Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 20 of 40
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 3, Issue 5 | Pages 423 - 431
1 May 2022
Leong JWY Singhal R Whitehouse MR Howell JR Hamer A Khanduja V Board TN

Aims. The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. Methods. The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds. Results. The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively. Conclusion. The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 7 | Pages 662 - 668
1 Jul 2024
Ahmed I Metcalfe A

Aims. This study aims to identify the top unanswered research priorities in the field of knee surgery using consensus-based methodology. Methods. Initial research questions were generated using an online survey sent to all 680 members of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK). Duplicates were removed and a longlist was generated from this scoping exercise by a panel of 13 experts from across the UK who provided oversight of the process. A modified Delphi process was used to refine the questions and determine a final list. To rank the final list of questions, each question was scored between one (low importance) and ten (high importance) in order to produce the final list. Results. This consensus exercise took place between December 2020 and April 2022. A total of 286 clinicians from the BASK membership provided input for the initial scoping exercise, which generated a list of 105 distinct research questions. Following review and prioritization, a longlist of 51 questions was sent out for two rounds of the Delphi process. A total of 42 clinicians responded to the first round and 24 responded to the second round. A final list of 24 research questions was then ranked by 36 clinicians. The topics included arthroplasty, infection, meniscus, osteotomy, patellofemoral, cartilage, and ligament pathologies. The management of early osteoarthritis was the highest-ranking question. Conclusion. A Delphi exercise involving the BASK membership has identified the future research priorities in knee surgery. This list of questions will allow clinicians, researchers, and funders to collaborate in order to deliver high-quality research in knee surgery and further advance the care provided to patients with knee pathology. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):662–668


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 3, Issue 1 | Pages 98 - 106
27 Jan 2022
Gelfer Y Leo DG Russell A Bridgens A Perry DC Eastwood DM

Aims. To identify the minimum set of outcomes that should be collected in clinical practice and reported in research related to the care of children with idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV). Methods. A list of outcome measurement tools (OMTs) was obtained from the literature through a systematic review. Further outcomes were collected from patients and families through a questionnaire and interview process. The combined list, as well as the appropriate follow-up timepoint, was rated for importance in a two-round Delphi process that included an international group of orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists, nurse practitioners, patients, and families. Outcomes that reached no consensus during the Delphi process were further discussed and scored for inclusion/exclusion in a final consensus meeting involving international stakeholder representatives of practitioners, families, and patient charities. Results. In total, 39 OMTs were included from the systematic review. Two additional OMTs were identified from the interviews and questionnaires, and four were added after round one Delphi. Overall, 22 OMTs reached ‘consensus in’ during the Delphi and two reached ‘consensus out’; 21 OMTs reached ‘no consensus’ and were included in the final consensus meeting. In all, 21 participants attended the consensus meeting, including a wide diversity of clubfoot practitioners, parent/patient representative, and an independent chair. A total of 21 outcomes were discussed and voted upon; six were voted ‘in’ and 15 were voted ‘out’. The final COS document includes nine OMTs and two existing outcome scores with a total of 31 outcome parameters to be collected after a minimum follow-up of five years. It incorporates static and dynamic clinical findings, patient-reported outcome measures, and a definition of CTEV relapse. Conclusion. We have defined a minimum set of outcomes to draw comparisons between centres and studies in the treatment of CTEV. With the use of these outcomes, we hope to allow more meaningful research and a better clinical management of CTEV. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):98–106


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 4, Issue 11 | Pages 825 - 831
1 Nov 2023
Joseph PJS Khattak M Masudi ST Minta L Perry DC

