Follow-up of arthroplasty varies widely across the UK. The aim of this NIHR-funded study was to employ a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations. It has been supported by BHS, BASK, BOA, ODEP and NJR. Four interconnected work packages have recently been completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from four national data sets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery; (2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery; (3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models and (4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document to guide appropriate follow-up care after primary hip and knee arthroplasty. We will present the following Recommendations:. For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from 1 to 10 years post non-complex hip and knee replacement provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, periodic follow-up post hip and knee replacement may be required from 1 to 10 years. At 10 years post hip and knee replacement, we recommend clinical, which may be virtual, and radiographic evaluation. After 10 years post hip and knee replacement, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the 10-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Overarching statements. These recommendations apply to post primary hip and knee replacement follow-up. The 10-year time point in these recommendations is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term complex cases refer to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for replacement failure

Background and aims. The EU-funded Back-UP project aims to develop a cloud computer platform to guide the treatment of low back and neck pain (LBNP) in first contact care and early rehabilitation. In order to identify evidence-based treatment options that can be recommended and are accessible to people with LBNP across Europe, we conducted a systematic review of recently published guidelines. Methods. Electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, HMIC, Epistemonikos, PEDro, TRIP, NICE, SIGN, WHO, Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) and DynaMed Plus were searched. We searched for guidelines published by European health professional or guideline development organisations since 2013, focusing on the primary care management of adult patients presenting with back or neck pain (including whiplash associated symptoms, radicular pain, and pregnancy-related LBP). The AGREE-II tool was used to assess the quality of guideline development and reporting. Results. Searches generated 3098 unique citations that were screened for eligibility. A total of 189 full-texts were retrieved, and 18 guidelines were included in the review (from the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, and the Netherlands). Data extraction showed considerable variation in guideline development processes, especially regarding the methods used for identifying, appraising, and synthesising evidence, and for formulating, agreeing, and grading recommendations. Conclusions. Recommendations for the management of LBNP cover a wide range of treatment options, with self-management advice, analgesics, and exercise proposed as core treatments by most guidelines. A narrative synthesis, taking into account consistency, strength, and quality of guideline recommendations, will be presented. No conflicts of interest. Funding: This abstract presents independent research within the Back-UP project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 777090. This document reflects only the views of the authors, and the European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of its contents. The information in this document is provided “as is”, without warranty of any kind, and accept no liability for loss or damage suffered by any person using this information

Introduction. Analgesic drugs are often prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP). Recommendations for non-invasive pharmacological management of LBP from recent clinical practice guidelines were compared with each other and with the best available evidence on drug efficacy. Methods. Guideline recommendations concerning opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and muscle relaxants from national primary care guidelines published within the last 3 years were included in this review. For each pharmacotherapy, the most recent systematic review was included as the best available evidence on drug efficacy and common adverse effects were summarized. Results. Eight recent national clinical practice guidelines were included in this review (from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, UK and US). Guidelines are universally moving away from pharmacotherapy due to the limited efficacy and the risk of adverse effects. NSAIDs have replaced paracetamol as the first choice analgesics for LBP in many guidelines. Opioids are considered to be a last resort in all guidelines, but prescriptions of these medications have been increasing over recent years. Only limited evidence exists for the efficacy of antidepressants and anticonvulsants in chronic LBP. Muscle relaxants are one of the analgesics of first choice in the US, but aren't widely available and thus not widely recommended in most other countries. Conclusions. Upcoming guideline updates should shift their focus from pain to function and from pharmacotherapy to non-pharmacologic treatment options. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This review has been supported by a program grant of the Dutch Arthritis Foundation

