Aims

Deprivation underpins many societal and health inequalities. COVID-19 has exacerbated these disparities, with access to planned care falling greatest in the most deprived areas of the UK during 2020. This study aimed to identify the impact of deprivation on patients on growing waiting lists for planned care.

Aims. There remains a lack of consensus regarding the management of chronic anterior sternoclavicular joint (SCJ) instability. This study aimed to assess whether a standardized treatment algorithm (incorporating physiotherapy and surgery and based on the presence of trauma) could successfully guide management and reduce the number needing surgery. Methods. Patients with chronic anterior SCJ instability managed between April 2007 and April 2019 with a standardized treatment algorithm were divided into non-traumatic (offered physiotherapy) and traumatic (offered surgery) groups and evaluated at discharge. Subsequently, midterm outcomes were assessed via a postal questionnaire with a subjective SCJ stability score, Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS, adapted for the SCJ), and pain visual analogue scale (VAS), with analysis on an intention-to-treat basis. Results. A total of 47 patients (50 SCJs, three bilateral) responded for 75% return rate. Of these, 31 SCJs were treated with physiotherapy and 19 with surgery. Overall, 96% (48/50) achieved a stable SCJ, with 60% (30/50) achieving unrestricted function. In terms of outcomes, 82% (41/50) recorded good-to-excellent OSIS scores (84% (26/31) physiotherapy, 79% (15/19) surgery), and 76% (38/50) reported low pain VAS scores at final follow-up. Complications of the total surgical cohort included a 19% (5/27) revision rate, 11% (3/27) frozen shoulder, and 4% (1/27) scar sensitivity. Conclusion. This is the largest midterm series reporting chronic anterior SCJ instability outcomes when managed according to a standardized treatment algorithm that emphasizes the importance of appropriate patient selection for either physiotherapy or surgery, based on a history of trauma. All but two patients achieved a stable SCJ, with stability maintained at a median of 70 months (11 to 116) for the physiotherapy group and 87 months (6 to 144) for the surgery group. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):815–825

Aims. Ankle fractures are common, mainly affecting adults aged 50 years and over. To aid recovery, some patients are referred to physiotherapy, but referral patterns vary, likely due to uncertainty about the effectiveness of this supervised rehabilitation approach. To inform clinical practice, this study will evaluate the effectiveness of supervised versus self-directed rehabilitation in improving ankle function for older adults with ankle fractures. Methods. This will be a multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomized controlled superiority trial. We aim to recruit 344 participants aged 50 years and older with an ankle fracture treated surgically or non-surgically from at least 20 NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomized 1:1 using a web-based service to supervised rehabilitation (four to six one-to-one physiotherapy sessions of tailored advice and prescribed home exercise over three months), or self-directed rehabilitation (provision of advice and exercise materials that participants will use to manage their recovery independently). The primary outcome is participant-reported ankle-related symptoms and function six months after randomization, measured by the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score. Secondary outcomes at two, four, and six months measure health-related quality of life, pain, physical function, self-efficacy, exercise adherence, complications, and resource use. Due to the nature of the interventions, participants and intervention providers will be unblinded to treatment allocation. Conclusion. This study will assess whether supervised rehabilitation is more effective than self-directed rehabilitation for adults aged 50 years and older after ankle fracture. The results will provide evidence to guide clinical practice. At the time of submission, the trial is currently completing recruitment, and follow-up will be completed in 2024. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):499–513

