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.

Aims: The primary aim of this study was to identify independent predictors associated with nonunion and delayed union of tibial diaphyseal fractures treated with intramedullary nailing. The secondary aim was to assess the Radiological Union Scale for Tibial fractures (RUST) score as an early predictor of tibial fracture nonunion. Methods: A consecutive series of 647 patients who underwent intramedullary nailing for tibial diaphyseal fractures were identified from a trauma database. Demographic data, comorbidities, smoking status, alcohol consumption, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroid use were documented. Details regarding mechanism of injury, fracture classification, complications, and further surgery were recorded. Nonunion was defined as the requirement for revision surgery to achieve union. Delayed union was defined as a RUST score < 10 at six months postoperatively. Results: There were 41 nonunions (6.3%), of which 13 were infected (31.7%), and 77 delayed unions (11.9%). There were 127 open fractures (19.6%). Adjusting for confounding variables, NSAID use (odds ratio (OR) 3.50; p = 0.042), superficial infection (OR 3.00; p = 0.026), open fractures (OR 5.44; p < 0.001), and high-energy mechanism (OR 2.51; p = 0.040) were independently associated with nonunion. Smoking (OR 1.76; p = 0.034), open fracture (OR 2.82; p = 0.001), and high-energy mechanism (OR 1.81; p = 0.030) were independent predictors associated with delayed union. The RUST score at six-week follow-up was highly predictive of nonunion (sensitivity and specificity of 75%). Conclusion: NSAID use, high-energy mechanisms, open fractures, and superficial infection were independently associated with nonunion in patients with tibial diaphyseal fractures treated with intramedullary nailing. The six-week RUST score may be useful in identifying patients at risk of nonunion.

Aims: Virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) are advocated by recent British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOASTs) to efficiently manage injuries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary aim of this national study is to assess the impact of these standards on patient satisfaction and clinical outcome amid the pandemic. The secondary aims are to determine the impact of the pandemic on the demographic details of injuries presenting to the VFC, and to compare outcomes and satisfaction when the BOAST guidelines were first introduced with a subsequent period when local practice would be familiar with these guidelines. Methods: This is a national cross-sectional cohort study comprising centres with VFC services across the UK. All consecutive adult patients assessed in VFC in a two-week period pre-lockdown (6 May 2019 to 19 May 2019) and in the same two-week period at the peak of the first lockdown (4 May 2020 to 17 May 2020), and a randomly selected sample during the ‘second wave’ (October 2020) will be eligible for the study. Data comprising local VFC practice, patient and injury characteristics, unplanned re-attendances, and complications will be collected by local investigators for all time periods. A telephone questionnaire will be used to determine patient satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes for patients who were discharged following VFC assessment without face-to-face consultation. Ethics and dissemination: The study results will identify changes in case-mix and numbers of patients managed through VFCs and whether this is safe and associated with patient satisfaction. These data will provide key information for future expert-led consensus on management of trauma injuries through the VFC. The protocol will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed publication. This protocol has been reviewed by the South East Scotland Research Ethics Service and is classified as a multicentre audit. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(3):211–215.

Aims: The aims of this meta-analysis were to assess: 1) the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in hip fracture patients; 2) the associated mortality rate and risk associated with COVID-19; 3) the patient demographics associated with COVID-19; 4) time of diagnosis; and 5) length of follow-up after diagnosis of COVID-19. Methods: Searches of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were performed in October 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Search terms included “hip”, “fracture”, and “COVID-19”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical articles reporting the mortality rate associated with COVID-19 in hip fracture patients. In total, 53 articles were identified and following full text screening 28 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Results: A total of 28 studies reported the mortality of COVID-19-positive patients, of which 21 studies reported the prevalence of COVID-19-positive patients and compared the mortality rate to COVID-19-negative patients. The prevalence of COVID-19 was 13% (95% confidence interval (CI) 11% to 16%) and was associated with a crude mortality rate of 35% (95% CI 32% to 39%), which was a significantly increased risk compared to those patients without COVID-19 (odds ratio (OR) 7.11, 95% CI 5.04 to 10.04; p < 0.001). COVID-19-positive patients were more likely to be male (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.96; p = 0.002). The duration of follow-up was reported in 20 (71.4%) studies. A total of 17 studies reported whether a patient presented with COVID-19 (n = 108 patients, 35.1%) or developed COVID-19 following admission (n = 200, 64.9%), of which six studies reported a mean time to diagnosis of post-admission COVID-19 at 15 days (2 to 25). Conclusion: The prevalence of COVID-19 was 13%, of which approximately one-third of patients were diagnosed on admission, and was associated with male sex. COVID-19-positive patients had a crude mortality rate of 35%, being seven times greater than those without COVID-19. Due to the heterogenicity of the reported data minimum reporting standards of outcomes associated with COVID-19 are suggested.

