Aims. The aim of this study was to perform the first population-based description of the epidemiological and health economic burden of fracture-related infection (FRI). Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study of operatively managed orthopaedic trauma patients from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2016, performed in Queensland, Australia. Record linkage was used to develop a person-centric, population-based dataset incorporating routinely collected administrative, clinical, and health economic information. The FRI group consisted of patients with International Classification of Disease 10th Revision diagnosis codes for deep infection associated with an implanted device within two years following surgery, while all others were deemed not infected. Demographic and clinical variables, as well as healthcare utilization costs, were compared. Results. There were 111,402 patients operatively managed for orthopaedic trauma, with 2,775 of these (2.5%) complicated by FRI. The development of FRI had a statistically significant association with older age, male sex, residing in rural/remote areas, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, lower socioeconomic status, road traffic accident, work-related injuries, open fractures, anatomical region (lower limb, spine, pelvis), high injury severity, requiring soft-tissue coverage, and medical comorbidities (univariate analysis). Patients with FRI had an eight-times longer median inpatient length of stay (24 days vs 3 days), and a 2.8-times higher mean estimated inpatient hospitalization cost (AU$56,565 vs AU$19,773) compared with uninfected patients. The total estimated inpatient cost of the FRI cohort to the healthcare system was AU$156.9 million over the ten-year period. Conclusion. The results of this study advocate for improvements in trauma care and infection management, address social determinants of health, and highlight the upside potential to improve prevention and treatment strategies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):77–85

Aims. Torus fractures of the distal radius are the most common fractures in children. The NICE non-complex fracture guidelines recently concluded that bandaging was probably the optimal treatment for these injuries. However, across the UK current treatment varies widely due to a lack of evidence underpinning the guidelines. The Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) trial evaluates the effect of a soft bandage and immediate discharge compared with rigid immobilization. Methods. FORCE is a multicentre, parallel group randomized controlled equivalence trial. The primary outcome is the Wong-Baker FACES pain score at three days after randomization and the primary analysis of this outcome will use a multivariate linear regression model to compare the two groups. Secondary outcomes are measured at one and seven days, and three and six-weeks post-randomization and include the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity limb score, EuroQoL EQ-5D-Y, analgesia use, school absence, complications, and healthcare resource use. The planned statistical and health economic analyses for this trial are described here. The FORCE trial protocol has been published separately. Conclusion. This paper provides details of the planned analyses for this trial, and will reduce the risks of outcome reporting bias and data driven results. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:205–213

Summary Statement. Using current analysis/methodology, new implant technology is unlikely to demonstrate a large enough change in patient function to impact on the cost-effectiveness of the procedure. Purpose. Cost effectiveness is an increasingly important metric in today's healthcare environment, and decisions surrounding which arthroplasty prosthesis to implant are not exempt from such health economic concerns. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) are the typical assessment tool for this type of evaluation. Using this methodology, joint arthroplasty has been shown to be cost effective, however studies directly comparing the QALY achieved by differing prostheses are lacking. Methods. Data was gathered in a single centre prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing the outcome a modern implant, the Triathlon total knee replacement, with its traditionally designed predecessor the Kinemax, using the Short Form 6 dimensional (SF-6D) score and quality adjusted life year (QALY) methodology. The study cohort consisted of 64 patients that were randomised to a Triathlon and 60 randomised to a Kinemax. Results. There was a significant improvement in the SF-6D score for both groups at one year compared with pre-operative scores (p<0.0001). The calculated overall life expectancy for the study cohort was 15.1 years, which resulted in an overall QALY gain of 2.144 (95% CI 1.752–2.507). The modern implant group demonstrated only a small improvement in the SF-6D score compared to the traditional design at one year (0.141 versus 0.143, p=0.94). This difference in health gain resulted in the modern implant costing £298 less per QALY at one year, however this saving diminished to less than £30 per year over the lifetime of the cohort. Discussion. This study demonstrates that despite comparing 2nd and 4th generation design, modern implant technology does not influence the cost-effectiveness of TKA using the SF-6D and QALY methodology. As most implants demonstrate similar longevity, differences in patient function will likely carry the greatest influence on QALY. This type of analysis however assesses health status, and is not sensitive to joint specific function. Dramatic differences in patient outcome would be required to influence QALY score. Evolutionary design changes in implant technology are thus unlikely to influence QALY analysis following joint replacement, which has important implication for implant procurement

