Aims. A substantial fraction of patients undergoing knee arthroplasty (KA) or hip arthroplasty (HA) do not achieve an improvement as high as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), i.e. do not achieve a meaningful improvement. Using three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), our aim was: 1) to assess machine learning (ML), the simple pre-surgery PROM score, and logistic-regression (LR)-derived performance in their prediction of whether patients undergoing HA or KA achieve an improvement as high or higher than a calculated MCID; and 2) to test whether ML is able to outperform LR or pre-surgery PROM scores in predictive performance. Methods. MCIDs were derived using the change difference method in a sample of 1,843 HA and 1,546 KA patients. An artificial neural network, a gradient boosting machine, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, ridge regression, elastic net, random forest, LR, and pre-surgery PROM scores were applied to predict MCID for the following PROMs: EuroQol five-dimension, five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (HOOS-PS), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (KOOS-PS). Results. Predictive performance of the best models per outcome ranged from 0.71 for HOOS-PS to 0.84 for EQ-VAS (HA sample). ML statistically significantly outperformed LR and pre-surgery PROM scores in two out of six cases. Conclusion. MCIDs can be predicted with reasonable performance. ML was able to outperform traditional methods, although only in a minority of cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(9):512–521

Utility score is a preference-based measure of general health state – where 0 is equal to death, and 1 is equal to perfect health. To understand a patient's smallest perceptible change in utility score, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) can be calculated. However, there are multiple methods to calculate MCID with no consensus about which method is most appropriate. The aim of this study is to calculate MCID values for the Veterans-RAND 12 (VR12) utility score using varying methods. Our hypothesis is that different methods will yield different MCID values. A tertiary institutional registry (SMART) was used as the study cohort. Patients who underwent unilateral TKA for osteoarthritis from January 2012 to January 2020 were included. Utility score was calculated from VR12 responses using the standardised Brazier's method. Distribution and anchor methods were used for the MCID calculation. For distribution methods, 0.5 standard deviations of the baseline and change scores were used. For anchor methods, the physical and emotional anchor questions in the VR12 survey were used to benchmark utility score outcomes. Anchor methods included mean difference in change score, mean difference in 12 month score, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis with the Youden index. Complete case analysis of 1735 out of 1809 eligible patients was performed. Significant variation in the MCID estimates for VR12 utility score were reported dependent on the calculation method used. The MCID estimate from 0.5 standard deviations of the change score was 0.083. The MCID estimate from the ROC analysis method using physical or emotional anchor question improvement was 0.115 (CI95 0.08-0.14; AUC 0.656). Different MCID calculation methods yielded different MCID values. Our results suggest that MCID is not an umbrella concept but rather many distinct concepts. A general consensus is required to standardise how MCID is defined, calculated, and applied in clinical practice

Aims. The aims of this study were to validate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds for Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Rowe score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores following arthroscopic Bankart repair, and to identify preoperative threshold values of these scores that could predict the achievement of MCID and PASS. Methods. A retrospective review was conducted on 131 consecutive patients with anterior shoulder instability who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between January 2020 and January 2023. Inclusion criteria required at least one episode of shoulder instability and a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. Preoperative and one-year postoperative scores were assessed. MCID and PASS were estimated using distribution-based and anchor-based methods, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis determined preoperative patient-reported outcome measure thresholds predictive of achieving MCID and PASS. Results. MCID thresholds were determined as 169.6, 6.8, 7.2, and 1.1 for WOSI, Rowe, ASES, and VAS, respectively. PASS thresholds were calculated as ≤ 480, ≥ 80, ≥ 87, and ≤ 1 for WOSI, Rowe, ASES, and VAS, respectively. Preoperative thresholds of ≥ 760 (WOSI) and ≤ 50 (Rowe) predicted achieving MCID for WOSI score (p < 0.001). Preoperative thresholds of ≤ 60 (ASES) and ≥ 2 (VAS) predicted achieving MCID for VAS score (p < 0.001). A preoperative threshold of ≥ 40 (Rowe) predicted achieving PASS for Rowe score (p = 0.005). Preoperative thresholds of ≥ 50 (ASES; p = 0.002) and ≤ 2 (VAS; p < 0.001) predicted achieving PASS for the ASES score. Preoperative thresholds of ≥ 43 (ASES; p = 0.046) and ≤ 4 (VAS; p = 0.024) predicted achieving PASS for the VAS. Conclusion. This study defined MCID and PASS values for WOSI, Rowe, ASES, and VAS scores in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. Higher preoperative functional scores may reduce the likelihood of achieving MCID but increase the likelihood of achieving the PASS. These findings provide valuable guidance for surgeons to counsel patients realistically regarding their expectations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1118–1124

