Aims. To identify factors influencing clinicians’ decisions to undertake a nonoperative hip fracture management approach among older people, and to determine whether there is global heterogeneity regarding these factors between clinicians from high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Methods. A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was electronically distributed to clinicians around the world through the Fragility Fracture Network (FFN)’s Perioperative Special Interest Group and clinicians’ personal networks between 24 May and 25 July 2021. Analyses were performed using Excel and STATA v16.0. Between-group differences were determined using independent-samples t-tests and chi-squared tests. Results. A total of 406 respondents from 51 countries answered the questionnaire, of whom 225 came from HIC and 180 from LMIC. Clinicians from HIC reported a greater median and mean estimated proportion of admitted patients with hip fracture undergoing surgery (median 96% (interquartile range (IQR) 95% to 99%); mean 94% (SD 8%)) than those from LMIC (median 85% (IQR 75% to 95%); mean 81% (SD 16%); p < 0.001). Global heterogeneity seems to exist regarding factors such as anticipated life expectancy, insufficient resources, ability to pay, treatment costs, and perception of risk in hip fracture management decision-making. Conclusion. This study represents the first international sampling of clinician perspectives regarding nonoperative hip fracture management. Several factors seemed to influence the clinician decision-making process. Further research is needed to inform the development of best practice guidelines to improve decision-making and the quality of hip fracture care among older people. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):766–775

Aims

Osteoarthritis (OA) affecting the thumb carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) is a common painful condition. In this study, we aimed to explore clinicians’ approach to management with a particular focus on the role of specific interventions that will inform the design of future clinical trials.

Current advice regarding implant choice is based on estimates of cost-benefit derived from implant survival to an endpoint of revision. Current estimates do not account for many implant failures which are treated with non-revision surgery and may not be accurate. The aim of this study was to estimate survival of major stem implant design groups to an endpoint of reoperation. Primary total hip replacement and linked revision form the National Joint Registry (NJR) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data linked by unique identifier were used. Survival of femoral implant groups (cemented stainless steel polished taper [PTSS], cemented cobalt chrome polished taper [PTCC], cemented composite beam [CB], collarless cementless [NCOL] and collared cementless [COL]) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. 809,832 patients with valid NJR and HES data from England, were included. Cumulative failure at ten years for PTSS increased overall from 2.9% (95%CI 2.8–2.9) to 3.6% (95%CI 3.6–3.7) after inclusion of reoperations. Cumulative failure at ten years for PTSS increased from 2.5% (95%CI 2.5–2.6) to 3.3% (95%CI 3.2–3.4), for PTCC increased from 3.8% (95%CI 3.5–4.0) to 5.4% (95%CI 5.1–5.6), for CB increased from 3.1% (95%CI 2.9–3.3) to 4.1% (95%CI 3.8–4.3), for NCOL increased from 3.4% (95%CI 3.3–3.5) to 3.9% (95%CI 3.8–4.0), and for COL increased from 2.5% (95%CI 2.4–2.6) to 3.1% (95%CI 2.9–3.2), after inclusion of reoperations. Re-operation for internal fixation is as significant life event for the patient as revision. When a more inclusive metric is used, the patient and clinician's perspective on what constitutes a GIRFT implant may not be the same. Further work is required to update implant selection guidance in view of the change in implant performance

A statement of the purposes of the study and background:. Merely publishing clinical guidelines is insufficient to ensure their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to clarify the decision-making processes that result in the delivery of particular treatments to patients with low back pain (LBP) in primary care and to examine clinicians' perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines for managing LBP in primary care. A summary of the methods used and the results:. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 53 purposively-sampled clinicians from south-west England. Participants were: 16 General Practitioners (GPs), 10 chiropractors, 8 acupuncturists, 8 physiotherapists, 7 osteopaths, and 4 nurses. Thematic analysis showed that official guidelines comprised just one of many inputs to clinical decision-making. Clinicians drew on personal experience and inter-professional networks and were constrained by organisational factors when deciding which treatment to prescribe, refer for, or deliver to an individual patient with LBP. Some found the guideline terminology - “non-specific LBP” - unfamiliar and of limited relevance to practice. They were frustrated by disparities between recommendations in the guidelines and the real-world situation of short consultation times, difficult-to-access specialist services and sparse commissioning of guideline-recommended treatments. A conclusion:. The NICE guidelines for managing LBP in primary care are one, relatively peripheral, influence on clinical decision-making among GPs, chiropractors, acupuncturists, physiotherapists, osteopaths, and nurses. When revised, these guidelines could be made more clinically relevant by: ensuring guideline terminology reflects clinical practice terminology; dispelling the image of guidelines as rigid and prohibiting patient-centred care; providing opportunities for clinicians to engage in experiential learning about guideline-recommended therapies; and commissioning guideline-recommended treatments for NHS patients