Background:. Antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental and other procedures when patients have joint replacements in situ remains controversial. Recommendations seem to generally be intuitive and not based on any sound scientific evidence. Recently, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons altered their previous standpoint and suggested that orthopaedic surgeons review their current practice of routine prescription of antibiotic prophylaxis. Method:. We conducted an electronic survey of members of the South African Orthopaedic Association to determine the opinion of the average orthopaedic surgeon in South Africa in respect of this prophylaxis. 111 surgeons responded. Results:. 73% of respondents were of the opinion that patients with joint replacements in situ should take antibiotic prophylaxis prior to undergoing any dental procedure. 65% of surgeons were of the opinion that this prophylaxis should be life-long. 59% of surgeons recommended that prophylaxis start before the procedure, 24% at the same time as the procedure. 35% of surgeons recommended prophylaxis with every dental procedure, and 61% only with more invasive procedures. We also show that working in private practice and greater surgical experience increases the likelihood that surgeons will prescribe prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental procedures. Scientific evidence linking bacteraemia from dental procedures with infected prosthetic implants is limited, however 19% of surgeons reported managing an infected implant as a result of dental surgery. Conclusion:. We could find no evidence to substantiate the practice of using antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental or any other procedures in those patients with joint replacements in situ. Practice in South Africa is at odds with world-wide trends and we would recommend that these patients do not use antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental and other procedures, except possibly those that may be immune-compromised

Abstract

Introduction: Knee arthroscopy is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures. All orthopaedic surgeons have heard anecdotal stories of thermal injury and drape combustion, yet a literature search has failed to find any papers reviewing the nature of such risks. Materials and methods: A thermocouple attached to a laptop computer was used to record the temperature at the arthroscope tip, the light cable end and the light source generator. All potentially flammable materials commonly used during arthroscopic surgery (various disposable drapes, cotton drapes, gowns, paper towels and swabs), were placed at measured distances from a) the light cable end and b) the arthroscope tip. Results: The arthroscope tip reached a maximum temperature of 41.90° in 200 seconds. The light cable tip reached 80° at 100 seconds and a maximum temperature of 110°C in 342 seconds. The light source generator reached a temperature of 153°C. All materials tested (except cotton swabs) underwent signs of combustion. The disposable drapes burnt most rapidly. None of the materials considered had any evidence of thermal damage when placed at distances of 2.5 cm beyond the light cable and 0.5 cm beyond the arthroscope tip. Combustion was most rapid at a distance of 5mm from the instruments. Most surgeons consider the arthroscope tip or light cable end to be the site most likely to induce combustion. Fuel, heat and oxygen are required to produce combustion. Direct contact with the tip results in greater exposure to heat but lower oxygen availability. The fasted combustion occurred at 5mm due to higher oxygen availability despite a lower temperature. Conclusions and Recommendations:. Disposable drapes will burn with the light cable and the arthroscope tip. The arthroscope tip and light cable end should not be left to rest against the drapes because thermal burns can occur within seconds. A kidney dish should be used to contain the instruments when not in the surgeon’s hands. The light source should be switched on only when the light cable is connected to the arthroscope. A retractable shield of 2.5mm is fitted to the light cable end

Background

Specifically designed control interventions can account for expectation effects in clinical trials. For the interpretation of efficacy trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for people living with pain, the design, conduct, and reporting of control interventions is crucial.

Care of complex and open fractures may provide better results if undertaken in larger units, typically Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) or Orthoplastic units. Some ‘complex injuries’ may still be admitted to units lacking specialist services potentially delaying definitive treatment. The aim of this study was to analyse the referral pattern for acute inpatient transfer in an adult limb reconstruction unit for one calendar year.

Prospectively collected data from an electronic database for 2016 was reviewed. All records were evaluated for, diagnosis, time from injury to referral, nature of initial treatment, time to transfer, details of definitive surgery, and time to repatriation.

