Aims. As an alternative to external fixators, intramedullary lengthening nails (ILNs) can be employed for distraction osteogenesis. While previous studies have demonstrated that typical complications of external devices, such as soft-tissue tethering, and pin site infection can be avoided with ILNs, there is a lack of studies that exclusively investigated tibial distraction osteogenesis with motorized ILNs inserted via an antegrade approach. Methods. A total of 58 patients (median age 17 years (interquartile range (IQR) 15 to 21)) treated by unilateral tibial distraction osteogenesis for a median leg length discrepancy of 41 mm (IQR 34 to 53), and nine patients with disproportionate short stature treated by bilateral simultaneous tibial distraction osteogenesis, with magnetically controlled motorized ILNs inserted via an antegrade approach, were retrospectively analyzed. The median follow-up was 37 months (IQR 30 to 51). Outcome measurements were accuracy, precision, reliability, bone healing, complications, and patient-reported outcome assessed by the Limb Deformity-Scoliosis Research Society Score (LD-SRS-30). Results. A median tibial distraction of 44 mm (IQR 31 to 49) was achieved with a mean distraction index of 0.5 mm/day (standard deviation 0.13) and median consolidation index of 41.2 days/cm (IQR 34 to 51). Accuracy, precision, and reliability were 91%, 92%, and 97%, respectively. New temporary range of motion limitations occurred in 51% of segments (34/67). Distraction-related equinus deformity treated by Achilles tendon lengthening was the most common major complication recorded in 16% of segments (11/67). In 95% of patients (55/58) the distraction goal was achieved with 42% unplanned additional interventions per segment (28/67). The median postoperative LD-SRS-30 score was 4.0 (IQR 3.6 to 4.3). Conclusion. Tibial distraction osteogenesis using motorized ILNs inserted via an antegrade approach appears to be a reliable and precise procedure. Temporary joint stiffness of the knee or ankle should be expected in up to every second patient. A high rate and wide range of complications of variable severity should be anticipated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3):293–302

Aims

Distraction osteogenesis with intramedullary lengthening devices has undergone rapid development in the past decade with implant enhancement. In this first single-centre matched-pair analysis we focus on the comparison of treatment with the PRECICE and STRYDE intramedullary lengthening devices and aim to clarify any clinical and radiological differences.

Surgeons need to be able to measure angles and distances in three dimensions in the planning and assessment of knee replacement. Computed tomography (CT) offers the accuracy needed but involves greater radiation exposure to patients than traditional long-leg standing radiographs, which give very little information outside the plane of the image. There is considerable variation in CT radiation doses between research centres, scanning protocols and individual scanners, and ethics committees are rightly demanding more consistency in this area. By refining the CT scanning protocol we have reduced the effective radiation dose received by the patient down to the equivalent of one long-leg standing radiograph. Because of this, it will be more acceptable to obtain the three-dimensional data set produced by CT scanning. Surgeons will be able to document the impact of implant position on outcome with greater precision

Plots are an elegant and effective way to represent data. At their best they encourage the reader and promote comprehension. A graphical representation can give a far more intuitive feel to the pattern of results in the study than a list of numerical data, or the result of a statistical calculation.

The temptation to exaggerate differences or relationships between variables by using broken axes, overlaid axes, or inconsistent scaling between plots should be avoided.

A plot should be self-explanatory and not complicated. It should make good use of the available space. The axes should be scaled appropriately and labelled with an appropriate dimension.

Plots are recognised statistical methods of presenting data and usually require specialised statistical software to create them. The statistical analysis and methods to generate the plots are as important as the methodology of the study itself. The software, including dates and version numbers, as well as statistical tests should be appropriately referenced.

Following some of the guidance provided in this article will enhance a manuscript.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1593–1603.

The use of robots in orthopaedic surgery is an emerging field that is gaining momentum. It has the potential for significant improvements in surgical planning, accuracy of component implantation and patient safety. Advocates of robot-assisted systems describe better patient outcomes through improved pre-operative planning and enhanced execution of surgery. However, costs, limited availability, a lack of evidence regarding the efficiency and safety of such systems and an absence of long-term high-impact studies have restricted the widespread implementation of these systems. We have reviewed the literature on the efficacy, safety and current understanding of the use of robotics in orthopaedics.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:292–9.

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.

Magnification of anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis is variable. To improve the accuracy of templating, reliable and radiographer-friendly methods of scaling are necessary. We assessed two methods of scaling digital radiographs of the pelvis: placing a coin of known diameter in the plane of interest between the patient’s thighs, and using a caliper to measure the bony width of the pelvis. A total of 39 patients who had recently undergone hemiarthroplasty of the hip or total hip replacement were enrolled in the study. The accuracy of the methods was assessed by comparing the actual diameter of the head of the prosthesis with the measured on-screen value. The coin method was within a mean of 1.12% (0% to 2.38%) of the actual measurement, the caliper group within 6.99% (0% to 16.67%). The coin method was significantly more accurate (p < 0.001). It was also reliable and radiographer friendly. We recommend it as the method of choice for scaling radiographs of the pelvis before hip surgery.