Aims. To explore staff experiences of a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nails and circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures. Methods. A purposeful sample of 19 staff (nine surgeons) involved in the study participated in an interview. Interviews explored participants’ experience and views of the study and the treatments. The interviews drew on phenomenology, were face-to-face or by telephone, and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results. The findings identify that for the treatment of segmental tibial fractures equipoise was a theoretical ideal that was most likely unattainable in clinical practice. This was conveyed through three themes: the ambiguity of equipoise, where multiple definitions of equipoise and a belief in community equipoise were evident; an illusion of equipoise, created by strong treatment preferences and variation in collective surgical skills; and treating the whole patient, where the complexity and severity of the injury required a patient-centred approach and doing the best for the individual patient took priority over trial recruitment. Conclusion. Equipoise can be unattainable for rare injuries such as segmental tibial fractures, where there are substantially different surgical treatments requiring specific expertise, high levels of complexity, and a concern for poor outcomes. Surgeons are familiar with community equipoise. However, a shared understanding of factors that limit the feasibility of RCTs may identify instances where community equipoise is unlikely to translate into practice. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):486–492

Aims. Is it feasible to conduct a definitive multicentre trial in community settings of corticosteroid injections (CSI) and hydrodilation (HD) compared to CSI for patients with frozen shoulder? An adequately powered definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) delivered in primary care will inform clinicians and the public whether hydrodilation is a clinically and cost-effective intervention. In this study, prior to a full RCT, we propose a feasibility trial to evaluate recruitment and retention by patient and clinician willingness of randomization; rates of withdrawal, crossover and attrition; and feasibility of outcome data collection from routine primary and secondary care data. Methods. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advises that prompt early management of frozen shoulder is initiated in primary care settings with analgesia, physiotherapy, and joint injections; most people can be managed without an operation. Currently, there is variation in the type of joint injection: 1) CSI, thought to reduce the inflammation of the capsule reducing pain; and 2) HD, where a small volume of fluid is injected into the shoulder joint along with the steroid, aiming to stretch the capsule of the shoulder to improve pain, but also allowing greater movement. The creation of musculoskeletal hubs nationwide provides infrastructure for the early and effective management of frozen shoulder. This potentially reduces costs to individuals and the wider NHS perhaps negating the need for a secondary care referral. Results. We will conduct a multicentre RCT comparing CSI and HD in combination with CSI alone. Patients aged 18 years and over with a clinical diagnosis of frozen shoulder will be randomized and blinded to receive either CSI and HD in combination, or CSI alone. Feasibility outcomes include the rate of randomization as a proportion of eligible patients and the ability to use routinely collected data for outcome evaluation. This study has involved patients and the public in the trial design, dissemination methods, and how to include groups who are underserved by research. Conclusion. We will disseminate findings among musculoskeletal clinicians via the British Orthopaedic Association, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, the Royal College of Radiologists, and the Royal College of General Practitioners. To ensure wide reach we will communicate findings through our established network of charities and organizations, in addition to preparing dissemination findings in Bangla and Urdu (commonly spoken languages in northeast London). If a full trial is shown to be feasible, we will seek additional National Institute for Health and Care Research funding for a definitive RCT. This definitive study will inform NICE guidelines for the management of frozen shoulder. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):162–173

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare a bicruciate-retaining (BCR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA design in terms of kinematics, measured using fluoroscopy and stability as micromotion using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Methods. A total of 40 patients with end-stage osteoarthritis were included in this randomized controlled trial. All patients performed a step-up and lunge task in front of a monoplane fluoroscope one year postoperatively. Femorotibial contact point (CP) locations were determined at every flexion angle and compared between the groups. RSA images were taken at baseline, six weeks, three, six, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Clinical and functional outcomes were compared postoperatively for two years. Results. The BCR-TKA demonstrated a kinematic pattern comparable to the natural knee’s screw-home mechanism in the step-up task. In the lunge task, the medial CP of the BCR-TKA was more anterior in the early flexion phase, while laterally the CP was more posterior during the entire movement cycle. The BCR-TKA group showed higher tibial migration. No differences were found for the clinical and functional outcomes. Conclusion. The BCR-TKA shows a different kinematic pattern in early flexion/late extension compared to the CR-TKA. The difference between both implants is mostly visible in the flexion phase in which the anterior cruciate ligament is effective; however, both designs fail to fully replicate the motion of a natural knee. The higher migration of the BCR-TKA was concerning and highlights the importance of longer follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):35–46