Aims. Hip disease is common in children with cerebral palsy (CP) and can decrease quality of life and function. Surveillance programmes exist to improve outcomes by treating hip disease at an early stage using radiological surveillance. However, studies and surveillance programmes report different radiological outcomes, making it difficult to compare. We aimed to identify the most important radiological measurements and develop a core measurement set (CMS) for clinical practice, research, and surveillance programmes. Methods. A systematic review identified a list of measurements previously used in studies reporting radiological hip outcomes in children with CP. These measurements informed a two-round Delphi study, conducted among orthopaedic surgeons and specialist physiotherapists. Participants rated each measurement on a nine-point Likert scale (‘not important’ to ‘critically important’). A consensus meeting was held to finalize the CMS. Results. Overall, 14 distinct measurements were identified in the systematic review, with Reimer’s migration percentage being the most frequently reported. These measurements were presented over the two rounds of the Delphi process, along with two additional measurements that were suggested by participants. Ultimately, two measurements, Reimer’s migration percentage and femoral head-shaft angle, were included in the CMS. Conclusion. This use of a minimum standardized set of measurements has the potential to encourage uniformity across hip surveillance programmes, and may streamline the development of tools, such as artificial intelligence systems to automate the analysis in surveillance programmes. This core set should be the minimum requirement in clinical studies, allowing clinicians to add to this as needed, which will facilitate comparisons to be drawn between studies and future meta-analyses. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):825–831


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 3, Issue 1 | Pages 54 - 60
14 Jan 2022
Leo DG Green G Eastwood DM Bridgens A Gelfer Y

Aims. The aim of this study is to define a core outcome set (COS) to allow consistency in outcome reporting amongst studies investigating the management of orthopaedic treatment in children with spinal dysraphism (SD). Methods. Relevant outcomes will be identified in a four-stage process from both the literature and key stakeholders (patients, their families, and clinical professionals). Previous outcomes used in clinical studies will be identified through a systematic review of the literature, and each outcome will be assigned to one of the five core areas, defined by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT). Additional possible outcomes will be identified through consultation with patients affected by SD and their families. Results. Outcomes identified in these stages will be included in a two-round Delphi process that will involve key stakeholders in the management of SD. A final list including the identified outcomes will then be summarized in a consensus meeting attended by representatives of the key stakeholders groups. Conclusion. The best approach to provision of orthopaedic care in patients with SD is yet to be decided. The reporting of different outcomes to define success among studies, often based on personal preferences and local culture, has made it difficult to compare the effect of treatments for this condition. The development of a COS for orthopaedic management in SD will enable meaningful reporting and facilitate comparisons in future clinical trials, thereby assisting complex decision-making in the clinical management of these children. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):54–60


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 2 | Pages 209 - 214
1 Feb 2023
Aarvold A Perry DC Mavrotas J Theologis T Katchburian M

Aims. A national screening programme has existed in the UK for the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) since 1969. However, every aspect of screening and treatment remains controversial. Screening programmes throughout the world vary enormously, and in the UK there is significant variation in screening practice and treatment pathways. We report the results of an attempt by the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) to identify a nationwide consensus for the management of DDH in order to unify treatment and suggest an approach for screening. Methods. A Delphi consensus study was performed among the membership of BSCOS. Statements were generated by a steering group regarding aspects of the management of DDH in children aged under three months, namely screening and surveillance (15 questions), the technique of ultrasound scanning (eight questions), the initiation of treatment (19 questions), care during treatment with a splint (ten questions), and on quality, governance, and research (eight questions). A two-round Delphi process was used and a consensus document was produced at the final meeting of the steering group. Results. A total of 60 statements were graded by 128 clinicians in the first round and 132 in the second round. Consensus was reached on 30 out of 60 statements in the first round and an additional 12 in the seond. This was summarized in a consensus statement and distilled into a flowchart to guide clinical practice. Conclusion. We identified agreement in an area of medicine that has a long history of controversy and varied practice. None of the areas of consensus are based on high-quality evidence. This document is thus a framework to guide clinical practice and on which high-quality clinical trials can be developed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):209–214


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1265 - 1270
1 Dec 2023
Hurley ET Sherman SL Chahla J Gursoy S Alaia MJ Tanaka MJ Pace JL Jazrawi LM