Aims. Is it feasible to conduct a definitive multicentre trial in community settings of corticosteroid injections (CSI) and hydrodilation (HD) compared to CSI for patients with frozen shoulder? An adequately powered definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) delivered in primary care will inform clinicians and the public whether hydrodilation is a clinically and cost-effective intervention. In this study, prior to a full RCT, we propose a feasibility trial to evaluate recruitment and retention by patient and clinician willingness of randomization; rates of withdrawal, crossover and attrition; and feasibility of outcome data collection from routine primary and secondary care data. Methods. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advises that prompt early management of frozen shoulder is initiated in primary care settings with analgesia, physiotherapy, and joint injections; most people can be managed without an operation. Currently, there is variation in the type of joint injection: 1) CSI, thought to reduce the inflammation of the capsule reducing pain; and 2) HD, where a small volume of fluid is injected into the shoulder joint along with the steroid, aiming to stretch the capsule of the shoulder to improve pain, but also allowing greater movement. The creation of musculoskeletal hubs nationwide provides infrastructure for the early and effective management of frozen shoulder. This potentially reduces costs to individuals and the wider NHS perhaps negating the need for a secondary care referral. Results. We will conduct a multicentre RCT comparing CSI and HD in combination with CSI alone. Patients aged 18 years and over with a clinical diagnosis of frozen shoulder will be randomized and blinded to receive either CSI and HD in combination, or CSI alone. Feasibility outcomes include the rate of randomization as a proportion of eligible patients and the ability to use routinely collected data for outcome evaluation. This study has involved patients and the public in the trial design, dissemination methods, and how to include groups who are underserved by research. Conclusion. We will disseminate findings among musculoskeletal clinicians via the British Orthopaedic Association, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, the Royal College of Radiologists, and the Royal College of General Practitioners. To ensure wide reach we will communicate findings through our established network of charities and organizations, in addition to preparing dissemination findings in Bangla and Urdu (commonly spoken languages in northeast London). If a full trial is shown to be feasible, we will seek additional National Institute for Health and Care Research funding for a definitive RCT. This definitive study will inform NICE guidelines for the management of frozen shoulder. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):162–173

Aims. The purpose is to determine the non-inferiority of a smartphone-based exercise educational care management system after primary knee arthroplasty compared with a traditional in-person physiotherapy rehabilitation model. Methods. A multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted evaluating the use of a smartphone-based care management system for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and partial knee arthroplasty (PKA). Patients in the control group (n = 244) received the respective institution’s standard of care with formal physiotherapy. The treatment group (n = 208) were provided a smartwatch and smartphone application. Early outcomes assessed included 90-day knee range of movement, EuroQoL five-dimension five-level score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) score, 30-day single leg stance (SLS) time, Time up and Go (TUG) time, and need for manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA). Results. Overall, 90-day mean flexion was not significantly different between the control (121° (SD 11.7°)) and treatment groups (121. o. ; p = 0.559); 90-day mean SLS was 22.7 seconds (SD 9.8) in controls and 24.3 seconds (SD 20.8) in treatment (p = 0.519); 90-day mean TUG times were 10.1 seconds (SD 4.8) in control and 9.3 seconds (SD 3.3) in treatment (p = 0.139). Mean KOOS JR scores were significantly different between control group (73.6 (SD 13.4)) and treatment group (70.4 (SD 12.6); p = 0.026). MUAs were performed in nine (3.7%) patients in the control group and four (1.9%) in the treatment group (p = 0.398). Physiotherapy was performed by 230 (94.4%) of control group and 123 (59.3%) of treatment group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in postoperative urgent care visits, or readmissions within 90 days, with significantly fewer emergency department visits in the treatment group (16 (8.2%) vs five (2.5%), p = 0.014). Conclusion. The use of the smartwatch/smartphone care platform demonstrated non-inferiority of clinically significant outcomes to traditional care models, while requiring significantly less postoperative physiotherapy and fewer emergency department visits. This platform could aid in decreasing postoperative costs, while improving patient engagement and communication with the healthcare team. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):3–12