Femoroacetabular Impingement (FAI) syndrome, characterised by abnormal hip contact causing symptoms and osteoarthritis, is measured using the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT). This study uses machine learning to predict patient outcomes post-treatment for FAI, focusing on achieving a minimally clinically important difference (MCID) at 52 weeks. A retrospective analysis of 6133 patients from the NAHR who underwent hip arthroscopic treatment for FAI between November 2013 and March 2022 was conducted. MCID was defined as half a standard deviation (13.61) from the mean change in iHOT score at 12 months. SKLearn Maximum Absolute Scaler and Logistic Regression were applied to predict achieving MCID, using baseline and 6-month follow-up data. The model's performance was evaluated by accuracy, area under the curve, and recall, using pre-operative and up to 6-month postoperative variables. A total of 23.1% (1422) of patients completed both baseline and 1-year follow-up iHOT surveys. The best results were obtained using both pre and postoperative variables. The machine learning model achieved 88.1% balanced accuracy, 89.6% recall, and 92.3% AUC. Sensitivity was 83.7% and specificity 93.5%. Key variables determining outcomes included MCID achievement at 6 months, baseline iHOT score, 6-month iHOT scores for pain, and difficulty in walking or using stairs. The study confirmed the utility of machine learning in predicting long-term outcomes following arthroscopic treatment for FAI. MCID, based on the iHOT 12 tools, indicates meaningful clinical changes. Machine learning demonstrated high accuracy and recall in distinguishing between patients achieving MCID and those who did not. This approach could help early identification of patients at risk of not meeting the MCID threshold one year after treatment

MCID and PASS are thresholds driven from PROMS to reflect clinical effectiveness. Statistical significance can be derived from a change in PROMS, whereas MCID and PASS reflect clinical significance. Its role has been increasingly used in the world of young adult hip surgery with several publications determining the thresholds for Femoro-acetabular impingement FAI. To our knowledge MCID and PASS for patient undergoing PAO for dysplasia has not been reported.

593 PAOs between 1/2013 and 7/2023 were extracted from the Northumbria Hip Preservation Registry. Patients with available PROMS at 1year and/or 2years were included. PAOs for retroversion, residual Perthes and those combined with FO were excluded. MCID was calculated using the distribution method 0.5SD of baseline score(1). PASS was calculated using anchor method, ROC analysis performed, and value picked maximizing Youden index. A Logistic Regression analysis was performed to determine which independent variables correlated with achieving MCID and PASS.

The MCID threshold for iHOt12 was 8.6 with 83.4 and 86.3 % of patients achieved it at 1 and 2 years respectively. The PASS score at 1 and 2 year follow up was 43 and 44 respectively, with 72.6 and 75.2% achieving it at 1 and 2 year postop. At 2 years a Higher preop iHOT 12 was associated with not achieving MCID and PASS (p<0.05). Preop acetabular version was negatively correlated with achieving MCID and previous hip arthroscopy was negatively correlated with PASS.

The % of patients achieving MCID and PASS mimics that of FAI surgery (2). The negative correlation with preop iHOT12 reaffirms the importance of patient selection. The negative correlation of hip arthroscopy highlights the importance of having a high index of suspicion for dysplasia prior to hip arthroscopy and poorer outcomes of patients with mixed CAM and dysplasia pathology.

