The goals of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in medicine are to promote best practices and reduce variations. Ideally they should improve physician performance and patient outcomes. Although controversy exists about the definition of a high quality guideline and how guidelines will be used in our health care system, there is a call for their use to help improve quality patient care. Guidelines related to musculoskeletal topics should be developed by national orthopaedic organisations and subspecialty societies using the best available clinical evidence. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has, since 2007, developed nine evidence-based guidelines in the areas of hand, sports, foot/ankle, shoulder, paediatrics and total joint replacement. The keys to successful guideline development include an expert methodologist, an experienced evidence analysis staff, strict adherence to established rules to minimise bias, and strong communication with relevant subspecialty societies. The AAOS process allows any individual or group to submit a potential topic for consideration. A physician workgroup of 5-8 members is selected after wide advertisement of the topic. Workgroup members must have no relevant financial conflicts of interest to the topic and are required to fill out an enhanced disclosure form. The workgroup is comprised of orthopaedic surgeons and other specialists with expertise in the topic. There are two in-person meetings between which the staff finds and analyses the data to support the specific initial questions. The final document is 300-350 pages. There is a period of peer review by relevant societies as well as a period of public commentary followed by the formal committee and Board approval. The final guideline is disseminated widely via press releases, subspecialty societies, AAOS meetings, webinars, JBJS, JAAOS, and related questions on resident and member national examinations. These guidelines now form the basis for future AAOS quality initiatives

The Australia and New Zealand Sarcoma Association established the Sarcoma Guidelines Working Party to develop national guidelines for the management of Sarcoma. We asked whether surgery at a specialised centre improves outcomes. A systematic review was performed of all available evidence pertaining to paediatric or adult patients treated for bone or soft tissue sarcoma at a specialised centre compared with non-specialised centres. Outcomes assessed included local control, limb salvage rate, 30-day and 90-day surgical mortality, and overall survival.

Definitive surgical management at a specialised sarcoma centre improves local control as defined by margin negative surgery, local or locoregional recurrence, and local recurrence free survival. Limb conservation rates are higher at specialised centres, due in part to the depth of surgical experience and immediate availability of multidisciplinary and multimodal therapy. A statistically significant correlation did not exist for 30-day and 90-day mortality between specialised centres and non-specialised centres. The literature is consistent with improved survival when definitive surgical treatment is performed at a specialised sarcoma centre.

Evidence-based recommendation: Patients with suspected sarcoma to be referred to a specialised sarcoma centre for surgical management to reduce the risk of local recurrence, surgical complication, and to improve limb conservation and survival.

Practice point: Patients with suspected sarcoma should be referred to a specialised sarcoma centre early for management including planned biopsy.

Fragility fractures associated with osteoporosis (OP) reduce quality of life, increase risk for subsequent fractures, and are a major economic burden. In 2010, Osteoporosis Canada produced clinical practice guidelines on the management of OP patients at risk for fractures (Papaioannou et al. CMAJ 2010). We describe the real-world incidence of primary and subsequent fragility fractures in elderly Canadians in Ontario, Canada in a timespan (2011–2017) following guideline introduction. This retrospective observational study used de-identified health services administrative data generated from the publicly funded healthcare system in Ontario, Canada from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. The study population included individuals ≥66 years of age who were hospitalized with a primary (i.e. index) fragility fracture (identified using ICD-10 codes from hospital admissions, emergency and ambulatory care) occurring between January 1, 2011 and March 31, 2015. All relevant anatomical sites for fragility fractures were examined, including (but not limited to): hip, vertebral, humerus, wrist, radius and ulna, pelvis, and femur. OP treatment in the year prior to fracture and subsequent fracture information were collected until March 31, 2017. Patients with previous fragility fractures over five years prior to the index fracture, and those fractures associated with trauma codes, were excluded. 115,776 patients with an index fracture were included in the analysis. Mean (standard deviation) age at index fracture was 80.4 (8.3) years. In the year prior to index fracture, 32,772 (28.3%) patients received OP treatment. The incidence of index fractures per 1,000 persons (95% confidence interval) from 2011–2015 ranged from 15.16 (14.98–15.35) to 16.32 (16.14–16.51). Of all examined index fracture types, hip fractures occurred in the greatest proportion (27.3%) of patients (Table). The proportion of patients incurring a second fracture of any type ranged from 13.4% (tibia, fibula, knee, or foot index fracture) to 23% (vertebral index fracture). Hip fractures were the most common subsequent fracture type and the proportion of subsequent hip fractures was highest in patients with an index hip fracture (Table). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to second fracture ranged from 436 (69–939) days (radius and ulna index fracture) to 640 (297–1,023) days (tibia, fibula, knee, or foot index fracture). The median (IQR) time from second to third fracture ranged from 237 (75–535) days (pelvis index fracture) to 384 (113–608) days (femur index fracture). This real-world study found that elderly patients in Ontario, Canada incurring a primary fragility fracture from 2011–2015 were at risk for future fractures occurring over shorter periods of time with each subsequent fracture. These observations are consistent with previous reports of imminent fracture risk and the fragility fracture cascade in OP patients (Balasubramanian et al. ASBMR 2016, Toth et al. WCO-IOF-ESCEO 2018). Overall, these data suggest that in elderly patients with an index fragility fracture at any site (with the exception of the radius or ulna), the most likely subsequent fracture will occur at the hip in less than 2 years

