Scoliosis is a lateral curvature of the spine with associated rotation, often causing distress due to appearance. For some curves, there is good evidence to support the use of a spinal brace, worn for 20 to 24 hours a day to minimize the curve, making it as straight as possible during growth, preventing progression. Compliance can be poor due to appearance and comfort. A night-time brace, worn for eight to 12 hours, can achieve higher levels of curve correction while patients are supine, and could be preferable for patients, but evidence of efficacy is limited. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial of ‘full-time bracing’ versus ‘night-time bracing’ in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). UK paediatric spine clinics will recruit 780 participants aged ten to 15 years-old with AIS, Risser stage 0, 1, or 2, and curve size (Cobb angle) 20° to 40° with apex at or below T7. Patients are randomly allocated 1:1, to either full-time or night-time bracing. A qualitative sub-study will explore communication and experiences of families in terms of bracing and research. Patient and Public Involvement & Engagement informed study design and will assist with aspects of trial delivery and dissemination.Aims
Methods
Fractures of the humeral shaft represent 3% to 5% of all fractures. The most common treatment for isolated humeral diaphysis fractures in the UK is non-operative using functional bracing, which carries a low risk of complications, but is associated with a longer healing time and a greater risk of nonunion than surgery. There is an increasing trend to surgical treatment, which may lead to quicker functional recovery and lower rates of fracture nonunion than functional bracing. However, surgery carries inherent risk, including infection, bleeding, and nerve damage. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of functional bracing compared to surgical fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. The HUmeral SHaft (HUSH) fracture study is a multicentre, prospective randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures in adult patients. Participants will be randomized to receive either functional bracing or surgery. With 334 participants, the trial will have 90% power to detect a clinically important difference for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score, assuming 20% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include function, pain, quality of life, complications, cost-effectiveness, time off work, and ability to drive.Aims
Methods
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). 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.Aims
Methods
The primary aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine operative fixation for all patients with humeral shaft fractures. The secondary aim was to estimate the health economic implications of using a Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures (RUSHU) of < 8 to facilitate selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion. From 2008 to 2017, 215 patients (mean age 57 yrs (17 to 18), 61% female (n = 130/215)) with a nonoperatively managed humeral diaphyseal fracture were retrospectively identified. Union was achieved in 77% (n = 165/215) after initial nonoperative management, with 23% (n = 50/215) uniting after surgery for nonunion. The EuroQol five-dimension three-level health index (EQ-5D-3L) was obtained via postal survey. Multiple regression was used to determine the independent influence of patient, injury, and management factors upon the EQ-5D-3L. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of < £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was considered cost-effective.Aims
Methods
Perthes’ disease is a condition leading to necrosis of the femoral head. It is most common in children aged four to nine years, affecting around one per 1,200 children in the UK. Management typically includes non-surgical treatment options, such as physiotherapy with/without surgical intervention. However, there is significant variation in care with no consensus on the most effective treatment option. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for the treatment of Perthes’ disease. Comparative studies (experimental or observational) of any non-surgical intervention compared directly with any alternative intervention (surgical, non-surgical or no intervention) were identified from: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMcare, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Data were extracted on interventions compared and methodological quality. For post-intervention primary outcome of radiological scores (Stulberg and/or Mose), event rates for poor scores were calculated with significance values. Secondary outcomes included functional measures, such as range of movement, and patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life.Aims
Methods
To compare time dependent functional improvement for patients with medial, respectively lateral knee osteoarthritis (OA) after treatment with opening wedge osteotomy relieving the pressure on the osteoarthritic part of the knee. In all, 49 patients (52 knees) with a mean age of 47 years (31 to 64) underwent high tibial osteotomies (HTO), and 24 patients with a mean age of 48 years (31 to 62) low femoral osteotomies (LFO) with opening wedge technique due to medial, respectively lateral knee OA with malalignment. All osteotomies were stabilized with a Puddu plate and bone grafting performed in the same time period (2000 to 2008). The patients were evaluated by the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pre-operatively and at six months, and at one, two, five, and ten years postoperatively. The knee OA was graded according to the Ahlbäck and Kellgren-Lawrence radiological scoring systems.Aims
Methods
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. Orthopaedic departments have adopted business continuity models and guidelines for essential and non-essential surgeries to preserve hospital resources as well as protect patients and staff. These guidelines broadly encompass reduction of ambulatory care with a move towards telemedicine, redeployment of orthopaedic surgeons/residents to the frontline battle against COVID-19, continuation of education and research through web-based means, and cancellation of non-essential elective procedures. However, if containment of COVID-19 community spread is achieved, resumption of elective orthopaedic procedures and transition plans to return to normalcy must be considered for orthopaedic departments. The COVID-19 pandemic also presents a moral dilemma to the orthopaedic surgeon considering elective procedures. What is the best treatment for our patients and how does the fear of COVID-19 influence the risk-benefit discussion during a pandemic? Surgeons must deliberate the fine balance between elective surgery for a patient’s wellbeing versus risks to the operating team and utilization of precious hospital resources. Attrition of healthcare workers or Orthopaedic surgeons from restarting elective procedures prematurely or in an unsafe manner may render us ill-equipped to handle the second wave of infections. This highlights the need to develop effective screening protocols or preoperative COVID-19 testing before elective procedures in high-risk, elderly individuals with comorbidities. Alternatively, high-risk individuals should be postponed until the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection is minimal. In addition, given the higher mortality and perioperative morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery, the decision to operate must be carefully deliberated. As we ramp-up elective services and get “back to business” as orthopaedic surgeons, we have to be constantly mindful to proceed in a cautious and calibrated fashion, delivering the best care, while maintaining utmost vigilance to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19 during this critical transition period. Cite this article:
