There is ongoing debate regarding the optimal surgical treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) compared to hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the management of these fractures.

A cost–utility analysis using decision tree and Markov modelling based on data from the published literature was conducted. A single-payer perspective with a lifetime time horizon was adopted. A willingness to pay threshold of CAD $50,000 was used. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the study's primary outcome measure.

In comparison to HA, the incremental cost per QALY gained for RTSA was $13,679. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed the model to be sensitive to the RTSA implant cost and the RTSA procedural costs. Two-way sensitivity analysis suggested RTSA could also be cost-effective within the first two years of surgery with an early complication rate as high as 25% (if RTSA implant cost was approximately $3,000); or conversely, RTSA implant cost could be as high as $8,500 if its early complication rates were 5%. The ICER of $13,679 is well below the WTP threshold of $50,000 and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 92.6% of model simulations favoured RTSA.

Our economic analysis found that RTSA for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures in the elderly is the preferred economic strategy when compared to HA. The ICER of RTSA is well-below standard willingness to pay thresholds, and its estimate of cost-effectiveness is similar to other highly successful orthopaedic strategies such as total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of hip arthritis.

Level of evidence (LOE) determination is a reliable tool to assess the strength of research based on study design. Improvements in LOE are necessary for the advancement of evidence-based clinical care. The objectives of this study were to determine if the LOE presented at the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) annual meeting has improved over time and to determine how the LOE presented at MSTS annual meetings compares to that of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) annual meetings.

We reviewed abstracts from the MSTS and OTA annual meeting podium presentations from 2005 to 2014. Three independent reviewers evaluated a total of 1222 abstracts for study type and LOE. Changes in the distributions of study type and LOE over time were evaluated by Pearson Chi-Squared test.

There were a total of 577 podium abstracts from the MSTS and 645 from the OTA. Of the MSTS therapeutic studies, 0.5% (2/376) were level I, while 75% (281/376) were level IV. There was a seven-fold higher proportion of level I studies (3.4% [14/409]) and less than half as many level IV studies (32% [130/409]) presented at OTA. There was no improvement in the MSTS LOE for all study types (p=0.13) and therapeutic study types (p=0.36) over the study decade. In contrast, the OTA LOE increased significantly over this time period for all study types (p<0.01). The proportion of controlled therapeutic studies (LOE I through III) versus uncontrolled studies (LOE IV) increased significantly over time at the OTA (p<0.021), but not at the MSTS (p=0.10).

Uncontrolled case series continue to dominate the MSTS scientific program, whereas over the past decade, higher-level studies and more modern study methodology has been employed by members of the OTA.

Electrical stimulators are commonly used to accelerate fracture healing, resolve nonunions or delayed unions, and to promote spinal fusion. The efficacy of electrical stimulator treatment, however, remains uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised sham-controlled trials to establish the effectiveness of electrical stimulation for bone healing.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central to identify all randomised sham-controlled trials evaluating electrical stimulators in patients with acute fractures, non-union, delayed union, osteotomy healing or spinal fusion, published up to February 2015. Our outcomes were radiographic nonunion, patient-reported pain and self-reported function. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias, performed data extraction, and rated overall confidence in the effect estimates according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Fifteen randomised trials met our inclusion criteria. Electrical stimulation reduced the relative risk of radiographic nonunion or persistent nonunion by 35% (95%CI 19% to 47%; 15 trials; 1247 patients; number needed to treat = 7; p < 0.01; moderate certainty). Electrical stimulation also showed a significant reduction in patient-reported pain (Mean Difference (MD) on the 100-millimeter visual analogue scale = −7.67; 95% CI −13.92 to −1.43; 4 trials; 195 patients; p = 0.02; moderate certainty). Limited functional outcome data showed no difference with electrical stimulation (MD −0.88; 95% CI −6.63 to 4.87; 2 trials; 316 patients; p = 0.76; low certainty).

Patients treated with electrical stimulation as an adjunct for bone healing have a reduced risk of radiographic nonunion or persistent nonunion and less pain; functional outcome data are limited and requires increased focus in future trials.