The introduction of new treatments needs to be both clinically effective and cost effective. Clinicians tend to be unaware of the importance of the latter, and how health economic assessments are undertaken, especially in a public health system where the inclusion of funded treatments is made on a national basis. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost savings from a societal perspective in the use of recombinant human Bone Morphogenetic Protein -2 (rhBMP-2) in grade III A and B open tibia fractures treated with a locked intramedullary nail and soft-tissue management in the UK, Germany, and France. Healthcare system (direct healthcare costs) and costs for productivity losses (indirect health-care costs) were calculated using the raw data from the Bone Morphogenetic Protein Evaluation Group in Surgery for Tibial Trauma “BESTT study”. Return-to-work time for estimation of productivity losses was assumed to correspond with the time of fracture healing. For calculation of secondary interventions costs and productivity losses the respective 2007/08 national tariffs for surgical procedures and average national wages for the UK, Germany, and France were used. From a societal perspective, overall savings per case of €7911 for the UK, €9270 for Germany, and €9291 were calculated. Those savings largely offset the upfront price of rhBMP-2 of €2266(£1,790) in the UK, €2970 in Germany, and €2950 in France. Total net savings can be estimated to be €9.6 million for the UK, €14.5 million for Germany, and €11.4 million for France. For all three countries reduced productivity losses are the key driver for the overall savings. In summary, despite the apparent high direct cost of rhBMP-2 in grade III A and B open tibia fractures, at a national level there are net cost-savings from a societal perspective for all three countries

Open lower limb fractures are resource-intensive fractures, accounting for a significant proportion of the workload and cost of orthopaedic trauma units. A recent study has evaluated that the median cost of direct inpatient treatment of open lower-limb fractures in the National Health Service (NHS) is steep, at £19189 per patient. Healthcare providers are expected to be aware of the costs of treatments, although there is very limited dissemination of this information, neither on a national or local level. Older adults (>65 years old) are at an increased risk of the types of high-energy injuries that can result in open lower limb fractures. Generally, there remains a significant lack of literature surrounding the cost of open fracture management, especially in specific patient groups that are disproportionately affected by these fractures. This study has calculated the direct inpatient care costs of older adults with open lower limb fractures.

Open lower limb fractures in adult patients over 65 years old treated at Addenbrooke's Hospital of Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust were identified over the period of March 2014-March 2019. Isolated fractures of the femur, tibia and fibula over this time period were included. Direct inpatient care costs were calculated using information about the sustained fracture, operative time, implant(s) and theatre kit(s) used, the number of patient bed-days on the orthopaedic ward and critical care unit, and the number of hours of inpatient physiotherapy received. Direct inpatient care costs were compared with the income received by our centre for each of these cases, according to Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) cost codes. Our data was also compared with existing literature on Patient Level Costing (PLC) figures for open lower limb fractures.

We extracted data from 58 patients over the age of 65 years treated for open isolated lower limb fractures at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, between March 2014 and March 2019. The median cost of inpatient care calculated in this study was £20,398 per patient, resulting in a financial loss to the hospital of £5113 per patient. When the results were disaggregated by sex, the median cost for an open lower limb fracture in a male patient was £20,886 compared to £19,304 in a female patient. Data were also disaggregated by the site of injury, which produced a median cost for an open femur fracture of £23,949, and £24,549 and £15,362 for open tibia and ankle fractures, respectively.

The absence of published primary literature and clinical audits on this topic continues to hinder the inclusion of cost-effectiveness as an important factor in clinical decision-making. This study provides valuable insight into the true cost of open lower limb fractures in a key patient population in a Major Trauma Centre in England and highlights the large losses incurred by hospitals in treating these cases. These results support the revision of the remuneration structures in the NHS for the treatment of elderly patients with these injuries.

Aims

Describe a statistical and economic analysis plan for the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial 2 (DRAFFT2) randomized controlled trial.