Aims. The use of 3D printing has become increasingly popular and has been widely used in orthopaedic surgery. There has been a trend towards an increasing number of publications in this field, but existing literature incorporates limited high-quality studies, and there is a lack of reports on outcomes. The aim of this study was to perform a scoping review with Level I evidence on the application and effectiveness of 3D printing. Methods. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The keywords used for the search criteria were ((3d print*) OR (rapid prototyp*) OR (additive manufactur*)) AND (orthopaedic). The inclusion criteria were: 1) use of 3D printing in orthopaedics, 2) randomized controlled trials, and 3) studies with participants/patients. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration Tool and PEDro Score. Pooled analysis was performed. Results. Overall, 21 studies were included in our study with a pooled total of 932 participants. Pooled analysis showed that operating time (p < 0.001), blood loss (p < 0.001), fluoroscopy times (p < 0.001), bone union time (p < 0.001), pain (p = 0.040), accuracy (p < 0.001), and functional scores (p < 0.001) were significantly improved with 3D printing compared to the control group. There were no significant differences in complications. Conclusion. 3D printing is a rapidly developing field in orthopaedics. Our findings show that 3D printing is advantageous in terms of operating time, blood loss, fluoroscopy times, bone union time, pain, accuracy, and function. The use of 3D printing did not increase the risk of complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):807–819

Aims. Paediatric fractures are highly prevalent and are most often treated with plaster. The application and removal of plaster is often an anxiety-inducing experience for children. Decreasing the anxiety level may improve the patients’ satisfaction and the quality of healthcare. Virtual reality (VR) has proven to effectively distract children and reduce their anxiety in other clinical settings, and it seems to have a similar effect during plaster treatment. This study aims to further investigate the effect of VR on the anxiety level of children with fractures who undergo plaster removal or replacement in the plaster room. Methods. A randomized controlled trial was conducted. A total of 255 patients were included, aged five to 17 years, who needed plaster treatment for a fracture of the upper or lower limb. Randomization was stratified for age (five to 11 and 12 to 17 years). The intervention group was distracted with VR goggles and headphones during the plaster treatment, whereas the control group received standard care. As the primary outcome, the post-procedural level of anxiety was measured with the Child Fear Scale (CFS). Secondary outcomes included the children’s anxiety reduction (difference between CFS after and CFS before plaster procedure), numerical rating scale (NRS) pain, NRS satisfaction of the children and accompanying parents/guardians, and the children’s heart rates during the procedure. An independent-samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test (depending on the data distribution) were used to analyze the data. Results. The post-procedural CFS was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the intervention group (proportion of children with no anxiety = 78.6%) than in the control group (56.8%). The anxiety reduction, NRS pain and satisfaction scores, and heart rates showed no significant differences between the control group and the intervention group. Subanalyses showed an increased effect of VR on anxiety levels in young patients, females, upper limb fractures, and those who had had previous plaster treatment. Conclusion. VR effectively reduces the anxiety levels of children in the plaster room, especially in young girls. No statistically significant effects were seen regarding pain, heart rate, or satisfaction scores. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):728–734

Aims. Both the femoral and tibial component are usually cemented at revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), while stems can be added with either cemented or press-fit (hybrid) fixation. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term stability of rTKA with cemented and press-fitted stems, using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Methods. This is a follow-up of a randomized controlled trial, initially involving 32 patients, of whom 19 (nine cemented, ten hybrid) were available for follow-up ten years postoperatively, when further RSA measurements were made. Micromotion of the femoral and tibial components was assessed using model-based RSA software (RSAcore). The clinical outcome was evaluated using the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and visual analogue scale (pain and satisfaction). Results. The median total femoral translation and rotation at ten years were 0.39 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.20 to 0.54) and 0.59° (IQR 0.46° to 0.73°) for the cemented group and 0.70 mm (IQR 0.15 to 0.77) and 0.78° (IQR 0.47° to 1.43°) for the hybrid group. For the tibial components this was 0.38 mm (IQR 0.33 to 0.85) and 0.98° (IQR 0.38° to 1.34°) for the cemented group and 0.42 mm (IQR 0.30 to 0.52) and 0.72° (IQR 0.62° to 0.82°) for the hybrid group. None of these values were significantly different between the two groups and there were no significant differences between the clinical scores in the two groups at this time. There was only one re-revision, in the hybrid group, for infection and not for aseptic loosening. Conclusion. These results show good long-term fixation with no difference in micromotion and clinical outcome between fully cemented and hybrid fixation in rTKA, which builds on earlier short- to mid-term results. The patients all had type I or II osseous defects, which may in part explain the good results. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):875–883

