Aims

In 2013, we introduced a specialized, centralized, and interdisciplinary team in our institution that applied a standardized diagnostic and treatment algorithm for the management of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The hypothesis for this study was that the outcome of treatment would be improved using this approach.

Episodic, or bundled payments, is a concept now familiar to most in the healthcare arena, but the models are often misunderstood. Under a traditional fee-for-service model, each provider bills separately for their services which creates financial incentives to maximise volumes. Under a bundled payment, a single entity, often referred to as a convener (maybe the hospital, the physician group, or a third party) assumes the risk through a payer contract for all services provided within a defined episode of care, and receives a single (bundled) payment for all services provided for that episode. The time frame around the intervention is variable, but defined in advance, as are included and excluded costs. Timing of the actual payment in a bundle may either be before the episode occurs (prospective payment model), or after the end of the episode through a reconciliation (retrospective payment model). In either case, the defined costs over the defined time frame are borne by the convener.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1280–5.

Aims

Instability remains a challenging problem in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility components confer increased stability, but there are concerns about the unique complications associated with these designs, as well as the long-term survivorship.

‘Big data’ is a term for data sets that are so large or complex that traditional data processing applications are inadequate. Billions of dollars have been spent on attempts to build predictive tools from large sets of poorly controlled healthcare metadata. Companies often sell reports at a physician or facility level based on various flawed data sources, and comparative websites of ‘publicly reported data’ purport to educate the public. Physicians should be aware of concerns and pitfalls seen in such data definitions, data clarity, data relevance, data sources and data cleaning when evaluating analytic reports from metadata in health care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1571–6.

The United States and Canada are in the midst of an epidemic of the use, misuse and overdose of opioids, and deaths related to overdose. This is the direct result of overstatement of the benefits and understatement of the risks of using opioids by advocates and pharmaceutical companies. Massive amounts of prescription opioids entered the community and were often diverted and misused. Most other parts of the world achieve comparable pain relief using fewer opioids.

The misconceptions about opioids that created this epidemic are finding their way around the world. There is particular evidence of the increased prescription of strong opioids in Europe.

Opioids are addictive and dangerous. Evidence is mounting that the best pain relief is obtained through resilience. Opioids are often prescribed when treatments to increase resilience would be more effective.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:856–64.

Aims

The importance of accurate identification and reporting of surgical site infection (SSI) is well recognised but poorly defined. Public Health England (PHE) mandated collection of orthopaedic SSI data in 2004. Data submission is required in one of four categories (hip prosthesis, knee prosthesis, repair of neck of femur, reduction of long bone fracture) for one quarter per year. Trusts are encouraged to carry out post-discharge surveillance but this is not mandatory. Recent papers in the orthopaedic literature have highlighted the importance of SSI surveillance and the heterogeneity of surveillance methods. However, details of current orthopaedic SSI surveillance practice has not been described or quantified.

As residency training programmes around the globe move towards competency-based medical education (CBME), there is a need to review current teaching and assessment practices as they relate to education in orthopaedic trauma. Assessment is the cornerstone of CBME, as it not only helps to determine when a trainee is fit to practice independently, but it also provides feedback on performance and guides the development of competence. Although a standardised core knowledge base for trauma care has been developed by the leading national accreditation bodies and international agencies that teach and perform research in orthopaedic trauma, educators have not yet established optimal methods for assessing trainees’ performance in managing orthopaedic trauma patients.

This review describes the existing knowledge from the literature on assessment in orthopaedic trauma and highlights initiatives that have recently been undertaken towards CBME in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States.

In order to support a CBME approach, programmes need to improve the frequency and quality of assessments and improve on current formative and summative feedback techniques in order to enhance resident education in orthopaedic trauma.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1320–5.

Previous standards for assessing the reliability of a measurement tool have lacked consistency. We reviewed the most current American Society for Testing and Materials and International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) recommendations, and propose an algorithm for orthopaedic surgeons. When assessing a measurement tool, conditions of the experimental set-up and clear formulae used to compile the results should be strictly reported. According to these recent guidelines, accuracy is a confusing word with an overly broad meaning and should therefore be abandoned. Depending on the experimental conditions, one should be referring to bias (when the study protocol involves accepted reference values), and repeatability (sr, r) or reproducibility (SR, R). In the absence of accepted reference values, only repeatability (sr, r) or reproducibility (SR, R) should be provided.

Take home message: Assessing the reliability of a measurement tool involves reporting bias, repeatability and/or reproducibility depending on the defined conditions, instead of precision or accuracy.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B2:166–72.

Intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to be effective in reducing blood loss and the need for transfusion after joint replacement. Recently, there has been interest in applying it topically before the closure of surgical wounds. This has the advantages of ease of application, maximum concentration at the site of bleeding, minimising its systemic absorption and, consequently, concerns about possible side-effects.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included 14 randomised controlled trials (11 in knee replacement, two in hip replacement and one in both) which investigated the effect of topical TXA on blood loss and rates of transfusion. Topical TXA significantly reduced the rate of blood transfusion (total knee replacement: risk ratio (RR) 4.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.02 to 6.72; p < 0.001 (nine trials, I² = 0%); total hip replacement: RR 2.56; 95% CI: 1.32 to 4.97, p = 0.004 (one trial)). The rate of thromboembolic events with topical TXA were similar to those found with a placebo. Indirect comparison of placebo-controlled trials of topical and intravenous TXA indicates that topical administration is superior to the intravenous route.

In conclusion, topical TXA is an effective and safe method of reducing the need for blood transfusion after total knee and hip replacement. Further research is required to find its optimum dose for topical use.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1005–15.