Robust evidence on the effectiveness of peri-operative local anaesthetic infiltration (LAI) is required before it is incorporated into the pain management regimen for patients receiving total knee replacement (TKR). To assess the effectiveness of peri-operative LAI for pain management in patients receiving TKR we conducted a systematic review, fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation.

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for RCTs of peri-operative LAI in patients receiving TKR. Two reviewers screened abstracts and extracted data. Outcomes were pain, opioid use, mobilisation, hospital stay and complications. Authors were contacted if required. When feasible, we conducted meta-analysis with studies analysed separately if a femoral nerve block (FNB) was provided.

In the APEX RCT, we randomised 316 patients awaiting TKR to standard anaesthesia which included FNB, or to the same regimen with additional peri-operative LAI (60mls 0.25% bupivacaine plus adrenaline). Post-operatively, all patients received patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was joint pain severity (WOMAC-Pain) at 12 months. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to allocation.

Within APEX, cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health and social-care perspective in relation to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and WOMAC-Pain at 12-months. Resource use was collected from hospital records and patient questionnaires.

In the systematic review, 23 studies including 1,439 patients were identified. Compared with patients receiving no intervention, LAI reduced WOMAC-Pain by standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.40 (95%CI −0.58, −0.22; p<0.001) at 24 hours at rest and by SMD −0.27 (95%CI −0.50, −0.05; p=0.018) at 48 hours during activity. In three studies there was no difference in pain at any time point between randomised groups where all patients received FNB. Patients receiving LAI spent fewer days in hospital, used less opioids and mobilised earlier. Complications were similar between groups. Few studies reported long-term outcomes.

In the APEX RCT, pain levels in hospital were broadly similar between groups. Overall opioid use was similar between groups. Time to mobilisation and discharge were largely dependent on local protocols and did not differ between groups. There were no differences in pain outcomes between groups at 12 months.

In the economic evaluation, LAI was marginally associated with lower costs. Using the NICE £20,000 per QALY threshold, the incremental net monetary benefit was £264 (95%CI, −£710, £1,238) and the probability of being cost-effective was 62%.

Although LAI appeared to have some benefit for reduced pain in hospital after TKR there was no evidence of pain control additional to that provided by femoral nerve block, however it would be cost-effective at the current NICE thresholds.

Robust evidence on the effectiveness of peri-operative local anaesthetic infiltration (LAI) is required before it is incorporated into the pain management regimen for patients receiving total hip replacement (THR). We assessed the effectiveness of LAI using a systematic review and a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) with economic evaluation.

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for RCTs of peri-operative LAI in patients receiving THR. Two reviewers screened abstracts, extracted data, and liaised with authors. Outcomes were pain, opioid use, mobilisation, hospital stay and complications. If feasible, we conducted meta-analysis.

In the APEX RCT, we randomised 322 patients awaiting THR to receive additional peri-operative LAI (60mls 0.25% bupivacaine plus adrenaline) or standard anaesthesia alone. Post-operatively, all patients received patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was joint pain severity (WOMAC-Pain) at 12 months. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to allocation.

Within APEX, cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health and social-care perspective in relation to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and WOMAC-Pain at 12-months. Resource use was collected from hospital records and patient questionnaires.

In the systematic review, we identified 13 studies (909 patients). Patients undergoing THR receiving LAI experienced greater pain reduction at 24 hours at rest, standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.61 (95%CI −1.05, −0.16; p=0.008) and at 48 hours during activity, SMD −0.43 (95%CI −0.78, −0.09; p=0.014). Patients receiving LAI spent fewer days in hospital, used less opioids and mobilised earlier. Complications were similar between groups. Long-term outcomes were not a focus of these studies.

In the APEX RCT, pain levels in hospital were broadly similar between groups, probably due to patient-controlled analgesia. Opioid use was similar between groups. Time to mobilisation and discharge were largely dependent on local protocols and did not differ between groups. Patients receiving LAI were less likely to report severe pain at 12 months than those receiving standard care, odds ratio 10.2 (95%CI 2.1, 49.6; p=0.004). Complications were similar between groups.

