Aims. Despite the increase in the surgical repair of proximal hamstring tears, there exists a lack of consensus in the optimal timing for surgery. There is also disagreement on how partial tears managed surgically compare with complete tears repaired surgically. This study aims to compare the mid-term functional outcomes in, and operating time required for, complete and partial proximal hamstring avulsions, that are repaired both acutely and chronically. Methods. This is a prospective series of 156 proximal hamstring surgical repairs, with a mean age of 48.9 years (21.5 to 78). Functional outcomes were assessed preinjury, preoperatively, and postoperatively (six months and minimum three years) using the Sydney Hamstring Origin Rupture Evaluation (SHORE) score. Operating time was recorded for every patient. Results. Overall, significant improvements in SHORE scores were seen at both six months and mid-term follow-up. Preoperatively, acute patients (median score 27.1 (interquartile range (IQR) 22.9)) reported significantly poorer SHORE scores than chronic patients (median score 42.9 (IQR 22.1); p < 0.001). However, this difference was not maintained postoperatively. For partial tears, acutely repaired patients reported significantly lower preoperative SHORE scores compared to chronically reapired partial tears (median score 24.3 (IQR 15.7) vs median score 40.0 (IQR 25.0); p < 0.001) but also significantly higher SHORE scores at six-month follow-up compared to chronically repaired partial tears (median score 92.9 (IQR 10.7) vs. median score 82.9 (IQR 14.3); p < 0.001). For complete tears, there was only a difference in preoperative SHORE scores between acute and chronic groups. Overall, acute repairs had a significantly shorter operating time (mean 64.67 minutes (standard deviation (SD) 12.99)) compared to chronic repairs (mean 74.71 minutes (SD = 12.0); t = 5.12, p < 0.001). Conclusion. Surgical repair of proximal hamstring avulsions successfully improves patient reported functional outcomes in the majority of patients, irrespective of the timing of their surgery or injury classification. However, reducing the time from injury to surgery is associated with greater improvement in patient outcomes and an increased likelihood of returning to preinjury functional status. Acute repair appears to be a technically less complex procedure, as indicated by reduced operating times, postoperative neurological symptoms and number of patients requiring bracing. Acute repair is therefore a preference among many surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1419–1427

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.

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.

The Oxford hip and knee scores are used to measure the outcome after primary total hip and knee replacement. We propose a new layout for the instrument in which patients are always asked about both limbs. In addition, we have defined an alternative scoring method which accounts for missing data. Over a period of 4.5 years, 4086 (1423 patients) and 5708 (1458 patients) questionnaires were completed for hips and knees, respectively. The hip score had a pre-operative median of 70.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 58.3 to 81.2) decreasing to 20.8 (IQR 10.4 to 35.4) after one year. The knee score had a pre-operative median of 68.8 (IQR 56.2 to 79.2) decreasing to 29.2 (IQR 14.6 to 45.8). There was no further significant change in either score after one year. As a result of the data analysis, we suggest that the score percentiles can be used as a standard for auditing patients before and after operation.