Aims. The aim of this study was to establish consensus statements on medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction, anteromedialization tibial tubercle osteotomy, trochleoplasty, and rehabilitation and return to sporting activity in patients with patellar instability, using the modified Delphi process. Methods. This was the second part of a study dealing with these aspects of management in these patients. As in part I, a total of 60 surgeons from 11 countries contributed to the development of consensus statements based on their expertise in this area. They were assigned to one of seven working groups defined by subtopics of interest. Consensus was defined as achieving between 80% and 89% agreement, strong consensus was defined as between 90% and 99% agreement, and 100% agreement was considered unanimous. Results. Of 41 questions and statements on patellar instability, none achieved unanimous consensus, 19 achieved strong consensus, 15 achieved consensus, and seven did not achieve consensus. Conclusion. Most statements reached some degree of consensus, without any achieving unanimous consensus. There was no consensus on the use of anchors in MPFL reconstruction, and the order of fixation of the graft (patella first versus femur first). There was also no consensus on the indications for trochleoplasty or its effect on the viability of the cartilage after elevation of the osteochondral flap. There was also no consensus on postoperative immobilization or weightbearing, or whether paediatric patients should avoid an early return to sport. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(12):1265–1270


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 11, Issue 2 | Pages 3 - 4
1 Apr 2022
Ollivere B


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 3, Issue 10 | Pages 753 - 758
4 Oct 2022
Farrow L Clement ND Smith D Meek DRM Ryan M Gillies K Anderson L Ashcroft GP

Aims. The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). Results. The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. Conclusion. The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753–758


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_13 | Pages 1 - 1
7 Aug 2023
Scheepers W Held M von Bormann R Wascher D Richter D Schenck R Harner C
Full Access

Abstract. Introduction. Knee dislocations (KDs) are complex injuries which are often associated with damage to surrounding soft tissues or neurovascular structures. A classification system for these injuries should be simple and reproducible and allow communication among surgeons for surgical planning and outcome prediction. The aim of this study was to formulate a list of factors, prioritised by high-volume knee surgeons, that should be included in a KD classification system. Methods. A global panel of orthopaedic knee surgery specialists participated in a Delphi process. A list of factors to be included in a KD classification system was formulated by 91 orthopaedic surgeons, which was subsequently prioritised by 27 experts from 6 countries. The items were analysed to find factors that had at least 70% consensus for inclusion in a classification system. Results. The four factors that reached consensus agreement and thus deemed critical for inclusion in a classification system were vascular injuries (89%), common peroneal nerve injuries (78%), number of torn ligaments (78%), and open injuries (70%). Conclusion. The wide geographic distribution of participants provides diverse insight and makes the results of the study globally applicable. The most important factors to include in a classification system as determined by the Delphi technique were vascular injuries, common peroneal nerve injuries, number of torn ligaments, and open injuries. The Schenck anatomic classification system most accurately identifies these patient variables with the addition of open injuries. The authors propose to update the Schenck classification system with the inclusion of open injuries as an additional modifier


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_2 | Pages 111 - 111
10 Feb 2023
Sonntag J Landale K Brorson S A. Harris I
Full Access

The aim of this study was to investigate surgeons’ reported change of treatment preference in response to the results and conclusion from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and to study patterns of change between subspecialties and nationalities. Two questionnaires were developed through the Delphi process for this cross-sectional survey of surgical preference. The first questionnaire was sent out before the publication of a RCT and the second questionnaire was sent out after publication. The RCT investigated repair or non-repair of the pronator quadratus (PQ) muscle during volar locked plating of distal radial fractures (DRFs). Overall, 380 orthopaedic surgeons were invited to participate in the first questionnaire, of whom 115 replied. One hundred surgeons were invited to participate in the second questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of surgeons for whom a treatment change was warranted, who then reported a change of treatment preference following the RCT. Secondary outcomes included the reasons for repair or non-repair, reasons for and against following the RCT results, and difference of preferred treatment of the PQ muscle between surgeons of different nationalities, qualifications, years of training, and number of procedures performed per year. Of the 100 surgeons invited for the second questionnaire, 74 replied. For the primary outcome, 6 of 32 surgeons (19%), who usually repaired the PQ muscle and therefore a change of treatment preference was warranted, reported a change of treatment preference based on the RCT publication. Of the secondary outcomes, restoring anatomy was the most common response for repairing the PQ muscle. The majority of the orthopaedic surgeons, where a change of treatment preference was warranted based on the results and conclusion of a RCT, did not report willingness to change their treatment preference


