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

To evaluate the perioperative complications associated with total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) in patients with spinal tumours, based on the extent and level of tumour resection.

Aims

We aimed to retrospectively assess the accuracy and safety of CT navigated pedicle screws and to compare accuracy in the cervical and thoracic spine (C2-T8) with (COMB) and without (POST) prior anterior surgery (anterior cervical discectomy or corpectomy and fusion with ventral plating: ACDF/ACCF).

There is currently no consensus about the mean volume of blood lost during spinal tumour surgery and surgery for metastatic spinal disease. We conducted a systematic review of papers published in the English language between 31 January 1992 and 31 January 2012. Only papers that clearly presented blood loss data in spinal surgery for metastatic disease were included. The random effects model was used to obtain the pooled estimate of mean blood loss.

We selected 18 papers, including six case series, ten retrospective reviews and two prospective studies. Altogether, there were 760 patients who had undergone spinal tumour surgery and surgery for metastatic spinal disease. The pooled estimate of peri-operative blood loss was 2180 ml (95% confidence interval 1805 to 2554) with catastrophic blood loss as high as 5000 ml, which is rare. Aside from two studies that reported large amounts of mean blood loss (> 5500 ml), the resulting funnel plot suggested an absence of publication bias. This was confirmed by Egger’s test, which did not show any small-study effects (p = 0.119). However, there was strong evidence of heterogeneity between studies (I² = 90%; p < 0.001).

Spinal surgery for metastatic disease is associated with significant blood loss and the possibility of catastrophic blood loss. There is a need to establish standardised methods of calculating and reporting this blood loss. Analysis should include assessment by area of the spine, primary pathology and nature of surgery so that the amount of blood loss can be predicted. Consideration should be given to autotransfusion in these patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:683–8.

We have developed a list of 281 competencies deemed to be of importance in the training of orthopaedic surgeons. A stratified, randomised selection of non-university orthopaedic surgeons rated each individual item on a scale 1 to 4 of increasing importance. Summary statistics across all respondents were given. The mean scores and sds were computed. Secondary analyses were computed in general orthopaedics, paediatrics, trauma and adult reconstruction. Of the 156 orthopaedic surgeons approached 131 (84%) responded to the questionnaire. They rated 240 of the 281 items greater than 3.0 suggesting that competence in these was necessary by completion of training.

Complex procedures were rated to be less important. The structure, delivery and implementation of the curriculum needs further study. Learning activities are ‘driven’ by the evaluation of competencies and thus competency-based learning may soon be in the forefront of training programmes.