Background. Both-bone diaphyseal forearm fractures constitute up to 5.4% of all fractures in children under 16 years of age in the United Kingdom. Most can be managed with closed reduction and cast immobilisation. Surgical fixation options include flexible intramedullary nailing and plating. However, the optimal method is controversial. Objectives. The main purpose of this study was to systematically search for and critically appraise articles comparing functional outcomes, radiographic outcomes and complications of nailing and plating for both-bone diaphyseal forearm fractures in children. Methods. A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane library databases using specific search terms and limits was undertaken. The critical appraisal checklist (adapted from Critical Appraisal Skills Programme-CASP, Oxford; Guyatt et al) for an article on treatment was used to aid assessment. Results. All 7 studies identified were retrospective, comparative and non-randomized. They all included patients with similar baseline characteristics. There were no statistically significant differences in group outcomes for range of forearm movement, time to fracture union and complication rates. Less operative time and better cosmesis was noted in the IM nailing groups. Some studies showed post-operative radial bow was significantly abnormal in the IM nailing groups, but did not affect forearm movement. Conclusion. Based on similar functional and radiographic outcomes, nailing seems to be a safe and effective option when compared to plating for forearm fractures in children. However, critical appraisal of the studies in this review identified some methodological deficiencies and further prospective, randomized trials are recommended

Chronic postoperative pain (CPP) can occur in elective mid/hindfoot and ankle surgery patients. Multimodal pain management has been reported to reduce postoperative pain and opioid use, which may prevent the development of CPP. However, few studies have examined the impact of multimodal pain management strategies on CPP following complex elective mid/hindfoot and ankle surgery. The purpose of this study was to 1) evaluate current pain management strategies and 2) determine current definitions, incidence, and prevalence of CPP after elective mid/hindfoot and ankle surgery. Three databases (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library) were manually and electronically searched for English language studies published between 1990 and July 2017. For the first aim, we included comparative studies of adults undergoing elective mid/hindfoot and ankle surgery that investigated pre-, peri- or postoperative pain management. For the second aim, we included observational studies examining CPP definition, incidence, and prevalence. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, followed by full texts. Conflicts were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Reviewers also independently assessed the quality of studies meeting inclusion criteria using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. For the first aim, 1159 studies were identified by the primary search, and seven high quality randomized controlled trials were included. Ankle arthroplasty or fusion and calcaneal osteotomy were the most common procedures performed. The heterogeneity of study interventions, though all regional anesthesia techniques, precluded meta-analysis. Most investigated continuous popliteal, sciatic and/or femoral nerve blockade. Participants were typically followed up to 48 hours postoperatively to examine postoperative pain levels and morphine consumption in hospital. Interventions effective at reducing postoperative pain and/or morphine consumption included inserting popliteal catheters using ultrasound instead of nerve stimulation guidance, perineural dexamethasone, and adding continuous femoral blockade to continuous popliteal blockade. Using more than one analgesic was generally more effective than using a single agent. Only two studies examined longer term pain management. One found no difference in pain levels and opioid consumption at two weeks with perineural or systemic dexamethasone use. The other found that pain with activity was significantly reduced at six months postoperatively with the addition of a femoral catheter infusion to a popliteal catheter infusion. For the second aim, only two studies of the 747 identified were selected. One prospective observational study defined CPP as moderate-to-severe pain at one year after foot and ankle surgery, and reported 21% and 43% of patients as meeting their definition at rest and with activity, respectively. The other study was a systematic review that reported 23–60% of patients experienced residual pain after total ankle arthroplasty. There is no standardized definition of CPP in this population, and incidence and prevalence are rarely reported and vary largely based on definition. Although regional anesthesia may be effective at reducing in-hospital pain and opioid consumption, evidence is very limited regarding longer-term pain management and associated outcomes following elective mid/hindfoot and ankle surgery