There were 91 formal electronic referrals, 84 of which considered appropriate for inpatient transfer. 74 were for fresh complex fractures, including 22 pilon fractures and 23 bicondylar tibial fractures. Median delay to request transfers for acute trauma was 3 days (0d-19d), delay from referral to transfer was 8.5 days (1d-31d) and delay from date of injury to definitive surgery was 13 days (1d-52d). 9 patients with Grade 3 open fractures and had primary debridement at the referring institution with a median delay to definitive orthoplastic surgery of 9 days (5d-20d). Only 17 of 61 per-articular fractures had spanning external fixation at the referring institution. Delay to repatriation was 8 days (0d–72d).

This study demonstrates organisational failures in acute orthopaedic care: open fractures not being primarily treated in orthoplastic centres or MTCs, delays in transfers due to bed-blocks, and significant delays in repatriation. It also demonstrates scope for improvement in clinical practice, and in particular, the need to reinforce the advantages of spanning external fixation of periarticular fractures.

Our data serves to highlight continuing problems in delivery of acute fracture care, despite widely publicised recent national guidelines.

Background

Work disability due to low back pain (LBP) is a global concern, resulting in significant healthcare costs and welfare payments. In recognition of this, recent UK policy calls for healthcare to become more ‘work-focused’. However, an ‘evidence-policy’ gap has been identified, resulting in uncertainty about how this is to be achieved. Clear, evidence-based recommendations relevant to both policy-makers and healthcare practitioners are required.

Introduction: The use of coumadin for prophylaxis against thromboembolism (TE) following total joint arthroplasty is the standard of care. In light of recent publication of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), we altered our anticoagulation protocol to be compliant with the recommendations. This study evaluates the incidence of TE and bleeding complications following TJA when low dose coumadin vs. regular dose coumadin was administered.

Methods: 987 consecutive patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty by a single surgeon between the years of 2004–2005 were included. 446 patients operated on during the 2004 received low dose coumadin (intended INR 1.5–1.7) whilst 541 patients undergoing TJA during 2005 were given regular dose coumadin (intended INR 2–2.5).

Results: The mean INR for patients operated during the year 2005 was significantly higher than the INR for patients receiving TJA in 2004. There were more complications in 2005. There were 13 PE, 44 wound drainage, 4 DVT, and 11 hematoma formation (requiring surgical evacuation) during the year 2005 compared to 10 PE, 26 wound drainage, 6 DVT, and 5 hematoma formation in 2004. The difference for all complications except DVT was significant.

Conclusion: This study confirms the commonly held belief that aggressive anticoagulation does carry a higher incidence of complications such as wound drainage and bleeding. It appears that administering higher dose coumadin increased the bleeding complications without conferring additional protection against thromboembolic disease.

Purpose: Lumbosacral dislocation injuries are rare. Severe trauma disrupts the mechanically stable lumbosacral junction, rendering the injuries particularly unstable. Aggressive surgical management has been recommended. We present a review of our experience with these uncommon injuries defining injury patterns, surgical strategies and outcomes.

Methodology: Six patients were treated at Auckland Hospital in the last decade. Thorough review and literature search were performed to revise recommendations for management.

Results: All injuries were associated with high-energy trauma. In two cases there was evidence of previous spondylolysis, with dramatic progression after injury. All cases were surgically treated with decompression, reduction as indicated, and fusion with instrumentation. The only instrumentation failure occurred when reduction reconstituted disc height without attention to reconstruction of the severely mechanically compromised intervertebral disc. Satisfactory recovery of nerve root injury occurred in all but one case. Major cauda equina damage did not occur. Correlations with previously described classification systems for this injury were poor, and often showed injuries to span grades.

Conclusions: These highly unstable injuries require a high index of suspicion, and aggressive surgical management of these highly unstable injuries is warranted, yielding satisfactory outcomes. Existing classification systems are of little value prognostically, or in planning treatment, and it is better to classify and treat these injuries specifically relating to the anatomical injury patterns. The severe disruption to the intervertebral disc warrants special consideration with attention to a stable reduction position or three-column reconstruction. Spondylolysis may represent a predisposing factor.