In the economic evaluation, LAI was associated with lower costs and greater cost-effectiveness than standard care. Using a £20,000 per QALY threshold, the incremental net monetary benefit was £1,125 (95%CI £183, £2,067) and the probability of being cost-effective was greater than 98 %.

The evidence suggests that peri-operative LAI is a cost-effective intervention for reducing acute and chronic post-surgical pain after THR.

The perils and risks associated with worklessness have only recently been recognised and given an evidence base¹. These demonstrate that economic inactivity and the ways it can be effectively addressed must be placed high on the list of priorities to be tackled by both public and occupational health. But what of the evidence that work is good for health and wellbeing? This lacuna in knowledge and understanding has recently been closed by a detailed systematic review of the medical and scientific literature which provides compelling evidence that, with very few exceptions, work and in particular employment is good for health and wellbeing². The time is ripe to achieve the tipping-point to gain a shift in cultural attitudes to health and work, and particularly so among healthcare professionals.

Moreover the majority of people in receipt of state incapacity benefits report subjective health complaints which are in many ways no different to the common health problems (CHPs) which have been shown to have a high prevalence in the general population^3,4. Unexplained symptoms in people accessing healthcare^5,6 may well be another feature of the failure to gain a proper understanding of the nature and origins of perceived illness manifesting as CHPs, and to develop effective interventions. There is extensive clinical evidence that personal beliefs aggravate and perpetuate illness⁷ and play a central role the more subjective the health complaint¹. Psychological and social factors need to be addressed as obstacles to recovery and (return to) work. Chronicity and incapacity are not inevitable in people with CHPs. Given the right support, opportunities and encouragement these health problems can be effectively managed. Illness, sickness and Incapacity need urgent recognition as psychosocial rather than medical problems. More and better healthcare will not provide the answer. Evidence is accumulating that interventions principally based on cognitive and behavioural practices substantially improve recovery from ill-health and significantly increase the likelihood of return to work among incapacity benefit recipients who participate in condition-management programmes as part of the Government’s Pathways to Work Pilots. Asound endorsement of these approaches has been the recent decision by government to extend the Pathways to Work initiatives across the country in the next few years.

Aims. The primary aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine operative fixation for all patients with humeral shaft fractures. The secondary aim was to estimate the health economic implications of using a Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures (RUSHU) of < 8 to facilitate selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion. Methods. From 2008 to 2017, 215 patients (mean age 57 yrs (17 to 18), 61% female (n = 130/215)) with a nonoperatively managed humeral diaphyseal fracture were retrospectively identified. Union was achieved in 77% (n = 165/215) after initial nonoperative management, with 23% (n = 50/215) uniting after surgery for nonunion. The EuroQol five-dimension three-level health index (EQ-5D-3L) was obtained via postal survey. Multiple regression was used to determine the independent influence of patient, injury, and management factors upon the EQ-5D-3L. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of < £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was considered cost-effective. Results. At a mean of 5.4 yrs (1.2 to 11.0), the mean EQ-5D-3L was 0.736 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.697 to 0.775). Adjusted analysis demonstrated the EQ-5D-3L was inferior among patients who united after nonunion surgery (β = 0.103; p = 0.032). Offering routine fixation to all patients to reduce the rate of nonunion would be associated with increased treatment costs of £1,542/patient, but would confer a potential EQ-5D-3L benefit of 0.120/patient over the study period. The ICER of routine fixation was £12,850/QALY gained. Selective fixation based on a RUSHU < 8 at six weeks post-injury would be associated with reduced treatment costs (£415/patient), and would confer a potential EQ-5D-3L benefit of 0.335 per ‘at-risk patient’. Conclusion. Routine fixation for patients with humeral shaft fractures to reduce the rate of nonunion observed after nonoperative management appears to be a cost-effective intervention at five years post-injury. Selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion based on their RUSHU may confer even greater cost-effectiveness, given the potential savings and improvement in health-related quality of life. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):566–572

Aims. To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. Results. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to ten years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Conclusion. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):72–78