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the longer-term outcomes of operatively and nonoperatively managed patients treated with a removable brace (fixed-angle removable orthosis) or a plaster cast immobilization for an acute ankle fracture. Methods. This is a secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing adults with an acute ankle fracture, initially managed either by operative or nonoperative care. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either a cast immobilization or a fixed-angle removable orthosis (removable brace). Data were collected on baseline characteristics, ankle function, quality of life, and complications. The Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) was the primary outcome which was used to measure the participant’s ankle function. The primary endpoint was at 16 weeks, with longer-term follow-up at 24 weeks and two years. Results. Overall, 436 patients (65%) completed the final two-year follow-up. The mean difference in OMAS at two years was -0.3 points favouring the plaster cast (95% confidence interval -3.9 to 3.4), indicating no statistically significant difference between the interventions. There was no evidence of differences in patient quality of life (measured using the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire) or Disability Rating Index. Conclusion. This study demonstrated that patients treated with a removable brace had similar outcomes to those treated with a plaster cast in the first two years after injury. A removable brace is an effective alternative to traditional immobilization in a plaster cast for patients with an ankle fracture. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):382–388

Aims. A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial. Methods. We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment. Results. Recruiters faced four common obstacles when recruiting to a surgical orthopaedic trial: patient preferences for an intervention; a complex recruitment pathway; various logistical issues; and conflicting views on equipoise. Clinicians expressed concerns that the trial may not show significant differences in the treatments, validating their equipoise. However, they experienced role conflicts due to their own preference and perceived patient preference for an intervention arm. Conclusion. This study provided initial information about barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial. We shared these findings in an all-site investigators’ meeting and encouraged researchers to find solutions to identified barriers; this led to the successful completion of recruitment. Complex trials may benefit for using of a mixed-methods approach to mitigate against recruitment failure, and to improve patient participation and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):631–637

Aims. Nearly 99,000 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) are performed in UK annually. Despite plenty of research, the satisfaction rate of this surgery is around 80%. One of the important intraoperative factors affecting the outcome is alignment. The relationship between joint obliquity and functional outcomes is not well understood. Therefore, a study is required to investigate and compare the effects of two types of alignment (mechanical and kinematic) on functional outcomes and range of motion. Methods. The aim of the study is to compare navigated kinematically aligned TKAs (KA TKAs) with navigated mechanically aligned TKA (MA TKA) in terms of function and ROM. We aim to recruit a total of 96 patients in the trial. The patients will be recruited from clinics of various consultants working in the trust after screening them for eligibility criteria and obtaining their informed consent to participate in this study. Randomization will be done prior to surgery by a software. The primary outcome measure will be the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score The secondary outcome measures include Oxford Knee Score, ROM, EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire, EuroQol visual analogue scale, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and Forgotten Joint Score. The scores will be calculated preoperatively and then at six weeks, six months, and one year after surgery. The scores will undergo a statistical analysis. Discussion. There is no clear evidence on the best alignment for a knee arthroplasty. This randomized controlled trial will test the null hypothesis that navigated KA TKAs do not perform better than navigated MA TKAs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):945–950

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) during the first six weeks and at one year postoperatively. Methods. A per protocol analysis of 76 patients, 43 of whom underwent TKA and 34 of whom underwent bi-UKA, was performed from a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Diaries kept by the patients recorded pain, function, and the use of analgesics daily throughout the first week and weekly between the second and sixth weeks. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared preoperatively, and at three months and one year postoperatively. Data were also compared longitudinally and a subgroup analysis was conducted, stratified by preoperative PROM status. Results. Both operations were shown to offer comparable outcomes, with no significant differences between the groups across all timepoints and outcome measures. Both groups also had similarly low rates of complications. Subgroup analysis for preoperative psychological state, activity levels, and BMI showed no difference in outcomes between the two groups. Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA offered similar early clinical outcomes and rates of complications to a mechanically aligned TKA, both in the immediate postoperative period and up to one year following surgery. Further work is required to identify which patients with osteoarthritis of the knee will derive benefit from a cruciate-sparing bi-UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1561–1570