Lumbosacral dislocation injuries are rare. Severe trauma disrupts the mechanically stable lumbosacral junction, rendering the injuries particularly unstable. Aggressive surgical management has been recommended. We present a review of our experience with these uncommon injuries defining injury patterns, surgical strategies and outcomes.

Six patients were treated at Auckland Hospital in the last decade. Thorough review and literature search were performed to revise recommendations for management. All injuries were associated with high-energy trauma. In two cases there was evidence of previous spondylolysis, with dramatic progression after injury. All cases were surgically treated with decompression, reduction as indicated, and fusion with instrumentation. The only instrumentation failure occurred when reduction reconstituted disc height without attention to reconstruction of the severely mechanically compromised intervertebral disc. Satisfactory recovery of nerve root injury occurred in all but one case. Major cauda equina damage did not occur. Correlations with previously described classification systems for this injury were poor, and often showed injuries to span grades. These highly unstable injuries require a high index of suspicion, and aggressive surgical management of these highly unstable injuries is warranted, yielding satisfactory outcomes.

Existing classification systems are of little value prognostically, or in planning treatment, and it is better to classify and treat these injuries specifically relating to the anatomical injury patterns. The severe disruption to the intervertebral disc warrants special consideration with attention to a stable reduction position or three-column reconstruction. Spondylolysis may represent a predisposing factor.

PURPOSE: Lumbosacral dislocation injuries are rare. Severe trauma disrupts the mechanically stable lumbosacral junction, rendering the injuries particularly unstable. Aggressive surgical management has been recommended. We present a review of our experience with these uncommon injuries defining injury patterns, surgical strategies and outcomes.

METHODOLOGY: Six patients were treated at Auckland Hospital in the last decade. Thorough review and literature search were performed to revise recommendations for management.

RESULTS: All injuries were associated with high-energy trauma. In two cases there was evidence of previous spondylolysis, with dramatic progression after injury. All cases were surgically treated with decompression, reduction as indicated, and fusion with instrumentation. The only instrumentation failure occurred when reduction reconstituted disc height without attention to reconstruction of the severely mechanically compromised intervertebral disc. Satisfactory recovery of nerve root injury occurred in all but one case. Major cauda equina damage did not occur. Correlations with previously described classification systems for this injury were poor, and often showed injuries to span grades.

CONCLUSIONS: These highly unstable injuries require a high index of suspicion, and aggressive surgical management of these highly unstable injuries is warranted, yielding satisfactory outcomes. Existing classification systems are of little value prognostically, or in planning treatment, and it is better to classify and treat these injuries specifically relating to the anatomical injury patterns. The severe disruption to the intervertebral disc warrants special consideration with attention to a stable reduction position or three-column reconstruction. Spondylolysis may represent a predisposing factor.

Aim

The objective was to assess whether late presentation of DDH leads to an increase in treatment magnitude and cost.

Ten RCTs published between 2000 and 2013 support treating distal radius buckle fractures and other low-risk distal radius fractures with a removable splint and with no orthopaedic follow-up. Application of this evidence has been shown to be variable and suboptimal resulting in unnecessary costs to a strained healthcare system. The Canadian evidence on this topic has been generated by subspecialist physicians working in paediatric hospitals. It is unclear what factors affect the dissemination of this information. We investigated the association of hospital type and physician type with the application of best-evidence treatment for low-risk distal radius fractures in children with the goal of improving our understanding of evidence diffusion in Ontario for this common injury.

We performed a retrospective population-based cohort study using linked health care administrative data. We identified all children aged 2–14 treated in Ontario emergency departments from 2003–2015 with distal radius fractures with no reduction and no operation within a six week period. We excluded refractures and children with comorbidities. We evaluated the followup received – orthopaedic, general practitioner, or none. We examined the data for trends over time. Multivariable log binomial regression was used to quantify associations between hospital and physician type and best-evidence treatment. We adjusted for patient-related variables including age, sex, rural or urban location, and socioeconomic status.

