Injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the most devastating and frequent injuries of the knee. Surgical reconstruction is the current standard of care for treatment of ACL injuries in active patients. The widespread adoption of ACL reconstruction over primary repair was based on early perception of the limited healing capacity of the ACL. Although the majority of ACL reconstruction surgeries successfully restore gross joint stability, post-traumatic osteoarthritis is commonplace following these injuries, even with ACL reconstruction. The development of new techniques to limit the long-term clinical sequelae associated with ACL reconstruction has been the main focus of research over the past decades. The improved knowledge of healing, along with recent advances in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, has resulted in the discovery of novel biologically augmented ACL-repair techniques that have satisfactory outcomes in preclinical studies. This instructional review provides a summary of the latest advances made in ACL repair.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:20–31.

Introduction: Referrals for Low Back Pain (LBP) are common and many patients appear to see more than one specialist. In one acute trust, a dedicated Spinal Assessment Clinic (SAC) run by nurse practitioners was developed.

Objective: To determine patterns of referral for LBP from primary to secondary care.

Method: All new referrals to the hospital for LBP in an index period June–November 1998 were included. Consultations for these patients in the preceding six months and the subsequent two years were studied.

Results: A total of 801 patients were referred in the audit period. The patients were seen in the SAC 75%, orthopaedics 5.5%, rheumatology 4.5%, neurosurgery 12% and the pain clinic 4%. Onward referrals made after the initial appointment from the SAC 4.9%, from orthopaedics 26.7%, from rheumatology 8.6%, from neurosurgery 33.7% and from the pain clinic 10.3%. Subsequent repeat referrals made by the GP occurred in 3.7%of patients initially seen in the SAC, 11.1% from orthopaedics, 2.9% from Rheumatology, 3.2% from Neurosurgery and 17.2% from the pain clinic. The average wait in days for a first appointment was SAC 42, orthopaedics 103, Rheumatology 82, Neurosurgery 78 and pain clinic 77.

Conclusion: The SAC offers a shorter wait for patients and an extremely low “churn” rate, implying high rates of satisfaction in patients and GP’s. The wait for other specialities is longer, and in orthopaedics and neurosurgery the re-referral rate is almost one third. Referral procedures to secondary care might need to be streamlined for more efficiency.

Introduction: the NHS places emphasis on outcomes and patient partnerships but measuring these factors is problematic. In 2003 the Spinal Assessment Clinic (SAC) moved from an old style hospital to a new PFI building providing an opportunity to audit the influence of environment on operational activity.

Objective: Does environment influence satisfaction with care and objective outcome in patients with LBP?

Method: Patients attending the SAC two months prior to relocation and two months following completed a Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS) and a satisfaction survey.

Results: The analysis of the satisfaction surveys demonstrated that the patients did not perceive any real difference in the two locations despite the significant age difference, layout and internal standards of the buildings.

The satisfaction of patients at both sites was analysed using a number of factors- the care provided was 79% before the move and 82% afterwards, their understanding of a nurse led service was rated as 73% and 85% respectively. Evaluation of the quality of information demonstrated that their questions had been answered well 78% and 75% respectively and the confidence and trust in the person providing the care was 91% and 89%.

Failure by the IT department in delivering effective links to hospital computer system resulted in the LBOS data not being completed in the period following the move with logistical difficulties in clinic organisation.

Conclusion: despite the difficulty of moving and problems encountered by staff from the SAC the patient did not perceive any alteration in quality.

Study background: The management of patients presenting in primary care with a “new episode of back pain” using the RCGP guidelines by a nurse practitioner (NP) compared to a control group given ‘usual care’ by the GP.

Methods and Results: The evaluation includes sequential monitoring of LBOS, audit of documentation for both groups of patients to assess application of guidelines and patient recall of key information.

Conclusion: The NHS Plan (2000) called for national standards for treating all major conditions in “Shifting the Balance of Power- the next steps” (2001) a clear criterion is that “service outcomes which provide better and better validated information” will form part of the performance rating. These two documents highlight the need for more user and client involvement in service development but this needs to be carefully monitored and linked to effective evidence.

This study demonstrates that the NP documentation follows the guidelines identified by the RCGP, conversely it was not possible to assess from the GP documentation if all the steps had been followed. The mean average LBOS in the NP patients was slightly higher than those in the GP group, was this because these patients were having guideline applied care as opposed to “usual care”?

Evaluation of the patient recall of information shows the NP sent five patients for X-ray even though this did not occur and is not recommended in guidelines. Conversely twenty-three patients can remember being given the “Back Book” by the GP but this was only documented in three cases.

We believe that patient recall demonstrates an ineffective way to measure outcome and funding allocation for back pain management and needs to more accurately reflect the evidence.