Aims. Ankle fracture fixation is commonly performed by junior trainees. Simulation training using cadavers may shorten the learning curve and result in a technically superior surgical performance. Methods. We undertook a preliminary, pragmatic, single-blinded, multicentre, randomized controlled trial of cadaveric simulation versus standard training. Primary outcome was fracture reduction on postoperative radiographs. Results. Overall, 139 ankle fractures were fixed by 28 postgraduate year three to five trainee surgeons (mean age 29.4 years; 71% males) during ten months' follow-up. Under the intention-to-treat principle, a technically superior fixation was performed by the cadaveric-trained group compared to the standard-trained group, as measured on the first postoperative radiograph against predefined acceptability thresholds. The cadaveric-trained group used a lower intraoperative dose of radiation than the standard-trained group (mean difference 0.011 Gym. 2. , 95% confidence interval 0.003 to 0.019; p = 0.009). There was no difference in procedure time. Conclusion. Trainees randomized to cadaveric training performed better ankle fracture fixations and irradiated patients less during surgery compared to standard-trained trainees. This effect, which was previously unknown, is likely to be a consequence of the intervention. Further study is required. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):594–601

Aims. To evaluate if, for orthopaedic trainees, additional cadaveric simulation training or standard training alone yields superior radiological and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing dynamic hip screw (DHS) fixation or hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture. Methods. This was a preliminary, pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group randomized controlled trial in nine secondary and tertiary NHS hospitals in England. Researchers were blinded to group allocation. Overall, 40 trainees in the West Midlands were eligible: 33 agreed to take part and were randomized, five withdrew after randomization, 13 were allocated cadaveric training, and 15 were allocated standard training. The intervention was an additional two-day cadaveric simulation course. The control group received standard on-the-job training. Primary outcome was implant position on the postoperative radiograph: tip-apex distance (mm) (DHS) and leg length discrepancy (mm) (hemiarthroplasty). Secondary clinical outcomes were procedure time, length of hospital stay, acute postoperative complication rate, and 12-month mortality. Procedure-specific secondary outcomes were intraoperative radiation dose (for DHS) and postoperative blood transfusion requirement (hemiarthroplasty). Results. Eight female (29%) and 20 male trainees (71%), mean age 29.4 years, performed 317 DHS operations and 243 hemiarthroplasties during ten months of follow-up. Primary analysis was a random effect model with surgeon-level fixed effects of patient condition, patient age, and surgeon experience, with a random intercept for surgeon. Under the intention-to-treat principle, for hemiarthroplasty there was better implant position in favour of cadaveric training, measured by leg length discrepancy ≤ 10 mm (odds ratio (OR) 4.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 14.22); p = 0.027). There were significantly fewer postoperative blood transfusions required in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty by cadaveric-trained compared to standard-trained surgeons (OR 6.00 (95% CI 1.83 to 19.69); p = 0.003). For DHS, there was no significant between-group difference in implant position as measured by tip-apex distance ≤ 25 mm (OR 6.47 (95% CI 0.97 to 43.05); p = 0.053). No between-group differences were observed for any secondary clinical outcomes. Conclusion. Trainees randomized to additional cadaveric training performed hip fracture fixation with better implant positioning and fewer postoperative blood transfusions in hemiarthroplasty. This effect, which was previously unknown, may be a consequence of the intervention. Further study is required. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):602–611

Aims. Olecranon fractures are usually caused by falling directly on to the olecranon or following a fall on to an outstretched arm. Displaced fractures of the olecranon with a stable ulnohumeral joint are commonly managed by open reduction and internal fixation. The current predominant method of management of simple displaced fractures with ulnohumeral stability (Mayo grade IIA) in the UK and internationally is a low-cost technique using tension band wiring. Suture or suture anchor techniques have been described with the aim of reducing the hardware related complications and reoperation. An all-suture technique has been developed to fix the fracture using strong synthetic sutures alone. The aim of this trial is to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tension suture repair versus traditional tension band wiring for the surgical fixation of Mayo grade IIA fractures of the olecranon. Methods. SOFFT is a multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Participants will be assigned 1:1 to receive either tension suture fixation or tension band wiring. 280 adult participants will be recruited. The primary outcome will be the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at four months post-randomization. Secondary outcome measures include DASH (at 12, 18, and 24 months), pain, Net Promotor Score (patient satisfaction), EuroQol five-dimension five-level score (EQ-5D-5L), radiological union, complications, elbow range of motion, and re-operations related to the injury or to remove metalwork. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments. Discussion. There is currently no high-quality evidence comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of the tension suture repair to the traditional tension band wiring currently offered for the internal fixation of displaced fractures of the olecranon. The Simple Olecranon Fracture Fixation Trial (SOFFT) is a randomized controlled trial with sufficient power and design rigour to provide this evidence for the subtype of Mayo grade IIA fractures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):27–37