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimal important change (MIC), minimal detectable change (MDC), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) threshold in the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) according to patient satisfaction six months following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. During a one-year period 484 patients underwent a primary TKA and completed preoperative and six-month FJS and OKS. At six months patients were asked, “How satisfied are you with your operated knee?” Their response was recorded as: very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. The difference between patients recording neutral (n = 44) and satisfied (n = 153) was used to define the MCID. MIC for a cohort was defined as the change in the FJS for those patients declaring their outcome as satisfied, whereas receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the MIC for an individual and the PASS threshold. Distribution-based methodology was used to calculate the MDC. Results. Using satisfaction as the anchor question, the MCID for the FJS was 16.6 (95% confidence interval (CIs) 8.9 to 24.3; p < 0.001) and when adjusting for confounding this decreased to 13.7 points (95% CI 4.8 to 22.5; p < 0.001). The MIC for the FJS for a cohort of patients was 17.7 points and for an individual patient was 10 points. The MDC90 for the FGS was 12 points; where 90% of patients scoring more than this will have experienced a real change that is beyond measurement error. The PASS was defined as 22 points or more in the postoperative FJS. Conclusion. The estimates for MCID and MIC can be used to assess whether there is clinical difference between two groups and whether a cohort/patient has had a meaningful change in their FJS, respectively. The MDC90 of 12 points suggests a value lower than this may fall within measurement error. A postoperative FJS of 22 or more was predictive of achieving PASS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):846–854

Aims. Frozen shoulder is a common, painful condition that results in impairment of function. Corticosteroid injections are commonly used for frozen shoulder and can be given as glenohumeral joint (GHJ) injection or suprascapular nerve block (SSNB). Both injection types have been shown to significantly improve shoulder pain and range of motion. It is not currently known which is superior in terms of relieving patients’ symptoms. This is the protocol for a randomized clinical trial to investigate the clinical effectiveness of corticosteroid injection given as either a GHJ injection or SSNB. Methods. The Therapeutic Injections For Frozen Shoulder (TIFFS) study is a single centre, parallel, two-arm, randomized clinical trial. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to either a GHJ corticosteroid injection or SSNB. Participants in both trial arms will then receive physiotherapy as normal for frozen shoulder. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at three months after injection. Secondary outcomes include OSS at six and 12 months, range of shoulder movement at three months, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale, abbreviated Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and EuroQol five-level five-dimension health index at three months, six months, and one year after injection. A minimum of 40 patients will be recruited to obtain 80% power to detect a minimally important difference of ten points on the OSS between the groups at three months after injection. The study is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT04965376. Conclusion. The results of this trial will demonstrate if there is a difference in shoulder pain and function after GHJ injection or SSNB in patients with frozen shoulder. This will help provide effective treatment to patients with frozen shoulder. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):205–209

Functional outcomes are commonly reported in studies of musculoskeletal oncology patients undergoing limb salvage surgery; however, interpretation requires knowledge of the smallest amount of improvement that is important to patients – the minimally important difference (MID). We established the MIDs for the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Rating Scale (MSTS) and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) in patients with bone tumors undergoing lower limb salvage surgery. This study was a secondary analysis of the recently completed PARITY (Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery) study. This data was used to calculate: (1) the anchor-based MIDs using an overall function scale and a receiver operating curve analysis, and (2) the distribution-based MIDs based on one-half of the standard deviation of the change scores from baseline to 12-month follow-up, for both the MSTS and TESS. There were 591 patients available for analysis. The Pearson correlation coefficients for the association between changes in MSTS and TESS scores and changes in the external anchor scores were 0.71 and 0.57, indicating “high” and “moderate” correlation. Anchor-based MIDs were 12 points and 11 points for the MSTS and TESS, respectively. Distribution-based calculations yielded MIDs of 16-17 points for the MSTS and 14 points for the TESS. The current study proposes MID scores for both the MSTS and TESS outcome measures based on 591 patients with bone tumors undergoing lower extremity endoprosthetic reconstruction. These thresholds will optimize interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects, which will enable shared decision-making with patients in trading off desirable and undesirable outcomes of alternative management strategies. We recommend anchor-based MIDs as they are grounded in changes in functional status that are meaningful to patients