Our prospective observational study of patients treated for Thoracolumbar Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) by anterior instrumentation aimed at investigating the correlation between the radiographic outcome and the recently-developed scoliosis research society self-reported outcomes instrument (SRS-22) which has been validated as a tool for self-assessment in scoliosis patients. Previous patient based questionnaires demonstrated poor correlation with the radiological parameters. Materials and Methods. Pre-operative, post-operative and two years follow-up radiographs of 30 patients were assessed. Thirteen radiographic parameters including Cobb angles and balance were recorded. The percentage improvements for each were noted. The SRS-22 questionnaire was completed by all patients at final follow-up. Correlation was sought between each radiographic parameter, total SRS score and each of the five domains by quantifying Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (r). Results. Percentage improvement in primary Cobb angle (r = 0.052), secondary Cobb angle (r = 0.165), apical vertebra translation of the primary curve (r = -0.353), thoracic kyphosis (r = 0.043) and lumbar lordosis (r = 0.147) showed little or no correlation with the SRS-22 total score and its five individual domains. Significant inverse correlation was found between the upper instrumented vertebra angle and at follow-up and SRS-22 (r = -0.516). The same was true for Sagittal plumb line shift at final follow up (r = -0.447). Conclusion. SRS-22 is a validated tool for the self-assessment of health status in spinal deformity patients; however, it does not seem to correlate with most of the radiographic parameters commonly used by clinicians to assess patient outcome with the exception of upper instrumented vertebra angle and sagittal plumb line which do correlate significantly with the SRS-22 outcomes instrument. A comprehensive system of assessing the success of surgery both from the patient and clinicians perspective is required in the spinal deformity patient

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(6):372–374.

Aims

The present study aimed to investigate whether patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergoing joint arthroplasty have a higher incidence of adverse outcomes than those without IBD.

Aims

Patients undergoing limb reconstruction surgery often face a challenging and lengthy process to complete their treatment journey. The majority of existing outcome measures do not adequately capture the patient-reported outcomes relevant to this patient group in a single measure. Following a previous systematic review, the Stanmore Limb Reconstruction Score (SLRS) was designed with the intent to address this need for an effective instrument to measure patient-reported outcomes in limb reconstruction patients. We aim to assess the face validity of this score in a pilot study.

Aims

To investigate the experience and emotional impact of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) on orthopaedic surgeons and identify holistic strategies to improve the management of PJI and protect surgeons’ wellbeing.

The routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in evaluating the outcome after arthroplasty by healthcare organisations reflects a growing recognition of the importance of patients’ perspectives in improving treatment. Although widely embraced in the NHS, there are concerns that PROMs are being used beyond their means due to a poor understanding of their limitations.

This paper reviews some of the current challenges in using PROMs to evaluate total knee arthroplasty. It highlights alternative methods that have been used to improve the assessment of outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:3–9.

The responsiveness of the Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) was compared with foot/ankle-specific and generic outcome measures used to assess all surgery of the foot and ankle. We recruited 671 consecutive adult patients awaiting foot or ankle surgery, of whom 427 (63.6%) were female, with a mean age of 52.8 years (18 to 89). They independently completed the MOXFQ, Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and EuroQol (EQ-5D) questionnaires pre-operatively and at a mean of nine months (3.8 to 14.4) post-operatively. Foot/ankle surgeons assessed American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores corresponding to four foot/ankle regions. A transition item measured perceived changes in foot/ankle problems post-surgery. Of 628 eligible patients proceeding to surgery, 491 (78%) completed questionnaires and 262 (42%) received clinical assessments both pre- and post-operatively. The regions receiving surgery were: multiple/whole foot in eight (1.3%), ankle/hindfoot in 292 (46.5%), mid-foot in 21 (3.3%), hallux in 196 (31.2%), and lesser toes in 111 (17.7%). Foot/ankle-specific MOXFQ, AOFAS and EQ-5D domains produced larger effect sizes (> 0.8) than any SF-36 domains, suggesting superior responsiveness. In analyses that anchored change in scores and effect sizes to patients’ responses to a transition item about their foot/ankle problems, the MOXFQ performed well. The SF-36 and EQ-5D performed poorly. Similar analyses, conducted within foot-region based sub-groups of patients, found that the responsiveness of the MOXFQ was good compared with the AOFAS.

This evidence supports the MOXFQ’s suitability for assessing all foot and ankle surgery.

We developed a questionnaire to assess patient-reported outcome after surgery of the elbow from interviews with patients. Initially, 17 possible items with five response options were included. A prospective study of 104 patients (107 elbow operations) was carried out to analyse the underlying factor structure, dimensionality, internal and test-retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the questionnaire items. This was compared with the Mayo Elbow performance score clinical scale, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, and the Short-Form (SF-36) General Health Survey. In total, five questions were considered inappropriate, which resulted in the final 12-item questionnaire, which has been referred to as the Oxford elbow score. This comprises three unidimensional domains, ‘elbow function’, ‘pain’ and ‘social-psychological’; with each domain comprising four items with good measurement properties.

This new 12-item Oxford elbow score is a valid measure of the outcome of surgery of the elbow.