Aims. During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. Methods. The PAtellar Resurfacing Trial (PART) is a patient- and assessor-blinded multicentre, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary TKR for primary osteoarthritis at NHS hospitals in England, with an embedded internal pilot phase (ISRCTN 33276681). Participants will be randomly allocated intraoperatively on a 1:1 basis (stratified by centre and implant type (cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-sacrificing)) to always resurface or selectively resurface the patella, once the surgeon has confirmed sufficient patellar thickness for resurfacing and that constrained implants are not required. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures at three months, six months, and one year (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, OKS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and costs). Cost-effectiveness will be measured for the lifetime of the patient. Overall, 530 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a four-point difference in OKS between the groups one year after surgery, assuming up to 40% resurfacing in the selective group. Conclusion. The trial findings will provide evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. This will inform future NICE guidelines on primary TKR and the role of selective patellar resurfacing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):464–478

Aims. Steroid injections are used for subacromial pain syndrome and can be administered via the anterolateral or posterior approach to the subacromial space. It is not currently known which approach is superior in terms of improving clinical symptoms and function. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the clinical effectiveness of a steroid injection given via the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Methods. The Subacromial Approach Injection Trial (SAInT) study is a single-centre, parallel, two-arm RCT. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to a subacromial steroid injection via either the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Participants in both trial arms will then receive physiotherapy as standard of care for subacromial pain syndrome. The primary analysis will compare the change in Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at three months after injection. Secondary outcomes include the change in OSS at six and 12 months, as well as the Pain Numeric Rating Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain), Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (RAND) at three months, six months, and one year after injection. Assessment of pain experienced during the injection will also be determined. A minimum of 86 patients will be recruited to obtain an 80% power to detect a minimally important difference of six points on the OSS change between the groups at three months after injection. Conclusion. The results of this trial will demonstrate if there is a difference in shoulder pain and function after a subacromial space steroid injection between the anterolateral versus posterior approach in patients with subacromial pain syndrome. This will help to guide treatment for patients with subacromial pain syndrome. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):729–735

Aims. There are comparatively few randomized studies evaluating knee arthroplasty prostheses, and fewer still that report longer-term functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate mid-term outcomes of an existing implant trial cohort to document changing patient function over time following total knee arthroplasty using longitudinal analytical techniques and to determine whether implant design chosen at time of surgery influenced these outcomes. Methods. A mid-term follow-up of the remaining 125 patients from a randomized cohort of total knee arthroplasty patients (initially comprising 212 recruited patients), comparing modern (Triathlon) and traditional (Kinemax) prostheses was undertaken. Functional outcomes were assessed with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), knee range of movement, pain numerical rating scales, lower limb power output, timed functional assessment battery, and satisfaction survey. Data were linked to earlier assessment timepoints, and analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed models, incorporating longitudinal change over all assessment timepoints. Results. The mean follow-up of the 125 patients was 8.12 years (7.3 to 9.4). There was a reduction in all assessment parameters relative to earlier assessments. Longitudinal models highlight changes over time in all parameters and demonstrate large effect sizes. Significant between-group differences were seen in measures of knee flexion (medium-effect size), lower limb power output (large-effect size), and report of worst daily pain experienced (large-effect size) favouring the Triathlon group. No longitudinal between-group differences were observed in mean OKS, average daily pain report, or timed performance test. Satisfaction with outcome in surviving patients at eight years was 90.5% (57/63) in the Triathlon group and 82.8% (48/58) in the Kinemax group, with no statistical difference between groups (p = 0.321). Conclusion. At a mean 8.12 years, this mid-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial cohort highlights a general reduction in measures of patient function with patient age and follow-up duration, and a comparative preservation of function based on implant received at time of surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):434–441

