Aims. Osteoarthritis (OA) affecting the thumb carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) is a common painful condition. In this study, we aimed to explore clinicians’ approach to management with a particular focus on the role of specific interventions that will inform the design of future clinical trials. Methods. We interviewed a purposive sample of 24 clinicians, consisting of 12 surgeons and 12 therapists (four occupational therapists and eight physiotherapists) who managed patients with CMCJ OA. This is a qualitative study using semi-structured, online interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results. A total of 14 themes were developed, six of which were developed relating to the clinical management of CMCJ OA: 1) A flexible ‘ladder’ approach starting with conservative treatment first; 2) The malleable role of steroid injection; 3) Surgery as an invasive and risky last resort; 4) A shared and collaborative approach; 5) Treating the whole person; and 6) Severity of life impact influences treatment. The remaining eight themes were developed relating to clinical trial barriers and facilitators: 1) We need to embrace uncertainty; 2) You are not losing out by taking part; 3) It is difficult to be neutral about certain treatments; 4) Difficult to recruit to ‘no treatment’ ; 5) Difficult to recruit to a trial comparing no surgery to surgery; 6) Patients are keen to participate in research; 7) Burden on staff and participants; and 8) A enthusiasm for a variety of potential trial arms. Conclusion. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of how clinicians manage thumb CMCJ OA in their practice settings. Our study also provides useful insights informing the design of randomized clinical trials involving steroid injections and surgery in people with thumb CMCJ OA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):321–331

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate whether intraoperative 3D fluoroscopic imaging outperforms dorsal tangential views in the detection of dorsal cortex screw penetration after volar plating of an intra-articular distal radial fracture, as identified on postoperative CT imaging.

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in functional outcome after repair and non-repair of the pronator quadratus muscle in patients undergoing surgical treatment for a distal radial fracture with volar plating. Patients and Methods. A total of 72 patients with a distal radial fracture were included in this randomized clinical trial. They were allocated to have the pronator quadratus muscle repaired or not, after volar locked plating of a distal radial fracture. The patients, the assessor, the primary investigator, and the statistician were blinded to the allocation. Randomization was irreversibly performed using a web application that guaranteed a secure and tamper-free assignment. The primary outcome measure was the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) after 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, pronation strength, grip strength, the range of pronation and supination, complications, and the operating time. Results. Of the 72 patients, 63 (87.5%) completed follow-up for the primary outcome measure: 31 (86.1%) from the non-repair group and 32 (88.9%) from the repair group. At the 12-month follow-up, the mean difference in PRWE of 5.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.02 to 14.96) between the repair (mean 18.38 (95% CI 10.34 to 26.41)) and non-repair group (mean 12.90 (95% CI 7.55 to 18.25)) was not statistically significant (p = 0.253). There was a statistically significant difference between pronation strength, favouring non-repair. We found no difference in the other secondary outcomes. Conclusion. We found that repairing pronator quadratus made no difference to the clinical outcome, 12 months after volar plating of a distal radial fracture. We conclude that there is no functional advantage in repairing this muscle under these circumstances and advise against it. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1498–1505