Aims. Frozen shoulder is a common, painful condition that results in impairment of function. Corticosteroid injections are commonly used for frozen shoulder and can be given as glenohumeral joint (GHJ) injection or suprascapular nerve block (SSNB). Both injection types have been shown to significantly improve shoulder pain and range of motion. It is not currently known which is superior in terms of relieving patients’ symptoms. This is the protocol for a randomized clinical trial to investigate the clinical effectiveness of corticosteroid injection given as either a GHJ injection or SSNB. Methods. The Therapeutic Injections For Frozen Shoulder (TIFFS) study is a single centre, parallel, two-arm, randomized clinical trial. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to either a GHJ corticosteroid injection or SSNB. Participants in both trial arms will then receive physiotherapy as normal for frozen shoulder. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at three months after injection. Secondary outcomes include OSS at six and 12 months, range of shoulder movement at three months, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale, abbreviated Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and EuroQol five-level five-dimension health index at three months, six months, and one year after injection. A minimum of 40 patients will be recruited to obtain 80% power to detect a minimally important difference of ten points on the OSS between the groups at three months after injection. The study is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT04965376. Conclusion. The results of this trial will demonstrate if there is a difference in shoulder pain and function after GHJ injection or SSNB in patients with frozen shoulder. This will help provide effective treatment to patients with frozen shoulder. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):205–209

Aims. Steroid injections are used for subacromial pain syndrome and can be administered via the anterolateral or posterior approach to the subacromial space. It is not currently known which approach is superior in terms of improving clinical symptoms and function. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the clinical effectiveness of a steroid injection given via the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Methods. The Subacromial Approach Injection Trial (SAInT) study is a single-centre, parallel, two-arm RCT. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to a subacromial steroid injection via either the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Participants in both trial arms will then receive physiotherapy as standard of care for subacromial pain syndrome. The primary analysis will compare the change in Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at three months after injection. Secondary outcomes include the change in OSS at six and 12 months, as well as the Pain Numeric Rating Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain), Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (RAND) at three months, six months, and one year after injection. Assessment of pain experienced during the injection will also be determined. A minimum of 86 patients will be recruited to obtain an 80% power to detect a minimally important difference of six points on the OSS change between the groups at three months after injection. Conclusion. The results of this trial will demonstrate if there is a difference in shoulder pain and function after a subacromial space steroid injection between the anterolateral versus posterior approach in patients with subacromial pain syndrome. This will help to guide treatment for patients with subacromial pain syndrome. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):729–735

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. In all, 15 studies (1,745 participants) were eligible for inclusion: eight prospective cohort studies, seven retrospective cohort studies, and no randomized controlled trials were identified. Non-surgical interventions largely focused on orthotic management (14/15 studies) and physical interventions such as muscle strengthening or stretching (5/15 studies). Most studies were of high/unknown risk of bias, and the range of patient outcomes was very limited, as was reporting of treatment protocols. Similar proportions of children achieving poor radiological outcomes were found for orthotic management and physical interventions, such as physiotherapy or weightbearing alteration, compared with surgical interventions or no intervention. Conclusion. Evidence from non-randomized studies found no robust evidence regarding the most effective non-surgical interventions for the treatment of children with Perthes’ disease. Future research, employing randomized trial designs, and reporting a wider range of patient outcomes is urgently needed to inform clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2020;1-12:720–730

Aims. Perthes’ disease is a condition which leads to necrosis of the femoral head. It is most commonly reported in children aged four to nine years, with recent statistics suggesting it affects around five per 100,000 children in the UK. Current treatment for the condition aims to maintain the best possible environment for the disease process to run its natural course. Management typically includes physiotherapy with or without surgical intervention. Physiotherapy intervention often will include strengthening/stretching programmes, exercise/activity advice, and, in some centres, will include intervention, such as hydrotherapy. There is significant variation in care with no consensus on which treatment option is best. The importance of work in this area has been demonstrated by the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery through the James Lind Alliance’s prioritization of work to determine/identify surgical versus non-surgical management of Perthes’ disease. It was identified as the fourth-highest priority for paediatric lower limb surgery research in 2018. Methods. Five UK NHS centres, including those from the NEWS (North, East, West and South Yorkshire) orthopaedic group, contributed to this case review, with each entre providing clinical data from a minimum of five children. Information regarding both orthopaedic and physiotherapeutic management over a two-year post-diagnosis period was reviewed. Results. Data were extracted from the clinical records of 32 children diagnosed with Perthes’ disease; seven boys and 25 girls. The mean age of the children at diagnosis was 6.16 years (standard deviation (SD) 3.001). In all, 26 children were referred for physiotherapy. In the two-year period following diagnosis, children were seen a median of 7.5 times (interquartile range (IQR) 4.25 to 11) by an orthopaedic surgeon, and a median of 9.5 times (IQR 8 to 18.25) by a physiotherapist. One centre had operated on all of their children, while another had operated on none. Overall, 17 (53%) of the children were managed conservatively in the two-year follow-up period, and 15 (47%) of the children underwent surgery in the two-year follow-up period. Conclusion. The results of this case review demonstrate a variation of care provided to children in the UK with Perthes’ disease. Further national and international understanding of current care is required to underpin the rationale for different treatment options in children with Perthes’ disease. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:691–695