Aims. Using tibial shaft fracture participants from a large, multicentre randomized controlled trial, we investigated if patient and surgical factors were associated with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at one year post-surgery. Methods. The Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures (SPRINT) trial examined adults with an open or closed tibial shaft fracture who were treated with either reamed or unreamed intramedullary nails. HRQoL was assessed at hospital discharge (for pre-injury level) and at 12 months post-fracture using the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA) Dysfunction, SMFA Bother, 36-Item Short Form 36 (SF-36) Physical, and SF-36 Mental Component scores. We used multiple linear regression analysis to determine if baseline and surgical factors, as well as post-intervention procedures within one year of fracture, were associated with these HRQoL outcomes. Significance was set at p < 0.01. We hypothesize that, irrespective of the four measures used, prognosis is guided by both modifiable and non-modifiable factors and that patients do not return to their pre-injury level of function, nor HRQoL. Results. For patient and surgical factors, only pre-injury quality of life and isolated fracture showed a statistical effect on all four HRQoL outcomes, while high-energy injury mechanism, smoking, and race or ethnicity, demonstrated statistical significance for three of the four HRQoL outcomes. Patients who did not require reoperation in response to infection, the need for bone grafts, and/or the need for implant exchanges had statistically superior HRQoL outcomes than those who did require intervention within one year after initial tibial fracture nailing. Conclusion. We identified several baseline patient factors, surgical factors, and post-intervention procedures within one year after intramedullary nailing of a tibial shaft fracture that may influence a patient’s HRQoL. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(1):22–32

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate whether on-demand removal (ODR) is noninferior to routine removal (RR) of syndesmotic screws regarding functional outcome. Methods. Adult patients (aged above 17 years) with traumatic syndesmotic injury, surgically treated within 14 days of trauma using one or two syndesmotic screws, were eligible (n = 490) for inclusion in this randomized controlled noninferiority trial. A total of 197 patients were randomized for either ODR (retaining the syndesmotic screw unless there were complaints warranting removal) or RR (screw removed at eight to 12 weeks after syndesmotic fixation), of whom 152 completed the study. The primary outcome was functional outcome at 12 months after screw placement, measured by the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS). Results. There were 152 patients included in final analysis (RR = 73; ODR = 79). Of these, 59.2% were male (n = 90), and the mean age was 46.9 years (SD 14.6). Median OMAS at 12 months after syndesmotic fixation was 85 (interquartile range (IQR) 60 to 95) for RR and 80 (IQR 65 to 100) for ODR. The noninferiority test indicated that the observed effect size was significantly within the equivalent bounds of -10 and 10 scale points (p < 0.001) for both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol, meaning that ODR was not inferior to RR. There were significantly more complications in the RR group (12/73) than in the ODR group (1/79) (p = 0.007). Conclusion. ODR of the syndesmotic screw is not inferior to routine removal when it comes to functional outcome. Combined with the high complication rate of screw removal, this offers a strong argument to adopt on demand removal as standard practice of care after syndesmotic screw fixation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1709–1716

Aims. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is now commonly used in major surgical operations including orthopaedics. The TRAC-24 randomized control trial (RCT) aimed to assess if an additional 24 hours of TXA postoperatively in primary total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) reduced blood loss. Contrary to other orthopaedic studies to date, this trial included high-risk patients. This paper presents the results of a cost analysis undertaken alongside this RCT. Methods. TRAC-24 was a prospective RCT on patients undergoing TKA and THA. Three groups were included: Group 1 received 1 g intravenous (IV) TXA perioperatively and an additional 24-hour postoperative oral regime, Group 2 received only the perioperative dose, and Group 3 did not receive TXA. Cost analysis was performed out to day 90. Results. Group 1 was associated with the lowest mean total costs, followed by Group 2 and then Group 3. The differences between Groups 1 and 3 (-£797.77 (95% confidence interval -1,478.22 to -117.32) were statistically significant. Extended oral dosing reduced costs for patients undergoing THA but not TKA. The reduced costs in Groups 1 and 2 resulted from reduced length of stay, readmission rates, emergency department attendances, and blood transfusions. Conclusion. This study demonstrated significant cost savings when using TXA in primary THA or TKA. Extended oral dosing reduced costs further in THA but not TKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):536–542

Aims. Describe a statistical and economic analysis plan for the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial 2 (DRAFFT2) randomized controlled trial. Methods. DRAFFT2 is a multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial. It compares surgical fixation with K-wires versus plaster cast in adult patients who have sustained a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius. The primary outcome measure is the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE, a validated assessment of wrist function and pain) at 12 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes are measured at three, six, and 12 months after randomization and include the PWRE, EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS (visual analogue scale), complication rate, and cost-effectiveness of the treatment. Results. This paper describes the full details of the planned methods of analysis and descriptive statistics. The DRAFFT2 study protocol has been published previously. Conclusion. The planned analysis strategy described records our intent to conduct statistical and within-trial cost-utility analyses. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:245–252