Introduction. Indications for the use of external fixation include damage control orthopaedics, definitive fracture treatment, deformity correction and leg lengthening. Despite many advances in the development of external fixation techniques, pin-tract infection and loosening are still significant complications. They are the most commonly occurring complications during limb lengthening using external fixation, with some studies reporting an incidence of up to 80%. Objectives. The main aim of this systematic review was to investigate HA-coated versus uncoated external fixator pins used in patients undergoing leg lengthening and determine benefits in terms of pin loosening, infection and loss of reduction/malunion. Methods. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane library databases was undertaken. Comparative trials investigating HA-coated versus uncoated external fixation pins used in patients undergoing leg lengthening procedures were identified. These were critically appraised as per the CASP (Guyatt et al) and CONSORT guidelines (Schulz et al., 2010). Primary outcome measures included pin loosening and infection. Secondary outcome measures included loss of reduction/malunion. Results. All studies identified had different criteria for defining pin loosening and infection. However, they all demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in loosening with HA-coated pins. Review of the studies included demonstrated insufficient evidence to determine any significant clinical benefit with regards to infection and malunion. Critical appraisal demonstrated average methodological quality of the studies. Conclusion. HA-coating of external fixator pins improves bone fixation and reduces loosening in patients undergoing leg lengthening procedures, but the influence on infection and malunion is not clear

As there is currently no evidenced-based and systematic way of prioritising people requiring JRS we aimed to develop a clinically relevant system to improve prioritisation of people who may require JRS. An important challenge in this area is to accurately assign a queue position and improve list management. To identify priority criteria areas eight workshops were held with surgeons and patients. Domains derived were pain, activity limitations, psychosocial wellbeing, economic impact and deterioration. Draft questions were developed and refined through structured interviews with patients and consultation with consultants. 38 items survived critical appraisal and were mailed to 600 patients. Eleven items survived clinimetric and statistical item reduction. Validation then included co-administration with standardised questionnaires (960 patients), verification of patient MAPT scores through clinical interview, examination of concordance with surgeon global ratings and test-retest. Ninety-six Victorian surgeons weighted items using Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs). The DCE scaling generated a scale, which clearly ranked patients across the disease continuum. The MAPT differentiated people on or not on waiting lists (p<0.001), and was highly correlated with other questionnaires, e.g., unweighted-MAPT vs WOMAC (r=0.78), Oxford Hip/Knee (r=0.86/0.75), Quality of Life (r=0.78), Depression (r=0.64), Anxiety (r=0.60), p<0.001 for all. Test-retest was excellent (ICC=0.89, n=90). Cronbachs reliability was also high 0.85. The MAPT is now routinely administered across all Victorian hospitals undertaking arthroplasty where the response rate is generally above 90%. In the hands of clinicians the MAPT has been used to facilitate fast-tracking of patients with the greatest need, monitoring for deterioration in those waiting for surgery or having a trial of non-operative treatment and deferment of surgery for those that may benefit from further non-operative treatments. The MAPT is short, easy to complete and clinically relevant. It is a specific measure of severity of hip/knee arthritis and assigns priority for surgery. It has excellent psychometric and clinimetric properties evidenced by concordance with standard disease-specific and generic scales and widespread use and endorsement across health services

Aims

Bone demonstrates good healing capacity, with a variety of strategies being utilized to enhance this healing. One potential strategy that has been suggested is the use of stem cells to accelerate healing.

The poor reporting and use of statistical methods in orthopaedic papers has been widely discussed by both clinicians and statisticians. A detailed review of research published in general orthopaedic journals was undertaken to assess the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting. A representative sample of 100 papers was assessed for compliance to CONSORT and STROBE guidelines and the quality of the statistical reporting was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Overall compliance with CONSORT and STROBE guidelines in our study was 59% and 58% respectively, with very few papers fulfilling all criteria. In 37% of papers patient numbers were inadequately reported; 20% of papers introduced new statistical methods in the ‘results’ section not previously reported in the ‘methods’ section, and 23% of papers reported no measurement of error with the main outcome measure. Taken together, these issues indicate a general lack of statistical rigour and are consistent with similar reviews undertaken in a number of other scientific and clinical research disciplines. It is imperative that the orthopaedic research community strives to improve the quality of reporting; a failure to do so could seriously limit the development of future research.