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

Aims. To evaluate the impact of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on the odds of having deep infections and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following open fractures. Methods. Patients from the Fluid Lavage in Open Fracture Wounds (FLOW) trial with Gustilo-Anderson grade II or III open fractures within the lower limb were included in this secondary analysis. Using mixed effects logistic regression, we assessed the impact of NPWT on deep wound infection requiring surgical intervention within 12 months post-injury. Using multilevel model analyses, we evaluated the impact of NPWT on the Physical Component Summary (PCS) of the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) at 12 months post-injury. Results. After applying inverse probability treatment weighting to adjust for the influence of injury characteristics on type of dressing used, 1,322 participants were assessed. The odds of developing a deep infection requiring operative management within 12 months of initial surgery was 4.52-times higher in patients who received NPWT compared to those who received a standard wound dressing (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.84 to 11.12; p = 0.001). Overall, 1,040 participants were included in our HRQoL analysis, and those treated with NPWT had statistically significantly lower mean SF-12 PCS post-fracture (p < 0.001). These differences did not reach the minimally important difference for the SF-12 PCS. Conclusion. Our analysis found that patients treated with NPWT had higher odds of developing a deep infection requiring operative management within 12 months post-fracture. Due to possible residual confounding with the worst cases being treated with NPWT, we are unable to determine if NPWT has a negative effect or is simply a marker of worse injuries or poor access to early soft-tissue coverage. Regardless, our results suggest that the use of this treatment requires further evaluation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):189–195

Functional outcomes are important for patients with bone tumors undergoing lower extremity endoprosthetic reconstruction; however, there is limited empirical evidence evaluating function longitudinally. The objective of this study was to determine the changes in function over time in patients undergoing endoprosthetic reconstructions of the proximal femur, distal femur and proximal tibia. We conducted a secondary analysis of functional outcome data from the Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery (PARITY) trial. Patient function was assessed with the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score 93 (MSTS) and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), which were administered preoperatively and at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Both instruments are scored from 0-100, with higher scores indicated greater function. Mean functional scores were evaluated over time and we explored for differences among patients undergoing proximal femur reconstructions (PFR), distal femur reconstructions (DFR) and proximal tibia reconstructions (PTR). The patient-importance of statistically significant differences in function was evaluated utilizing the minimally important difference (MID) of 12 for the MSTS and 11 for the TESS. We explored for differences in change scores between each time interval with paired t-tests. Differences based on endoprosthetic reconstruction undertaken were evaluated by analysis of variance and post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey test. A total of 573 patients were included. The overall mean MSTS and TESS scores were 77.1(SD±21) and 80.2(SD±20) respectively at 1-year post-surgery, demonstrating approximately a 20-point improvement from baseline for both instruments. When evaluating change scores over time by type of reconstruction, PFR patients experienced significant functional improvement during the 3-6 and 6-12 month follow-up intervals, DFR patients demonstrated significant improvements in function at each follow-up interval, and PTR patients reported a significant decrease in function from baseline to 3 months, and subsequent improvements during the 3-6 and 6-12 month intervals. On average, patients undergoing endoprosthetic reconstruction of the lower extremity experience important improvements in function from baseline within the first year. Patterns of functional recovery varied significantly based on type of reconstruction performed. The results of this study will inform both clinicians and patients about the expected rehabilitation course and functional outcomes following endoprosthetic reconstruction of the lower extremity

The December 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Early hip fracture surgery is safe for patients on direct oral anticoagulants; Time to return to work by occupational class after total hip or knee arthroplasty; Is there a consensus on air travel following hip and knee arthroplasty?; Predicting whether patients will achieve minimal clinically important differences following hip or knee arthroplasty; High-dose dual-antibiotic-loaded cement for hip hemiarthroplasty in the UK (WHiTE 8): a randomized controlled trial; Vitamin E – a positive thing in your poly?; Hydroxapatite-coated femoral stems: is there a difference in fixation?

The October 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Does the primary surgical approach matter when choosing the approach for revision total hip arthroplasty?; Time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference in primary total hip arthroplasty: comparison of anterior and posterior surgical approaches; To scope or not to scope: arthroscopy as an adjunct to PAO does not provide better clinical outcomes at one year than PAO alone; Re-exploring horizons in hip resurfacing: two-year results of a ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing; Association between tranexamic acid and decreased periprosthetic joint infection risk in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty; Octogenarians fare well: in revision for infection age is not a bar

