Weightbearing instructions after musculoskeletal injury or orthopaedic surgery are a key aspect of the rehabilitation pathway and prescription. The terminology used to describe the weightbearing status of the patient is variable; many different terms are used, and there is recognition and evidence that the lack of standardized terminology contributes to confusion in practice. A consensus exercise was conducted involving all the major stakeholders in the patient journey for those with musculoskeletal injury. The consensus exercise primary aim was to seek agreement on a standardized set of terminology for weightbearing instructions.Aims
Methods
Tuberculosis (TB) infection of bones and joints accounts for
6.7% of TB cases in England, and is associated with significant
morbidity and disability. Public Health England reports that patients
with TB experience delays in diagnosis and treatment. Our aims were
to determine the demographics, presentation and investigation of
patients with a TB infection of bones and joints, to help doctors
assessing potential cases and to identify avoidable delays. This was a retrospective observational study of all adults with
positive TB cultures on specimens taken at a tertiary orthopaedic
centre between June 2012 and May 2014. A laboratory information
system search identified the patients. The demographics, clinical presentation,
radiology, histopathology and key clinical dates were obtained from
medical records.Aims
Patients and Methods
We compared the use of broth culture medium for
samples taken in theatre with the standard practice of placing tissue
samples in universal containers. A total of 67 consecutive patients
had standard multiple samples of deep tissue harvested at surgery
and distributed equally in theatre either to standard universal
containers or to broth culture medium. These samples were cultured
by direct and enrichment methods. The addition of broth in theatre to
standard practice led to an increase in sensitivity from 83% to
95% and an increase in negative predictive value from 77% to 91%.
Placing tissue samples directly into broth in the operating theatre
is a simple, inexpensive way to increase the sensitivity of cultures
from infected patients, and does not appear to compromise the specificity
of these cultures. Cite this article:
The use of journal clubs and, more recently,
case-based discussions in order to stimulate debate among orthopaedic
surgeons lies at the heart of orthopaedic training and education. A
virtual learning environment can be used as a platform to host virtual
journal clubs and case-based discussions. This has many advantages
in the current climate of constrained time and diminishing trainee
and consultant participation in such activities. The virtual environment
model opens up participation and improves access to journal clubs
and case-based discussions, provides reusable educational content,
establishes an electronic record of participation for individuals,
makes use of multimedia material (including clinical imaging and
photographs) for discussion, and finally, allows participants to
link case-based discussions with relevant papers in the journal
club. The Leicester experience highlights the many advantages and some
of the potential difficulties in setting up such a virtual system
and provides useful guidance for those considering such a system
in their own training programme. As a result of the virtual learning
environment, trainee participation has increased and there is a
trend for increased consultant input in the virtual journal club
and case-based discussions. It is likely that the use of virtual environments will expand
to encompass newer technological approaches to personal learning
and professional development.
In order to assess the efficacy of inspection and accreditation by the Specialist Advisory Committee for higher surgical training in orthopaedic surgery and trauma, seven training regions with 109 hospitals and 433 Specialist Registrars were studied over a period of two years. There were initial deficiencies in a mean of 14.8% of required standards (10.3% to 19.2%). This improved following completion of the inspection, with a mean residual deficiency in 8.9% (6.5% to 12.7%.) Overall, 84% of standards were checked, 68% of the units improved and training was withdrawn in 4%. Most units (97%) were deficient on initial assessment. Moderately good rectification was achieved but the process of follow-up and collection of data require improvement. There is an imbalance between the setting of standards and their implementation. Any major revision of the process of accreditation by the new Post-graduate Medical Education and Training Board should recognise the importance of assessment of training by direct inspection on site, of the relationship between service and training, and the advantage of defining mandatory and developmental standards.
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.
This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in high-risk orthopaedic patients. A total of 58 patients had a retrievable inferior vena cava filter placed as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, most commonly for a history of previous deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, polytrauma, or expected prolonged immobilisation. In total 56 patients (96.6%) had an uncomplicated post-operative course. Two patients (3.4%) died in the peri-operative period for unrelated reasons. Of the 56 surviving patients, 50 (89%) were available for follow-up. A total of 32 filters (64%) were removed without complication at a mean of 37.8 days (4 to 238) after placement. There were four filters (8%) which were retained because of thrombosis at the filter site, and four (8%) were retained because of incorporation of the filter into the wall of the inferior vena cava. In ten cases (20%) the retrievable filter was left in place to continue as primary prophylaxis. No patient had post-removal thromboembolic complications. A retrievable inferior vena cava filter, as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, was a safe and effective means of reducing the acute risk of pulmonary embolism in this high-risk group of patients. Although most filters were removed without complications, thereby avoiding the long-term complications that have plagued permanent indwelling filters, a relatively high percentage of filters had to be left
We have prospectively studied the outcome of infections associated with implants which were retained and treated using a standardised antimicrobial protocol. Over a period of four years, we studied 24 consecutive patients who had symptoms of infection for less than one year, a stable implant, no sinus tract and a known pathogen which was susceptible to recommended antimicrobial agents. The infections involved hip prostheses (14), knee prostheses (5), an internal fixation device (4), and an ankle prosthesis (1). Twenty patients had a successful outcome at a median follow-up of 3.7 years (1.8 to 4.7); four had failure of the implant after a median follow-up of 1.2 years (0.3 to 2.5). The probability of survival without failure of treatment was 96% at one year (95% confidence interval (CI) 88 to 100), 92% at two years (95% CI 80 to 100) and 86% at three years (95% CI 72 to 100). Patients with a short-term infection but with a stable implant, no sinus tract and a known pathogen may be successfully treated by retention of the implant and the use of a standardised regimen of antimicrobial treatment.