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_7 | Pages 61 - 61
4 Apr 2023
Makaram N Al-Hourani K Nightingale J Ollivere B Ward J Tornetta III P Duckworth A
Full Access

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on Gustilo-Anderson (GA) type IIIB open tibial shaft (AO-42) injuries to determine the consistency of reporting in the literature. A search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify relevant studies published from January 2000 to January 2021 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The study was registered using the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. Patient/injury demographics, management and outcome reporting were recorded. There were 32 studies that met the inclusion criteria with a total of 1,947 patients (70.3% male, 29.7% female). There were 6 studies (18.8%) studies that reported on comorbidities and smoking, with mechanism of injury reported in 22 (68.8%). No studies reported on all operative criteria included, with only three studies (9.4%) reporting for time to antibiotics, 14 studies (43.8%) for time from injury to debridement and nine studies (28.1%) for time to definitive fixation. All studies reported on the rate of deep infection, with a high proportion documenting union rate (26/32, 81.3%). However, only two studies reported on mortality or on other post-operative complications (2/32, 6.3%). Only 12 studies (37.5%) provided any patient reported outcomes. This study has demonstrated a deficiency and a lack of standardized variable and outcome reporting in the orthopaedic literature for Gustilo-Anderson type IIIB open tibial shaft fractures. We propose a future international collaborative Delphi process is needed to standardize


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_15 | Pages 64 - 64
7 Nov 2023
Render L Maqungo S Held M Laubscher M Graham SM Ferreira N Marais LC
Full Access

Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Despite improvements in trauma-related morbidity and mortality in high-income countries over recent years, outcomes following MSK injuries in low and middle-income countries, such as South Africa (SA), have not. Despite governmental recognition that this is required, funding and research into this significant health burden are limited within SA. This study aims to identify research priorities within MSK trauma care using a consensus-based approach amongst MSK health care practitioners within SA. Members from the Orthopaedic Research Collaborative (ORCA), based in SA, collaborated using a two round modified Delphi technique to form a consensus on research priorities within orthopaedic trauma care. Members involved in the process were orthopaedic healthcare practitioners within SA. Participants from the ORCA network, working within SA, scored research priorities across two Delphi rounds from low to high priority. We have published the overall top 10 research priorities for this Delphi process. Questions were focused on two broad groups - clinical effectiveness in trauma care and general trauma public health care. Both groups were represented by the top two priorities, with the highest ranked question regarding the overall impact of trauma in SA and the second regarding the clinical treatment of open fractures. This study has defined research priorities within orthopaedic trauma in South Africa. Our vision is that by establishing consensus on these research priorities, policy and research funding will be directed into these areas. This should ultimately improve musculoskeletal trauma care across South Africa and its significant health and socioeconomic impacts


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_14 | Pages 38 - 38
1 Dec 2022
Tedesco G Evangelisti G Fusco E Ghermandi R Girolami M Pipola V Tedesco E Romoli S Fontanella M Brodano GB Gasbarrini A
Full Access