70,801 fractures were analyzed. Best-evidence treatment was more likely to occur in a small (RR 1.86, 95%CI 1.72–2.01), paediatric (RR 1.16, 95%CI 1.07–1.26), or community (RR 1.13, 95%CI 1.06–1.20) hospital compared with treatment in a teaching hospital. Best-evidence treatment was more likely if initial management was by a paediatrician with additional emergency medicine training (RR 1.73, 95%CI 1.56–1.92) or paediatrician (RR 1.22, 95%CI 1.11–1.34). Paediatric and teaching hospitals have improved their use of best-evidence over time while other hospital types have stagnated or deteriorated. Paediatricians, paediatricians with additional emergency medicine training, and emergency medicine residency trained physicians have improved their use of best-evidence over time, while other physician types have stagnated or deteriorated. Overall, only 20% of patients received best-evidence treatment and 70% had orthopaedic follow-up.

Significant over-utilization of resources for low-risk distal radius fractures continues decades after the first randomized trials showed it to be unnecessary. Physician type and hospital rurality are most strongly associated with best-evidence treatment. Physician types involved in generating, presenting, and publishing best-evidence for this fracture type are successfully implementing it, while others have failed to change their practices. Rural hospitals are excellent resource stewards by necessity, but are deteriorating over time. Our results strongly indicate the need for targeted implementation strategies to explicitly apply clinical evidence in clinical practice Canada-wide, with the goal of providing more cost-effective care for common children's fractures.

The time at which patients should drive following total hip replacement (THR) is dependant upon recovery and the advice they are given. The Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency (DVLA) in the United Kingdom does not publish recommendations following THR and insurance companies usually rely on medical instruction. Few studies have been performed previously and have reached different conclusions.

Brake reaction times for patients undergoing primary THR were measured pre-operatively and at four, six and eight weeks after surgery using a vehicle driving simulator at a dedicated testing centre. Patients were prospectively recruited. Ethical approval was granted. Participants included eleven males and nine females, mean age 69 years. Side of surgery, frequency of driving and type of car (automatic or manual) were documented. Patients with postoperative complications were excluded. No adverse events occurred during the study.

Statistical analysis using Friedman's test demonstrated a statistically significant difference (P=0.015) in reaction times across the four time periods. Wilcoxon test demonstrated a highly significant difference between initial and six week mean results (P=0.003), and between four and six week results (P=0.001). No significant difference was found between six and eight weeks.

Our data suggests reaction times improve until week six and significantly between week four to six. Patients making an uncomplicated recovery following primary THR may be considered safe to return to driving from week six onwards. We recommend this is clearly documented in the medical notes, and patients should check with their insurance company prior to recommencement.

The time at which patients should drive following total hip replacement (THR) is dependant upon recovery and the advice they are given. The Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency (DVLA) do not publish recommendations following THR and insurance companies usually rely on medical instruction.

Brake reaction times for patients undergoing THR were measured before and four, six and eight weeks after surgery using a vehicle-driving simulator. Patients were prospectively recruited. Ethical approval was granted.

Participants included eleven males and nine females, mean age 69 years. Side of surgery, frequency of driving and type of car (automatic or manual) were documented. Patients with postoperative complications were excluded. No adverse events occurred during the study.

Statistical analysis using Friedman’s test demonstrated a statistically significant difference (P=0.015) in reaction times across the four time periods. Wilcoxon test demonstrated a highly significant difference between initial and six week mean results (P=0.003), and between four and six week results (P=0.001). No significant difference was found between six and eight weeks.

Our data suggests reaction times improve until week six and significantly between week four to six. Patients making an uncomplicated recovery should be considered safe to drive by week six.

Purpose: Only 30% or less of patients who see an orthopaedic surgeon are surgical candidates. Thus, orthopaedic surgeons’ role in the management of musculoskeletal conditions is wider than surgery and, accordingly, their treatment recommendations include much more than surgery as well. This paper examines the delivery of recommendations not for surgery (NFS) in routine orthopaedic surgery consultations.