Aims. To achieve expert clinical consensus in the delivery of hydrodilatation for the treatment of primary frozen shoulder to inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation. Methods. We conducted a two-stage, electronic questionnaire-based, modified Delphi survey of shoulder experts in the UK NHS. Round one required positive, negative, or neutral ratings about hydrodilatation. In round two, each participant was reminded of their round one responses and the modal (or ‘group’) response from all participants. This allowed participants to modify their responses in round two. We proposed respectively mandating or encouraging elements of hydrodilatation with 100% and 90% positive consensus, and respectively disallowing or discouraging with 90% and 80% negative consensus. Other elements would be optional. Results. Between 4 August 2020 and 4 August 2021, shoulder experts from 47 hospitals in the UK completed the study. There were 106 participants (consultant upper limb orthopaedic surgeons, n = 50; consultant radiologists, n = 52; consultant physiotherapist, n = 1; extended scope physiotherapists, n = 3) who completed round one, of whom 97 (92%) completed round two. No elements of hydrodilatation were “mandated” (100% positive rating). Elements that were “encouraged” (≥ 80% positive rating) were the use of image guidance, local anaesthetic, normal saline, and steroids to deliver the injection. Injecting according to patient tolerance, physiotherapy, and home exercises were also “encouraged”. No elements were “discouraged” (≥ 80% negative rating) although using hypertonic saline was rated as being “disallowed” (≥ 90% negative rating). Conclusion. In the absence of rigorous evidence, our Delphi study allowed us to achieve expert consensus about positive, negative, and neutral ratings of hydrodilatation in the management of frozen shoulder in a hospital setting. This should inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):701–709

Aims. Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA. Methods. This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 60 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA). Patients in both arms underwent pre- and postoperative CT scans, and a patient-specific plan was created using the robotic software. The COR, combined offset, acetabular orientation, and leg length discrepancy were measured on the pre- and postoperative CT scanogram at six weeks following surgery. Results. There were no significant differences for any of the baseline characteristics including spinopelvic mobility. The absolute error for achieving the planned horizontal COR was median 1.4 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.87 to 3.42) in RO THA versus 4.3 mm (IQR 3 to 6.8; p < 0.001); vertical COR mean 0.91 mm (SD 0.73) in RO THA versus 2.3 mm (SD 1.3; p < 0.001); and combined offset median 2 mm (IQR 0.97 to 5.45) in RO THA versus 3.9 mm (IQR 2 to 7.9; p = 0.019). Improved accuracy was observed with RO THA in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning (root mean square error for anteversion and inclination was 2.6 and 1.3 vs 8.9 and 5.3, repectively) and leg length (mean 0.6 mm vs 1.4 mm; p < 0.001). Patient-reported outcome measures were comparable between the two groups at baseline and one year. Participants in the RO THA group needed fewer physiotherapy sessions postoperatively (median six (IQR 4.5 to 8) vs eight (IQR 6 to 11; p = 0.005). Conclusion. This RCT suggested that robotic-arm assistance in THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native COR, better preservation of the combined offset, leg length correction, and superior accuracy in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning. Further evaluation through long-term and registry data is necessary to assess whether these findings translate into improved implant survival and functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):324–335