Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become the most common type of shoulder arthroplasty used in the UK, and a better understanding of the outcomes after revision of a failed RSA is needed. The aim of this study was to review the current evidence systematically to determine patient-reported outcome measures and the rates of re-revision and complications for patients undergoing revision of a RSA. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Studies involving adult patients who underwent revision of a primary RSA for any indication were included. Those who underwent a RSA for failure of a total shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Pre- and postoperative shoulder scores were evaluated in a random effects meta-analysis to determine the mean difference. The rates of re-revision and complications were also calculated.Aims
Methods
Metal and ceramic humeral head bearing surfaces are available choices in anatomical shoulder arthroplasties. Wear studies have shown superior performance of ceramic heads, however comparison of clinical outcomes according to bearing surface in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) is limited. This study aimed to compare the rates of revision and reoperation following metal and ceramic humeral head TSA and HA using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR), which collects data from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey. NJR shoulder arthroplasty records were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and the National Mortality Register. TSA and HA performed for osteoarthritis (OA) in patients with an intact rotator cuff were included. Metal and ceramic humeral head prostheses were matched within separate TSA and HA groups using propensity scores based on 12 and 11 characteristics, respectively. The primary outcome was time to first revision and the secondary outcome was non-revision reoperation.Aims
Methods
The aims of this study were to estimate the cost of surgical
treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus using a micro-costing
methodology, contrast this cost with the national reimbursement
tariff and establish the major determinants of cost. A detailed inpatient treatment pathway was constructed using
semi-structured interviews with 32 members of hospital staff. Its
content validity was established through a Delphi panel evaluation.
Costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC)
and sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the determinants
of costAims
Methods
We evaluated the quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis
in orthopaedic surgery by examining how they adhere to validated
methodological standards in their development. A structured review
was performed for guidelines that were published between January
2005 and April 2013 in medical journals or on the Internet. A pre-defined
computerised search was used in MEDLINE, Scopus and Google to identify
the guidelines. The AGREE II assessment tool was used to evaluate
the quality of the guidelines in the study. Seven international and national guidelines were identified.
The overall methodological quality of the individual guidelines
was good. ‘Scope and Purpose’ (median score 98% interquartile range
(IQR)) 86% to 98%) and ‘Clarity of Presentation’ (median score 90%,
IQR 90% to 95%) were the two domains that received the highest scores. ‘Applicability’
(median score 68%, IQR 45% to 75%) and ‘Editorial Independence’
(median score 71%, IQR 68% to 75%) had the lowest scores. These findings reveal that although the overall methodological
quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery
is good, domains within their development, such as ‘Applicability’
and ‘Editorial Independence’, need to be improved. Application of
the AGREE II instrument by the authors of guidelines may improve
the quality of future guidelines and provide increased focus on
aspects of methodology used in their development that are not robust. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:19–23.