Aims. Symptomatic spinal stenosis is a very common problem, and decompression surgery has been shown to be superior to nonoperative treatment in selected patient groups. However, performing an instrumented fusion in addition to decompression may avoid revision and improve outcomes. The aim of the SpInOuT feasibility study was to establish whether a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) that accounted for the spectrum of pathology contributing to spinal stenosis, including pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and mobile spondylolisthesis, could be conducted. Methods. As part of the SpInOuT-F study, a pilot randomized trial was carried out across five NHS hospitals. Patients were randomized to either spinal decompression alone or spinal decompression plus instrumented fusion. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline and three months. The intended sample size was 60 patients. Results. Of the 90 patients screened, 77 passed the initial screening criteria. A total of 27 patients had a PI-LL mismatch and 23 had a dynamic spondylolisthesis. Following secondary inclusion and exclusion criteria, 31 patients were eligible for the study. Six patients were randomized and one underwent surgery during the study period. Given the low number of patients recruited and randomized, it was not possible to assess completion rates, quality of life, imaging, or health economic outcomes as intended. Conclusion. This study provides a unique insight into the prevalence of dynamic spondylolisthesis and PI-LL mismatch in patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis, and demonstrates that there is a need for a definitive RCT which stratifies for these groups in order to inform surgical decision-making. Nonetheless a definitive study would need further refinement in design and implementation in order to be feasible. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):573–579

Purpose and background. To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST programme) compared to physiotherapy assessment and advice (best practice advice [BPA]) for older adults with neurogenic claudication (NC) which is a debilitating spinal condition. Methods and results. A randomised controlled trial of 438 participants. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months. Data was also collected at 6 months. Other outcomes included Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (symptoms), ODI walking item, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and falls. The analysis was intention-to-treat. We collected the EQ5D and health and social care use to estimate cost-effectiveness. Participants were, on average, 74.9 years old (SD 6.0). There was no significant difference in ODI scores between groups at 12 months (adjusted mean difference (MD): −1.4 [95% Confidence Intervals (CI) −4.03,1.17]), but, at 6 months, ODI scores favoured the BOOST programme (adjusted MD: −3.7 [95% CI −6.27, −1.06]). Symptoms followed a similar pattern. The BOOST programme resulted in greater improvements in walking capacity (6MWT MD 21.7m [95% CI 5.96, 37.38]) and ODI walking item (MD −0.2 [95% CI −0.45, −0.01]) and reduced falls risk (odds ratio 0.6 [95% CI 0.40, 0.98]) compared to BPA at 12 months. Probability that the BOOST programme is cost-effective ranged from 67%–89% across cost-effectiveness thresholds. Conclusions. The BOOST programme improves mobility and reduces falls in older adults with NC compared to BPA at 12 months follow-up. It is good value for the NHS. Future iterations of the programme will consider ways to reduce symptoms and disability long-term. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: National Institute of Health Research – Programme for Applied Research NIHR - PTC-RP-PG-0213-20002: Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST). Publication and presentations: The clinical effectiveness paper has just been accepted for publication in the Journal of Gerontology Series A. The health economic analysis is not yet published. It was presented at the Physiotherapy UK conference and the International Back and Neck Pain Forum in 2021

Abstract. Design. A pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial to determine whether the intervention is superior to comparator. Setting. 20 NHS Hospitals. Population. NHS patients <60 years with moderate-severe symptomatic knee OA localised to the medial compartment in whom surgical intervention is indicated. Intervention. Surgery with medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) followed by standard postoperative rehabilitation based on local pathways. Comparator. Tailored non-surgical intervention delivered within an NHS physiotherapy department delivered over 6-contact sessions within a period of 4 months. Outcomes. Primary outcome - 24-month Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); Secondary outcomes - OKS, FJS-12, EQ-5D-3L, Pittsburgh Sleep Problem Scale, Return to Work, secondary surgical interventions and complications at 12 and 24 months following randomisation. Health economic evaluation - 24-month within trial analysis, and a decision analytic simulation model to account for the impacts of future knee replacements (and associated revisions), and their timing relative to retirement and employment potential. Process evaluation – to explore trial eligibility, recruitment and retention rates, acceptability of intervention implementation and patient experience of taking part/contextual factors that influence this. Follow up. 12 months and 24 months post-randomisation. Sample size. 224 patients; (90% power, 2-sided p=0.05, equivalent to a sample size of 97 per group). Allowing for 15% loss to follow up, 112 patients will be recruited to each arm of the trial. Project timelines. Start date 1 August 2022, total project duration 60 months including a 9-month, 5-site internal pilot, with a recruitment rate of 0.7 patients/site/month

