Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 8 | Pages 984 - 994
1 Aug 2019
Rua T Malhotra B Vijayanathan S Hunter L Peacock J Shearer J Goh V McCrone P Gidwani S

Aims. The aim of the Scaphoid Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Trauma (SMaRT) trial was to evaluate the clinical and cost implications of using immediate MRI in the acute management of patients with a suspected fracture of the scaphoid with negative radiographs. Patients and Methods. Patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with a suspected fracture of the scaphoid and negative radiographs were randomized to a control group, who did not undergo further imaging in the ED, or an intervention group, who had an MRI of the wrist as an additional test during the initial ED attendance. Most participants were male (52% control, 61% intervention), with a mean age of 36.2 years (18 to 73) in the control group and 38.2 years (20 to 71) in the intervention group. The primary outcome was total cost impact at three months post-recruitment. Secondary outcomes included total costs at six months, the assessment of clinical findings, diagnostic accuracy, and the participants’ self-reported level of satisfaction. Differences in cost were estimated using generalized linear models with gamma errors. Results. The mean cost up to three months post-recruitment per participant was £542.40 (. sd. £855.20, n = 65) for the control group and £368.40 (. sd. £338.60, n = 67) for the intervention group, leading to an estimated cost difference of £174 (95% confidence interval (CI) -£30 to £378; p = 0.094). The cost difference per participant increased to £266 (95% CI £3.30 to £528; p = 0.047) at six months. Overall, 6.2% of participants (4/65, control group) and 10.4% of participants (7/67, intervention group) had sustained a fracture of the scaphoid (p = 0.37). In addition, 7.7% of participants (5/65, control group) and 22.4% of participants (15/67, intervention group) had other fractures diagnosed (p = 0.019). The use of MRI was associated with higher diagnostic accuracy both in the diagnosis of a fracture of the scaphoid (100.0% vs 93.8%) and of any other fracture (98.5% vs 84.6%). Conclusion. The use of immediate MRI in the management of participants with a suspected fracture of the scaphoid and negative radiographs led to cost savings while improving the pathway’s diagnostic accuracy and patient satisfaction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:984–994


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 3 | Pages 227 - 229
1 Mar 2023
Theologis T Brady MA Hartshorn S Faust SN Offiah AC

Acute bone and joint infections in children are serious, and misdiagnosis can threaten limb and life. Most young children who present acutely with pain, limping, and/or loss of function have transient synovitis, which will resolve spontaneously within a few days. A minority will have a bone or joint infection. Clinicians are faced with a diagnostic challenge: children with transient synovitis can safely be sent home, but children with bone and joint infection require urgent treatment to avoid complications. Clinicians often respond to this challenge by using a series of rudimentary decision support tools, based on clinical, haematological, and biochemical parameters, to differentiate childhood osteoarticular infection from other diagnoses. However, these tools were developed without methodological expertise in diagnostic accuracy and do not consider the importance of imaging (ultrasound scan and MRI). There is wide variation in clinical practice with regard to the indications, choice, sequence, and timing of imaging. This variation is most likely due to the lack of evidence concerning the role of imaging in acute bone and joint infection in children. We describe the first steps of a large UK multicentre study, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, which seeks to integrate definitively the role of imaging into a decision support tool, developed with the assistance of individuals with expertise in the development of clinical prediction tools. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):227–229


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 1 | Pages 18 - 25
1 Jan 2021
McNally M Sousa R Wouthuyzen-Bakker M Chen AF Soriano A Vogely HC Clauss M Higuera CA Trebše R

Aims

The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult. All current diagnostic tests have problems with accuracy and interpretation of results. Many new tests have been proposed, but there is no consensus on the place of many of these in the diagnostic pathway. Previous attempts to develop a definition of PJI have not been universally accepted and there remains no reference standard definition.

Methods

This paper reports the outcome of a project developed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), and supported by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for Implant-Associated Infections (ESGIAI). It comprised a comprehensive review of the literature, open discussion with Society members and conference delegates, and an expert panel assessment of the results to produce the final guidance.