The lack of a consensus for core health outcomes that should be reported in clinical research has hampered study design and evidence synthesis. We report a United Kingdom consensus for a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials of patients with a hip fracture. We adopted a modified nominal group technique to derive consensus on 1) which outcome domains should be measured, and 2) methods of assessment. Participants reflected a diversity of perspectives and experience. They received an evidence synthesis and postal questionnaire in advance of the consensus meeting, and ranked the importance of candidate domains and the relevance and suitability of short-listed measures. During the meeting, pre-meeting source data and questionnaire responses were summarised, followed by facilitated discussion and a final plenary session. A COS was determined using a closed voting system: a 70% consensus was required. Consensus supported a five-domain COS: mortality, pain, activities of daily living, mobility, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Single-item measures of mortality and mobility (indoor/outdoor walking status) and a generic multi-item measure of HRQL - the EuroQoL EQ-5D - were recommended. These measures should be included as a minimum in all hip fracture trials. Other outcome measures should be added depending on the particular interventions being studied. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1016–23

Aims. It is not known whether preservation of the capsule of the hip positively affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in total hip arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach (DAA-THA). A recent randomized controlled trial found no clinically significant difference at one year postoperatively. This study aimed to determine whether preservation of the anterolateral capsule and anatomical closure improve the outcome and revision rate, when compared with resection of the anterolateral capsule, at two years postoperatively. Methods. Two consecutive groups of patients whose operations were performed by the senior author were compared. The anterolateral capsule was resected in the first group of 430 patients between January 2012 and December 2014, and preserved and anatomically closed in the second group of 450 patients between July 2015 and December 2017. There were no other technical changes between the two groups. Patient characteristics, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and surgical data were collected from our database. PROM questionnaires, consisting of the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI-Hip), were collected two years postoperatively. Data were analyzed with generalized multiple regression analysis. Results. The characteristics, CCI, operating time, and length of stay were similar in both groups. There was significantly less blood loss in the capsular preservation group (p = 0.037). The revision rate (n = 3, (0.6%) in the resected group, and 1 (0.2%) in the preserved group) did not differ significantly (p = 0.295). Once adjusted for demographic and surgical factors, the preserved group had significantly worse PROMs: + 0.24 COMI-Hip (p < 0.001) and -1.6 OHS points (p = 0.017). However, the effect sizes were much smaller than the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of 0.95 and 5, respectively). The date of surgery (influencing, for instance, the surgeon’s age) was not a significant factor. Conclusion. Based on the MCID, the lower PROMs in the capsular preservation group do not seem to have clinical relevance. They do not, however, confirm the expected benefit of capsular preservation reported for the posterolateral approach. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):826–832