Aims: The primary aim of this study was to compare the hip-specific functional outcome of robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) with manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Secondary aims were to compare general health improvement, patient satisfaction, and radiological component position and restoration of leg length between rTHA and mTHA. Methods: A total of 40 patients undergoing rTHA were propensity score matched to 80 patients undergoing mTHA for OA. Patients were matched for age, sex, and preoperative function. The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were collected pre- and postoperatively (mean 10 months (SD 2.2) in rTHA group and 12 months (SD 0.3) in mTHA group). In addition, patient satisfaction was collected postoperatively. Component accuracy was assessed using Lewinnek and Callanan safe zones, and restoration of leg length were assessed radiologically. Results: There were no significant differences in the preoperative demographics (p ≥ 0.781) or function (p ≥ 0.383) between the groups. The postoperative OHS (difference 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1 to 4.8; p = 0.038) and FJS (difference 21.1, 95% CI 10.7 to 31.5; p < 0.001) were significantly greater in the rTHA group when compared with the mTHA group. However, only the FJS was clinically significantly greater. There was no difference in the postoperative EQ-5D (difference 0.017, 95% CI -0.042 to 0.077; p = 0.562) between the two groups. No patients were dissatisfied in the rTHA group whereas six were dissatisfied in the mTHA group, but this was not significant (p = 0.176). rTHA was associated with an overall greater rate of component positioning in a safe zone (p ≤ 0.003) and restoration of leg length (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients undergoing rTHA had a greater hip-specific functional outcome when compared to mTHA, which may be related to improved component positioning and restoration of leg length. However, there was no difference in their postoperative generic health or rate of satisfaction.

Aims: The primary aim was to assess the rate of patient deferral of elective orthopaedic surgery and whether this changed with time during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The secondary aim was to explore the reasons why patients wanted to defer surgery and what measures/circumstances would enable them to go forward with surgery. Methods: Patients were randomly selected from elective orthopaedic waiting lists at three centres in the UK in April, June, August, and September 2020 and were contacted by telephone. Patients were asked whether they wanted to proceed or defer surgery. Patients who wished to defer were asked seven questions relating to potential barriers to proceeding with surgery and were asked whether there were measures/circumstances that would allow them to go forward with surgery. Results: There was a significant decline in the rate of deferral for surgery from April (n = 38/50, 76%), June (n = 68/233, 29%), to August (n = 6/50, 12%) and September (n = 5/100, 5%) (p < 0.001). Patients wishing to defer were older (68 years (SD 10.1) vs 65 (SD 11.9)), more likely to be female (65% (44/68) vs 53% (88/165)) and waiting for a knee arthroplasty (65% (44/68) vs 41% (67/165); p < 0.001). By September 2020, all patients that deferred in June at one centre had proceeded or wanted to proceed with surgery due to a perceived lower risk of acquiring COVID-19 perioperatively (68%, n = 15) or because their symptoms had progressed (32%, n = 7). The most common reason (n = 14/17, 82%) for patients deferring surgery in September was the perceived risk of acquiring COVID-19 while as an inpatient. When asked what measures or circumstances would enable them to proceed with surgery, the most common (n = 7, 41%) response was reassurance of a COVID-19 free hospital. Conclusion: The rate of deferral fell to 5% by September, which was due to a lower perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 perioperatively or worsening of symptoms while waiting. The potential of a COVID-19-free hospital and communication of mortality risk may improve a patient’s willingness to go forward with surgery.

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.

Background Golf is a popular sport involving overhead activity and engagement of the rotator cuff (RC). This study aimed to determine to what level golfers were able to return to golf following RC repair, the barriers to them returning to golf and factors associated with their failure to return to golf. Methods Patients preoperatively identifying as golfers undergoing RC repair at the study centre from 2012 to 2020 were retrospectively followed up with to assess their golf-playing status, performance and frequency of play and functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Results Forty-seven golfers (40 men [85.1%] and 7 women [14.9%]) with a mean age of 56.8 years met the inclusion criteria, and 80.1% were followed up with at a mean of 27.1 months postoperatively. Twenty-nine patients (76.3%) had returned to golf with a mean handicap change of +1.0 (P=0.291). Golf frequency decreased from a mean of 1.8 rounds per week preinjury to 1.5 rounds per week postoperatively (P=0.052). The EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) index and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) score were significantly greater in those returning to golf (P=0.024 and P=0.002), although functional outcome measures were not significantly different. The primary barriers to return were ipsilateral shoulder dysfunction (78%) and loss of the habit of play (22%). Conclusions Golfers were likely (76%) to return to golf following RC repair, including mostly to their premorbid performance level with little residual symptomatology. Return to golf was associated with a greater QoL. Persistent subjective shoulder dysfunction (78%) was the most common barrier to returning to golf. Level of evidence Level IV.