Neurological complications in oncological and degenerative spine surgery represent one of the most feared risks of these procedures. Multimodal intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) mainly uses methods to detect changes in the patient's neurological status in a timely manner, thus allowing actions that can reverse neurological deficits before they become irreversible. The utopian goal of spinal surgery is the absence of neurological complications while the realistic goal is to optimize the responses to changes in neuromonitoring such that permanent deficits occur less frequently as possible. In 2014, an algorithm was proposed in response to changes in neuromonitoring for deformity corrections in spinal surgery. There are several studies that confirm the positive impact that a checklist has on care. The proposed checklist has been specifically designed for interventions on stable columns which is significantly different from oncological and degenerative surgery. The goal of this project is to provide a checklist for oncological and degenerative spine surgery to improve the quality of care and minimize the risk of neurological deficit through the optimization of clinical decision-making during periods of intraoperative stress or uncertainty. After a literature review on risk factors and recommendations for responding to IONM changes, 3 surveys were administered to 8 surgeons with experience in oncological and degenerative spine surgery from 5 hospitals in Italy. In addition, anesthesiologists, intraoperative neuro-monitoring teams, operating room nurses participated. The members participated in the optimization and final drafting of the checklist. The authors reassessed and modified the checklist during 3 meetings over 9 months, including a clinical validation period using a modified Delphi process. A checklist containing 28 items to be considered in responding to the changes of the IONM was created. The checklist was submitted for inclusion in the new recommendations of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology (SINC) for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. The final checklist represents the consensus of a group of experienced spine surgeons. The checklist includes the most important and high-performance items to consider when responding to IONM changes in patients with an unstable spine. The implementation of this checklist has the potential to improve surgical outcomes and patient safety in the field of spinal surgery


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 1, Issue 9 | Pages 549 - 555
11 Sep 2020
Sonntag J Landale K Brorson S Harris IA

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate surgeons’ reported change of treatment preference in response to the results and conclusion from a randomized contolled trial (RCT) and to study patterns of change between subspecialties and nationalities. Methods. Two questionnaires were developed through the Delphi process for this cross-sectional survey of surgical preference. The first questionnaire was sent out before the publication of a RCT and the second questionnaire was sent out after publication. The RCT investigated repair or non-repair of the pronator quadratus (PQ) muscle during volar locked plating of distal radial fractures (DRFs). Overall, 380 orthopaedic surgeons were invited to participate in the first questionnaire, of whom 115 replied. One hundred surgeons were invited to participate in the second questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of surgeons for whom a treatment change was warranted, who then reported a change of treatment preference following the RCT. Secondary outcomes included the reasons for repair or non-repair, reasons for and against following the RCT results, and difference of preferred treatment of the PQ muscle between surgeons of different nationalities, qualifications, years of training, and number of procedures performed per year. Results. Of the 100 surgeons invited for the second questionnaire, 74 replied. For the primary outcome, six of 32 surgeons (19%), who usually repaired the PQ muscle and therefore a change of treatment preference was warranted, reported a change of treatment preference based on the RCT publication. Of the secondary outcomes, restoring anatomy was the most common response for repairing the PQ muscle. Conclusion. The majority of the orthopaedic surgeons, where a change of treatment preference was warranted based on the results and conclusion of a RCT, did not report willingness to change their treatment preference. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:549–555


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 5 | Pages 680 - 684
1 May 2018
Perry DC Wright JG Cooke S Roposch A Gaston MS Nicolaou N Theologis T

Aims. High-quality clinical research in children’s orthopaedic surgery has lagged behind other surgical subspecialties. This study used a consensus-based approach to identify research priorities for clinical trials in children’s orthopaedics. Methods. A modified Delphi technique was used, which involved an initial scoping survey, a two-round Delphi process and an expert panel formed of members of the British Society of Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery. The survey was conducted amongst orthopaedic surgeons treating children in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Results. A total of 86 clinicians contributed to both rounds of the Delphi process, scoring priorities from one (low priority) to five (high priority). Elective topics were ranked higher than those relating to trauma, with the top ten elective research questions scoring higher than the top question for trauma. Ten elective, and five trauma research priorities were identified, with the three highest ranked questions relating to the treatment of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (mean score 4.6/ 5), Perthes’ disease (4.5) and bone infection (4.5). Conclusion. This consensus-based research agenda will guide surgeons, academics and funders to improve the evidence in children’s orthopaedic surgery and encourage the development of multicentre clinical trials. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:680–4


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_4 | Pages 38 - 38
1 Apr 2022
Plastow R Kayani B Paton B Moriarty P Wilson M Court N Giakoumis M Read P Kerkhoffs G Moore J Murphy S Pollock N Stirling B Tulloch L Van Dyk N Wood D Haddad FS
Full Access