The December 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Clavicle fractures: is the evidence changing practice?; Humeral shaft fractures, and another meta-analysis…let’s wait for the trials now!; Hemiarthroplasty or total elbow arthroplasty for distal humeral fractures…what does the registry say?; What to do with a first-time shoulder dislocation?; Deprivation indices and minimal clinically important difference for patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair; Prospective randomized clinical trial of arthroscopic repair versus debridement for partial subscapularis tears; Long-term follow-up following closed reduction and early movement for simple dislocation of the elbow; Sternoclavicular joint reconstruction for traumatic acute and chronic anterior and posterior instability

Aims. To estimate the measurement properties for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty (responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC-90), minimal important change (MIC), minimal important difference (MID), internal consistency, construct validity, and interpretability). Methods. Secondary data analysis was performed for 10,727 patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty between 2013 to 2019 using a UK national patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) dataset. Outcome data were collected before revision and at six months postoperatively, using the OKS and EuroQol five-dimension score (EQ-5D). Measurement properties were assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Results. A total of 9,219 patients had complete outcome data. Mean preoperative OKS was 16.7 points (SD 8.1), mean postoperative OKS 29.1 (SD 11.4), and mean change in OKS + 12.5 (SD 10.7). Median preoperative EQ-5D index was 0.260 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.055 to 0.691), median postoperative EQ-5D index 0.691 (IQR 0.516 to 0.796), and median change in EQ-5D index + 0.240 (IQR 0.000 to 0.567). Internal consistency was good with Cronbach’s α 0.88 (baseline) and 0.94 (post-revision). Construct validity found a high correlation of OKS total score with EQ-5D index (r = 0.76 (baseline), r = 0.83 (post-revision), p < 0.001). The OKS was responsive with standardized effect size (SES) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 1.57), compared to SES 0.83 (0.81 to 0.86) for the EQ-5D index. The MIC for the OKS was 7.5 points (95% CI 5.5 to 8.5) based on the optimal cut-off with specificity 0.72, sensitivity 0.60, and area under the curve 0.66. The MID for the OKS was 5.2 points. The MDC-90 was 3.9 points. The OKS did not demonstrate significant floor or ceiling effects. Conclusion. This study found that the OKS was a useful and valid instrument for assessment of outcome following revision knee arthroplasty. The OKS was responsive to change and demonstrated good measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):627–634

Aims. The aim of this study was to report the meaningful values of the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) in patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. This is a retrospective study of patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis in a university teaching hospital (Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh) (1 January 2013 to 31 December 2019). Pre- and postoperative (one-year) data were prospectively collected for 3,181 patients (median age 69.9 years (interquartile range (IQR) 64.2 to 76.1); females, n = 1,745 (54.9%); median BMI 30.1 kg/m. 2. (IQR 26.6 to 34.2)). The reliability of the EQ-5D-3L was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the anchor-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID), the minimal important change (MIC) (cohort and individual), the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) predictive of satisfaction, and the minimal detectable change at 90% confidence intervals (MDC-90). Results. The EQ-5D-3L demonstrated good internal consistency with an overall Cronbach alpha of 0.75 (preoperative) and 0.88 (postoperative), respectively. The MCID for the Index score was 0.085 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.042 to 0.127) and EQ-VAS was 6.41 (95% CI 3.497 to 9.323). The MIC. COHORT. was 0.289 for the EQ-5D and 5.27 for the EQ-VAS. However, the MIC. INDIVIDUAL. for both the EQ-5D-3L Index (0.105) and EQ-VAS (-1) demonstrated poor-to-acceptable reliability. The MDC-90 was 0.023 for the EQ-5D-3L Index and 1.0 for the EQ-VAS. The PASS for the postoperative EQ-5D-3L Index and EQ-VAS scores predictive of patient satisfaction were 0.708 and 77.0, respectively. Conclusion. The meaningful values of the EQ-5D-3L Index and EQ-VAS scores can be used to measure clinically relevant changes in health-related quality of life in patients undergoing primary KA. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(9):619–628

