Aims. Patients undergoing limb reconstruction surgery often face a challenging and lengthy process to complete their treatment journey. The majority of existing outcome measures do not adequately capture the patient-reported outcomes relevant to this patient group in a single measure. Following a previous systematic review, the Stanmore Limb Reconstruction Score (SLRS) was designed with the intent to address this need for an effective instrument to measure patient-reported outcomes in limb reconstruction patients. We aim to assess the face validity of this score in a pilot study. Methods. The SLRS was designed following structured interviews with several groups including patients who have undergone limb reconstruction surgery, limb reconstruction surgeons, specialist nurses, and physiotherapists. This has subsequently undergone further adjustment for language and clarity. The score was then trialled on ten patients who had undergone limb reconstruction surgery, with subsequent structured questioning to understand the perceived suitability of the score. Results. Ten patients completed the score and the subsequent structured interview. Considering the tool as a whole, 100% of respondents felt the score to be comprehensible, relevant, and comprehensive regarding the areas that were important to a patient undergoing limb reconstruction surgery. For individual questions, on a five-point Likert scale, importance/relevance was reported as a mean of 4.78 (4.3 to 5.0), with ability to understand rated as 4.92 (4.7 to 5.0) suggesting high levels of relevance and comprehension. Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level was calculated as 5.2 (10 to 11 years old). Conclusion. The current SLRS has been shown to have acceptable scores from a patient sample regarding relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness. This suggests face validity, however further testing required and is ongoing in a larger cohort of patients to determine the reliability, responsiveness, precision, and criterion validity of the score in this patient group. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):705–709

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the preinjury functional scores with the postinjury preoperative score and postoperative outcome scores following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery (ACLR). Methods. We performed a prospective study on patients who underwent primary ACLR by a single surgeon at a single centre between October 2010 and January 2018. Preoperative preinjury scores were collected at time of first assessment after the index injury. Preoperative (pre- and post-injury), one-year, and two-year postoperative functional outcomes were assessed by using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm Knee Score, and Tegner Activity Scale. Results. We enrolled 308 males and 263 females of mean age 27 years (19 to 46). The mean preinjury and preoperative post-injury Lysholm Knee Scores were 94 (73 to 100) and 63 (25 to 85), respectively, while the respective mean scores at one and two years postoperatively were 84 (71 to 100) and 89 (71 to 100; p < 0.001). The mean Tegner preinjury and preoperative post-injury scores were 7 (3 to 9) and 3 (0 to 6), respectively, while the respective mean scores at one and two years postoperatively were 6 (1 to 8) and 6 (1 to 9) (p < 0.001). The mean KOOS scores at preinjury versus two years postoperatively were: symptoms (96 vs 84); pain (94 vs 87); activities of daily living (97 vs 91), sports and recreation function (84 vs 71), and quality of life (82 vs 69), respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Functional scores improved following ACLR surgery at two years in comparison to preoperative post-injury scores. However, at two-year follow-up, the majority of patients failed to achieve their preinjury scores. The evaluation of ACLR outcomes needs to consider the preinjury scores rather than the immediate preoperative score that is usually collected. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):46–52

Aims. The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results. Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion. The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350

Aims

Chronic osteomyelitis (COM) of the lower limb in adults can be surgically managed by either limb reconstruction or amputation. This scoping review aims to map the outcomes used in studies surgically managing COM in order to aid future development of a core outcome set.

Aims

Lower limb reconstruction (LLR) has a profound impact on patients, affecting multiple areas of their lives. Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are employed to assess these impacts; however, there are concerns that they do not adequately capture all outcomes important to patients, and may lack content validity in this context. This review explored whether PROMs used with adults requiring, undergoing, or after undergoing LLR exhibited content validity and adequately captured outcomes considered relevant and important to patients.

Aims

For rare cases when a tumour infiltrates into the hip joint, extra-articular resection is required to obtain a safe margin. Endoprosthetic reconstruction following tumour resection can effectively ensure local control and improve postoperative function. However, maximizing bone preservation without compromising surgical margin remains a challenge for surgeons due to the complexity of the procedure. The purpose of the current study was to report clinical outcomes of patients who underwent extra-articular resection of the hip joint using a custom-made osteotomy guide and 3D-printed endoprosthesis.

Aims

Custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) play an important role in reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and pelvic tumour resection procedures. Accurate CTAC positioning is essential to successful surgical outcomes. While prior studies have explored CTAC positioning in rTHA, research focusing on tumour cases and implant flange positioning precision remains limited. Additionally, the impact of intraoperative navigation on positioning accuracy warrants further investigation. This study assesses CTAC positioning accuracy in tumour resection and rTHA cases, focusing on the differences between preoperative planning and postoperative implant positions.

Aims

Restarting planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is a clinical and societal priority, but it is unknown whether it can be done safely and include high-risk or complex cases. We developed a Surgical Prioritization and Allocation Guide (SPAG). Here, we validate its effectiveness and safety in COVID-free sites.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:706–708.