Method: Audio-recordings of routine consultations between 121 patients and 14 surgeons from two tertiary care hospitals in a large Canadian city were collected and analyzed using Conversation Analysis, a rigorous, empirical approach to the study of interaction which seeks to reveal sequential structures and patterns in naturally occurring talk, and to explain why these patterns are important.

Results: In contrast to recommendations for surgery, which tend to be delivered fairly quickly and straightforwardly, the delivery of NFS recommendations tends to be elaborate and complex. Orthopaedic surgeons recurrently utilize a cluster of interactional devices in the lead-up to NFS recommendations, including:

projecting turns – turns which indicate that the surgeon will produce an extended turn;

Additionally, even though surgery is not being recommended, NFS recommendations are positioned in relation to surgery. Surgeons use this cluster of devices to manage a range of competing demands, for example, showing that they are taking the patient’s problem seriously, being attentive to the patient’s treatment expectations, explaining the rationale for the recommendation, and positioning the recommendation not for surgery in relation to surgery – e.g., explaining why surgery is not being recommended now, and/or the conditions under which surgery would be offered in the future. Through this cluster of devices, surgeons forecast the nature of the recommendation to come, lay bare the evidential basis for the recommendation and work to obtain patients’ subsequent acceptance of the recommendation. The cluster, as a whole, constitutes a persuasive argument for the upcoming recommendation.

Conclusion: Delivering not for surgery recommendations is a complex task, one which surgeons handle skillfully using several interactional devices. Surgeons treat these recommendations as requiring a persuasive case. An appreciation for the complexities and constraints of delivering NFS recommendations can be used to inform clinical practice and the teaching of communication skills.

Introduction: Bilateral and transverse fractures of the first two sacral vertebrae with intrapelvic intrusion of the lumbo-sacral spine are very rare injuries. In most cases the lesion occurs after a fall from great height in a kyphotic position when landing. Today’s CT-scans in these mostly polytraumatized patients enable a clear diagnosis. In contrast conventional radiographs have a high risk to ignore these fractures. Operative treatment requires proper reduction and secure fixation which so far is not unrestricted possible using recommended techniques. For reduction lumbo-sacral distraction followed by lordotic extension is essential but difficult to obtain. Therefore we modified the lumbo-pelvic instrumentation to facilitate these requirements.

Methods: In the last four years we treated three female patients (aged 27–68 years) as follows: Variable axis screws (VAS – Synthes®) were inserted in the L4 and L5 pedicles and connected with two connecting rods. An additional variable axis screw was inserted in each posterior iliac spine. These both screws were connected with a transverse connecting rod situated over the transverse fracture line. This rod was connected with the two upright rods using a rod-to-rod connector and forming a hinged joint. Due to the not tightened nut of the pedicle screws at that time it was possible to spread the lumbo-sacral fracture line. After tightening of the lumbar screws the upper part of the body was slightly elevated resulting in a lordotic extension in the hinged joint. Subsequently the hinged joint was locked (Video).

Results: Postoperative CT scans revealed anatomic reduction and properly inserted implants in all cases. Follow-up was uneventful but a heparin related thrombopenia in one patient. Two patients were mobilized under full weight bearing within 4 and 10 days, respectively. In one cases this was not possible because of relevant foot fractures. Neurological deficits completely resolved in one patient within fourteen days and markedly diminished in another patient within months (persistent neuralgia). In one patient no neurological deficit existed. In all cases a complete hardware removal was done in 8 to 11 months.

Conclusions: The presented procedure is suitable for the so-called jumper’s fractures and results in anatomic reduction of the displaced fractures and a secure stabilization. The described hinged joint offers effective lordotic extension which is the key point for reduction. Thus this configuration is a reduction as well a fixation device. Full weight bearing in an erect posture is immediately possible and clearly shorten the rehabilitation period.