Introduction. Motorised intramedullary lengthening nails are considered more expensive than external fixators for limb lengthening. This research aims to compare the cost of femoral lengthening in children using the PRECICE magnetic lengthening nail with external fixation. Materials and Methods. Patients: Retrospective analysis of 50 children who underwent femoral lengthening. One group included patients who were treated with PRECICE lengthening nails, the other group included patients who had lengthening with external fixation. Each group included 25 patients aged between 11–17 years. The patients in both groups were matched for age. Cost analysis was performed following micro-costing and analysis of the used resources during the different phases of the treatments. Results. : Each group's mean patient age was 14.7 years. Lengthening nails were associated with longer operative times compared to external fixators, both for implantation and removal surgery (P-value 0.007 and <0.0001 respectively). Length of stay following the implantation surgery, frequency of radiographs, frequency of outpatient department appointments were all more favourable with lengthening nails. The overall cost of lengthening nails was £1393 more than external fixators, although this difference was not statistically significant (P-value 0.088). Conclusions. The cost of femoral lengthening with lengthening nails was not significantly higher than the external fixators’ cost. Further research to review the effectiveness of the devices and the quality of life during the lengthening process is crucial for robust health economic evaluation

The presence of metastatic bone disease (MBD) often necessitates major orthopaedic surgery. Patients will enter surgical care either through emergent or electively scheduled care pathways. Patients in a pain crisis or with an acute fracture are generally admitted via emergent care pathways whereas patients with identified high-risk bone lesions are often booked for urgent yet scheduled elective procedures. The purpose of this study is to compare the post-operative outcomes of patients who present through emergent or electively scheduled care pathways in patients in a Canadian health care system. We have conducted a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of all patients presenting for surgery for MBD of the femur, humerus, tibia or pelvis in southern Alberta between 2006 and 2021. Patients were identified by a search query of all patients with a diagnosis of metastatic cancer who underwent surgery for an impending or actual pathologic fracture in the Calgary, South and Central Alberta Zones. Subsequent chart reviews were performed. Emergent surgeries were defined by patients admitted to hospital via urgent care mechanisms and managed via unscheduled surgical bookings (“on call list”). Elective surgeries were defined by patients seen by an orthopaedic surgeon at least once prior to surgery, and booked for a scheduled urgent, yet elective procedure. Outcomes include overall survival from the time of surgery, hospital length of stay, and 30-day hospital readmission rate. We have identified 402 patients to date for inclusion. 273 patients (67.9%) underwent surgery through emergent pathways and 129 patients (32.1%) were treated through urgent, electively scheduled pathways. Lung, prostate, renal cell, and breast cancer were the most common primary malignancies and there was no significant difference in these primaries amongst the groups (p=0.06). Not surprisingly, emergent patients were more likely to be treated for a pathologic fracture (p<0.001) whereas elective patients were more likely to be treated for an impending fracture (p<0.001). Overall survival was significantly shorter in the emergent group (5.0 months, 95%CI: 4.0-6.1) compared to the elective group (14.9 months 95%CI: 10.4-24.6) [p<0.001]. Hospital length of stay was significantly longer in the emergent group (13 days, 95%CI: 12-16 versus 5 days, 95%CI: 5-7 days). There was a significantly greater rate of 30-day hospital readmission in the emergent group (13.3% versus 7.8%) [p=0.01]. Electively managed MBD has multiple benefits including longer post-operative survival, shorter length of hospital stay, and a lower rate of 30-day hospital readmission. These findings from a Canadian healthcare system demonstrate clinical value in providing elective orthopaedic care when possible for patients with MBD. Furthermore, care delivery interventions capable of decreasing the footprint of emergent surgery through enhanced screening or follow-up of patients with MBD has the potential to significantly improve clinical outcomes in this population. This is an ongoing study that will justify refinements to the current surgical care pathways for MBD in order to identify patients prior to emergent presentation. Future directions will evaluate the costs associated with each care delivery method to provide opportunity for health economic efficiencies