The 2020 London International Hamstring Consensus meeting was convened to improve our understanding and treatment of hamstring injuries. The multidisciplinary consensus panel included 14 International specialists on the management of hamstring injuries. The Delphi consensus process consisted of two rounds of surveys which were completed by 19 surgeons from a total of 106 participants. Consensus on individual statements was regarded as over 70% agreement between panel members. The consensus group agreed that the indications for operative intervention included the following: gapping at the zone of injury (86.9%); high functional demands of the patient (86.7%); symptomatic displaced bony avulsions (74.7%); and proximal free tendon injuries with functional compromise refractory to non-operative treatment (71.4%). Panel members agreed that surgical intervention had the capacity to restore anatomy and function, while reducing the risk of injury recurrence (86.7%). The consensus group did not support the use of corticosteroids or endoscopic surgery without further evidence. These guidelines will help to further standardise the treatment of hamstring injuries and facilitate decision-making in the surgical treatment of these injuries


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 87-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 207 - 207
1 Apr 2005
McCarthy C
Full Access

Introduction Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is an extremely heterogeneous condition with many attempts at sub-classification having been made over the years. Background and Purpose of the Study This study developed UK physiotherapy, professional consensus on the items to be included in a list of important “discriminatory” examination features. These features will be subsequently tested in a large cluster analysis with a view to generating a valid sub-classification of NSLBP. Material and Method Thirty UK Chartered Physiotherapists, representatives from Clinical Interest Groups, attended a focus group and subsequently undertook a Delphi consensus technique. Participants were purposively sampled from all clinical interest groups to represent as broad a clinical experience as possible. The focus group established the areas of the examination that were to be included in the Delphi process. The Delphi consensus process involved an initial round of statement generation. The physiotherapists were asked to list the examination items, from the history and physical examinations that they rated as important discriminators of different “types” of NSLBP. A content analysis was undertaken to establish common features within the statements and the examination features were then rated for inclusion in the list. A priori, consensus was considered to have been gained when > 80% of participants agreed on inclusion of an examination feature and following a third round of rating consensus was achieved. Results Eighty examination items were included in the list by participants, following three rounds of the Delphi technique. Fifty items were from the history and thirty items from the physical examination. Items included were from the biomedical, psychological and social domains. Conclusion This study provides valuable insight into the items of the clinical examination considered important in the discrimination of sub-groups of NSLBP by UK physiotherapists


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1190 - 1196
1 Oct 2024
Gelfer Y McNee AE Harris JD Mavrotas J Deriu L Cashman J Wright J Kothari A

Aims

The aim of this study was to gain a consensus for best practice of the assessment and management of children with idiopathic toe walking (ITW) in order to provide a benchmark for practitioners and guide the best consistent care.

Methods

An established Delphi approach with predetermined steps and degree of agreement based on a standardized protocol was used to determine consensus. The steering group members and Delphi survey participants included members from the British Society of Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) and the Association of Paediatric Chartered Physiotherapists (APCP). The statements included definition, assessment, treatment indications, nonoperative and operative interventions, and outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis of the Delphi survey results. The AGREE checklist was followed for reporting the results.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 3 | Pages 236 - 242
22 Mar 2024
Guryel E McEwan J Qureshi AA Robertson A Ahluwalia R

Aims

Ankle fractures are common injuries and the third most common fragility fracture. In all, 40% of ankle fractures in the frail are open and represent a complex clinical scenario, with morbidity and mortality rates similar to hip fracture patients. They have a higher risk of complications, such as wound infections, malunion, hospital-acquired infections, pressure sores, veno-thromboembolic events, and significant sarcopaenia from prolonged bed rest.

Methods

A modified Delphi method was used and a group of experts with a vested interest in best practice were invited from the British Foot and Ankle Society (BOFAS), British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), Orthopaedic Trauma Society (OTS), British Association of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgeons (BAPRAS), British Geriatric Society (BGS), and the British Limb Reconstruction Society (BLRS).