Introduction. Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including pulmonary embolism (PE) resulting from deep vein thrombosis (DVT), remains a well-known serious complication after femoral fractures. The low molecular heparin is widely used to prevent VTE. This study compared the effectiveness of VTE prevention between dalteparin and enoxaparin. Materials and Methods. From 2013 to 2014, we retrospectively recruited 712 patients who had femoral fractures with operative treatment. All patients receiving VTE chemoprophylaxis with perioperative period using dalateparin in Group 1(N=395) and enoxaparin in Group 2(N=317). The prophylactic dosing was determined using individual product labeling and identified as enoxaparin 40 mg every 12 hours and dalteparin 2500 international unit (IU) once daily, based on clinical practice guidelines. The prophylaxis was started at admission, and maintained during average 8.43.5 days after operation. The outcome including the incidence of clinically significant deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, perioperative bleeding and cost of drugs were evaluated between two groups. Results. The two study groups did not differ significantly in fracture type, age, gender, ASA score. The overall incidence of VTE is similar between two groups. However, the incidence of fatal PE is significantly lower in patients with dalteparin (Group 1: 4/395(1.00%), Group 2: 10/317(3.15%), p<0.001). And the overall cost of each group is significantly different between two groups (Group 1: average KRW 89,426, Group 2: average KRW 32,188, p<0.001). Conclusion. Both dalteparin and enoxaparin could be safely used without notable complications in VTE prophylaxis. However, dalteparin had more advantages for prevention of fatal PE, compared to enoxaparin in patients with femoral fractures with significant cost effectiveness

Introduction. The current recommendation by the AAOS in the 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the use of MRI to diagnose a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is “inconclusive” given the lack of evidence to support its use. The purpose of this study was to determine the utility of MRI with metal reduction artifact sequencing in diagnosing a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. 176 patients who underwent MRI with multi-acquisition variable resonance image combination (MAVRIC) to reduce metal artifact for a painful THA between the years of 2009–2013 were retrospectively evaluated. All MRIs were read by one of four radiologists with extensive experience in interpreting MRIs after THA. All MRIs were performed using a 1.5 Tesla magnet. Of the 176 patients examined, 16 patients were found to have a deep periprosthetic joint infection using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria after the MRI was performed. MRI reads were classified as either positive (read as “evidence of active infection” or “suspicious for infection”) or negative (read as no evidence of infection). Only one patient who had a positive MRI read was excluded because of loss to followup after the MRI was performed. Results. Of the 160 aseptic patients, only one patient was read as suspicious for infection (false positive rate = 0.6%, specificity=99.4%, negative predictive value (NPV)=98.8%). Of the 16 patients with an infected THA, 14 patients were read as positive for infection (false negative rate=12.5%, sensitivity = 87.5%, positive predictive value (PPV)=93%). Conclusion. MRI with metal reduction artifact sequence is a highly specific test to diagnose or rule out a PJI with a low false positive rate and excellent PPV and NPV however, given its lower sensitivity than published for the serum C-reactive protein, is not recommended as a general “screening” test for all patients with pain after THA to rule out infection

Introduction. The current recommendation by the AAOS in the 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the use of MRI to diagnose a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is “inconclusive” given the lack of evidence to support its use. The purpose of this study was to determine the utility of MRI with metal reduction artifact sequencing in diagnosing a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. 176 patients who underwent MRI with multi-acquisition variable resonance image combination (MAVRIC) to reduce metal artifact for a painful THA between the years of 2009–2013 were retrospectively evaluated. All MRIs were read by one of four radiologists with extensive experience in interpreting MRIs after THA. All MRIs were performed using a 1.5 Tesla magnet. Of the 176 patients examined, 16 patients were found to have a deep periprosthetic joint infection using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria after the MRI was performed. MRI reads were classified as either positive (read as “evidence of active infection” or “suspicious for infection”) or negative (read as no evidence of infection). Only one patient who had a positive MRI read was excluded because of loss to followup after the MRI was performed. Results. Of the 160 aseptic patients, only one patient was read as suspicious for infection (false positive rate = 0.6%, specificity=99.4%, negative predictive value (NPV)=98.8%). Of the 16 patients with an infected THA, 14 patients were read as positive for infection (false negative rate=12.5%, sensitivity = 87.5%, positive predictive value (PPV)=93%). Conclusion. MRI with metal reduction artifact sequence is a highly specific test to diagnose or rule out a PJI with a low false positive rate and excellent PPV and NPV however, given its lower sensitivity than published for the serum C-reactive protein, is not recommended as a general “screening” test for all patients with pain after THA to rule out infection

Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) formerly known as “acute renal failure” results in rapid reduction in kidney function associated with a failure to maintain fluid, electrolyte and acid-base homeostasis. The UK NCEPOD published a report in 2010 on AKI that revealed many deficiencies in the care of patients with AKI. The UK Renal Association has published the final draft of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acute Kidney Injury on the 08/01/2011. In our study we determined retrospectively the occurrence of this problem in a District General Hospital and its impact on recovery after lower limb arthroplasty. Data was collected retrospective study over 3 months between Oct to Dec 2010 from theatre registers and the hospital database system. 359 patients were identified. Preoperative (baseline) and postoperative blood investigations included Creatinine, Urea, K+, Na+, GFR, Haemoglobin were analysed. Data collection also included type of anaesthesia, timing of operation, duration of procedure and estimated blood loss. From the hospital database system and clinic letters we collected length of stay and time required for blood results to come back to baseline. A diagnosis of Acute Kidney Injury was based on the International Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) staging classification as recently recommended by UK Renal Association. Stage I Creatinine increase by ≥ 26 μmol/L from baseline, Stage II Creatinine increase by 200-300% and Stage III Creatinine increase ≥ 300%. In our study 11.97% (43/359) of patients developed acute kidney injury following lower limb Arthroplasty. 18 patients (42%) developed Stage I (Cre increase ≥ 26 μmol/L), 17(39%) developed Stage II (Cre increase 200-300%) and 8 patients (19%) developed Stage III (Cre increase ≥ 300%) AKI. Most of these patients were operated during the afternoon session. Patients with acute kidney injury stayed longer in hospital (11.7days) compared to similar age group of patients (6.35days) admitted during the same period. 25% of patients took more than a month for renal parameters to come down to normal. AKI is a new definition and the incidence in our hospital is higher than the 1% expected nationally. Patients with AKI are often complex to treat and specialist timely referral and transfer to renal services if appropriate should be considered. The etiology of Acute Renal Injury is very complex and includes gentamicin antibiotic prophylactic, rapid blood loss in elderly frail patients, non-steroidal pain killers and preexisting cardiac and renal pathology. The need for careful postoperative observation cannot be overemphasised together with judicious blood replacement as required. Acute Kidney Injury following lower limb arthroplasty is a sensitive marker of postoperative care. A successful surgical outcome may not mean a successful renal outcome. Patients with AKI are often complex to treat the new AKI definition and staging system allows an earlier detection and management of this condition. Further prospective audit with large number of patients are required

Aims

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the highest level of evidence used to inform patient care. However, it has been suggested that the quality of randomization in RCTs in orthopaedic surgery may be low. This study aims to describe the quality of randomization in trials included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery.

Aims

Orthopaedic surgeries are complex, frequently performed procedures associated with significant haemorrhage and perioperative blood transfusion. Given refinements in surgical techniques and changes to transfusion practices, we aim to describe contemporary transfusion practices in orthopaedic surgery in order to inform perioperative planning and blood banking requirements.

We evaluated the quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery by examining how they adhere to validated methodological standards in their development. A structured review was performed for guidelines that were published between January 2005 and April 2013 in medical journals or on the Internet. A pre-defined computerised search was used in MEDLINE, Scopus and Google to identify the guidelines. The AGREE II assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in the study.

Seven international and national guidelines were identified. The overall methodological quality of the individual guidelines was good. ‘Scope and Purpose’ (median score 98% interquartile range (IQR)) 86% to 98%) and ‘Clarity of Presentation’ (median score 90%, IQR 90% to 95%) were the two domains that received the highest scores. ‘Applicability’ (median score 68%, IQR 45% to 75%) and ‘Editorial Independence’ (median score 71%, IQR 68% to 75%) had the lowest scores.

These findings reveal that although the overall methodological quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery is good, domains within their development, such as ‘Applicability’ and ‘Editorial Independence’, need to be improved. Application of the AGREE II instrument by the authors of guidelines may improve the quality of future guidelines and provide increased focus on aspects of methodology used in their development that are not robust.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:19–23.

High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical therapies are fundamental to the delivery of evidence-based orthopaedics. Orthopaedic clinical trials have unique challenges; however, when these challenges are overcome, evidence from trials can be definitive in its impact on surgical practice. In this review, we highlight several issues that pose potential challenges to orthopaedic investigators aiming to perform surgical randomised controlled trials. We begin with a discussion on trial design issues, including the ethics of sham surgery, the importance of sample size, the need for patient-important outcomes, and overcoming expertise bias. We then explore features surrounding the execution of surgical randomised trials, including ethics review boards, the importance of organisational frameworks, and obtaining adequate funding.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:161–8.