Background. There are advantages and disadvantages of Unicompartmental (UKR) and Total Knee Replacement, with UKR having better functional outcomes with fewer complications but a higher revision rate. The relative merits depend on patient characteristics. The aim was to compare UKR and TKR risk-benefits and cost-effectiveness in patients with severe systemic morbidity. Methods. Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland was linked to hospital inpatient and patient-reported outcomes data. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥3 undergoing UKR or TKR were identified. Propensity score stratification was used to compare 90-day complications and 5-year revision and mortality of 2,256 UKR and 57,682 TKR, and in a subset of 145 UKR and 23,344 TKR Oxford Knee Scores (OKS). A health-economic analysis was based on EQ-5D and NHS hospital costs. Results. The OKS was significantly better following UKR than TKR with a difference of 1.83 (95%CI 0.10–3.56). UKR was associated with lower relative risks of venous thromboembolism (0.33, CI0.15–0.74), myocardial infarction (0.73, CI0.36–1.45) and early joint infection (0.85, CI0.33–2.19) but only the decrease in venous thromboembolism was significant. The revision risk following UKR was significantly higher than following TKR (hazard ratio 2.70, CI2.15–3.38) and the mortality was significantly lower (0.52, CI0.36–0.74). At five years the cumulative incidence of revision was 8% higher with UKR, and the cumulative incidence of death was 13% lower. The health economic analysis found that UKR dominated TKR having lower costs (£359, CI340-378) and higher quality-of-life gains (0.33, CI-0.31–0.970). Conclusions. For patients with ASA ≥3, UKR was safer and more cost-effective than TKR. In particular if UKR was used instead of TKR the number of lives saved was higher than the number of extra revisions. UKR should be considered the first option for suitable patients with severe co-morbidity

The December 2015 Trauma Roundup. 360 . looks at: Delay to surgery in hip fracture; Hexapod fixators in the management of hypertrophic tibial nonunions; Thromboembolism after nailing pathological fractures; Tibial plateau fracture patterns under the spotlight; The health economic effects of long bone nonunion; Adverse outcomes in trauma; The sacral screw in children; Treating the contralateral SUFE

Aims. Responsiveness to clinically important change is a key feature of any outcome measure. Throughout Europe, health-related quality of life following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is routinely measured with EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Question Short-Form (PROMIS-10 Global Health) score is a new general heath outcome tool which is thought to offer greater responsiveness. Our aim was to compare these two tools. Patients and Methods. We accessed data from a prospective multicentre cohort study in the United Kingdom, which evaluated outcomes following TKA. The median age of the 721 patients was 69.0 years (interquartile range, 63.3 to 74.6). There was an even division of sex, and approximately half were educated to secondary school level. The preoperative EQ-5D, PROMIS-10, and Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) were available and at three, six, and 12 months postoperatively. Internal responsiveness was assessed by standardized response mean (SRM) and effect size (Cohen’s d). External responsiveness was assessed by correlating change scores of the EQ-5D and PROMIS-10, with the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the OKS. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the ability of change scores to discriminate between improved and non-improved patients. Results. All measures showed significant changes between the preoperative score and the various postoperative times (p < 0.001). Most improvement occurred during the first three months, with small but significant changes between three and six months, and no further change between six and 12 months postoperatively. SRM scores for EQ-5D, PROMIS-10, and OKS were large (> 0.8). ROC curves showed that both EQ-5D and PROMIS-10 were able to discriminate between patients who achieved the OKS MCID and those who did not (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.7 to 0.82). Conclusion. The PROMIS-10 physical health tool showed greater responsiveness to change than the EQ-5D, most probably due to the additional questions on physical health parameters that are more susceptible to modification following TKA. The EQ-5D was, however, shown to be sensitive to clinically meaningful change following TKA, and provides the additional ability to calculate health economic utility scores. It is likely, therefore, that EQ-5D will continue to be the global health metric of choice in the United Kingdom. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:832–837