Aims. Acetabular fractures are associated with long-term morbidity. Our prospective cohort study sought to understand the recovery trajectory of this injury over five years. Methods. Eligible patients at a level I trauma centre were recruited into a longitudinal registry of surgical acetabular fractures between June 2004 and August 2019. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS), were recorded at baseline pre-injury recall and six months, one year, two years, and five years postoperatively. Comparative analyses were performed for elementary and associated fracture patterns. The proportion of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was determined. The rate of, and time to, conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) was also established. Results. We recruited 251 patients (253 fractures), with a 4:1 male to female ratio and mean age of 46.1 years (SD 16.4). Associated fracture patterns accounted for 56.5% of fractures (n = 143). Trajectory analysis showed all timepoints had significant disability versus baseline, including final follow-up (p < 0.001). Elementary fractures had higher SF-36 PCS at six months (p = 0.023) and one year (p = 0.007) compared to associated fractures, but not at two years (p = 0.135) or five years (p = 0.631). The MCID in SF-36 PCS was observed in 37.3% of patients (69/185) between six months and one year, 26.9% of patients (39/145) between one and two years, and 23.3% of patients (20/86) between two and five years, highlighting the long recovery potential of these injuries. A significant proportion of patients failed to attain the MCID after five years (38.1%; 40/105). Conversion to THA occurred in 13.1% of patients (11/110 elementary and 22/143 associated fractures). Approximately two-thirds of THAs (21/33 patients; 63.6%) were performed within two years of index surgery. Conclusion. Acetabular fractures significantly impact physical function. Recovery trajectory is often elongated beyond one year, with two-thirds of our patients displaying persistent clinically relevant long-term disability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):69–76

Aims. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate machine-learning-based computerized adaptive tests (CATs) for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and its subscales. Methods. We developed CAT algorithms for the OHS, OKS, OSS, overall OES, and each of the OES subscales, using responses to the full-length questionnaires and a machine-learning technique called regression tree learning. The algorithms were evaluated through a series of simulation studies, in which they aimed to predict respondents’ full-length questionnaire scores from only a selection of their item responses. In each case, the total number of items used by the CAT algorithm was recorded and CAT scores were compared to full-length questionnaire scores by mean, SD, score distribution plots, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation (ICC), and the Bland-Altman method. Differences between CAT scores and full-length questionnaire scores were contextualized through comparison to the instruments’ minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Results. The CAT algorithms accurately estimated 12-item questionnaire scores from between four and nine items. Scores followed a very similar distribution between CAT and full-length assessments, with the mean score difference ranging from 0.03 to 0.26 out of 48 points. Pearson’s correlation coefficient and ICC were 0.98 for each 12-item scale and 0.95 or higher for the OES subscales. In over 95% of cases, a patient’s CAT score was within five points of the full-length questionnaire score for each 12-item questionnaire. Conclusion. Oxford Hip Score, Oxford Knee Score, Oxford Shoulder Score, and Oxford Elbow Score (including separate subscale scores) CATs all markedly reduce the burden of items to be completed without sacrificing score accuracy. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):786–794

Aims. To assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compares three treatments for acetabular fractures in older patients: surgical fixation, surgical fixation and hip arthroplasty (fix-and-replace), and non-surgical treatment. Methods. Patients were recruited from seven UK NHS centres and randomized to a three-arm pilot trial if aged older than 60 years and had a displaced acetabular fracture. Feasibility outcomes included patients’ willingness to participate, clinicians’ capability to recruit, and dropout rates. The primary clinical outcome measure was the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) at six months. Secondary outcomes were Oxford Hip Score, Disability Rating Index, blood loss, and radiological and mobility assessments. Results. Between December 2017 and December 2019, 60 patients were recruited (median age 77.4 years, range 63.3 to 88.5) (39/21 M/F ratio). At final nine-month follow-up, 4/60 (7%) had withdrawn, 4/60 (7%) had died, and one had been lost to follow-up; a 98% response rate (50/51) was achieved for the EQ-5D questionnaire. Four deaths were recorded during the three-year trial period: three in the non-surgical treatment group and one in the fix-and-replace group. Conclusion. This study has shown a full-scale RCT to be feasible, but will need international recruitment. The Acetabular Fractures in older patients Intervention Trial (AceFIT) has informed the design of a multinational RCT sample size of 1,474 or 1,974 patients for a minimal clinically important difference of 0.06 on EQ-5D, with a power of 0.8 or 0.9, and loss to follow-up of 20%. This observed patient cohort comprises a medically complex group requiring multidisciplinary care; surgeon, anaesthetist, and ortho-geriatrician input is needed to optimize recovery and rehabilitation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):401–411