, radiographic assessment, EuroQol (EQ-5D) Health Outcome score and 12-item Short Form (SF-12) Health Survey score. A health economic analysis will be performed to compare the cost implications of each treatment strategy. Discussion This randomised controlled trial will provide level 1 evidence comparing a standard ORIF technique against functional bracing for isolated closed humeral shaft fractures. The investigators hope that the study results will assist surgeons in their decision-making when managing patients with these injuries. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03689335. Registered on 28 September 2018 (retrospectively).

After publication of our article [1] we have been notified that two of the author names have been mistakenly removed from the authorship list: Colin R. Howie and Nicholas D. Clement.