Aims. Lower limb fractures are common in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and represent a significant burden to the existing orthopaedic surgical infrastructure. In high income country (HIC) settings, internal fixation is the standard of care due to its superior outcomes. In LMICs, external fixation is often the surgical treatment of choice due to limited supplies, cost considerations, and its perceived lower complication rate. The aim of this systematic review protocol is identifying differences in rates of infection, nonunion, and malunion of extra-articular femoral and tibial shaft fractures in LMICs treated with either internal or external fixation. Methods. This systematic review protocol describes a broad search of multiple databases to identify eligible papers.
Isolated fractures of the ulnar diaphysis are uncommon, occurring at a rate of 0.02 to 0.04 per 1,000 cases. Despite their infrequency, these fractures commonly give rise to complications, such as nonunion, limited forearm pronation and supination, restricted elbow range of motion, radioulnar synostosis, and prolonged pain. Treatment options for this injury remain a topic of debate, with limited research available and no consensus on the optimal approach. Therefore, this trial aims to compare clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes of two treatment methods: open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus nonoperative treatment in patients with isolated ulnar diaphyseal fractures. This will be a multicentre, open-label, parallel randomized clinical trial (under National Clinical Trial number NCT01123447), accompanied by a parallel prospective cohort group for patients who meet the inclusion criteria, but decline randomization. Eligible patients will be randomized to one of the two treatment groups: 1) nonoperative treatment with closed reduction and below-elbow casting; or 2) surgical treatment with ORIF utilizing a limited contact dynamic compression plate and screw construct. The primary outcome measured will be the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score at 12 months post-injury. Additionally, functional outcomes will be assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and pain visual analogue scale, allowing for a comparison of outcomes between groups. Secondary outcome measures will encompass clinical outcomes such as range of motion and grip strength, radiological parameters including time to union, as well as economic outcomes assessed from enrolment to 12 months post-injury.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study is to define a core outcome set (COS) to allow consistency in outcome reporting amongst studies investigating the management of orthopaedic treatment in children with spinal dysraphism (SD). Relevant outcomes will be identified in a four-stage process from both the literature and key stakeholders (patients, their families, and clinical professionals). Previous outcomes used in clinical studies will be identified through a systematic review of the literature, and each outcome will be assigned to one of the five core areas, defined by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT). Additional possible outcomes will be identified through consultation with patients affected by SD and their families.Aims
Methods
Aims. The use of biologics in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in Olympic and professional athletes appears to be increasing. There are no studies which currently map the extent, range, and nature of existing literature concerning the use and efficacy of such therapies in this arena. The objective of this scoping review is to map the available evidence regarding the use of biologics in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in Olympic and professional sport. Methods. Best-practice methodological frameworks suggested by Arksey and O’Malley, Levac et al, and the Joanna Briggs Institute will be used. This scoping review will aim to firstly map the current extent, range, and nature of evidence for biologic strategies to treat injuries in professional and Olympic sport; secondly, to summarize and disseminate existing research findings; and thirdly, to identify gaps in existing literature. A three-step search strategy will identify peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature, including reviews, original research, and both published and unpublished (‘grey’) literature. An initial limited search will identify suitable search terms, followed by a search of five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) using keyword and index terms.
