The April 2014 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: scientific writing needed in orthopaedic papers; antiseptics and osteoblasts; thromboembolic management in orthopaedic patients; nicotine and obesity in post-operative complications; defining the “Patient Acceptable Symptom State”; and cheap and nasty implants of poor quality.

Successful management of late presenting hip dislocation in childhood is judged by the outcome not just at skeletal maturity but well beyond into adulthood and late middle age. This review considers different methods of treatment and looks critically at the handful of studies reporting long-term follow-up after successful reduction.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:729–33.

Whether to use total or unicompartmental knee replacement (TKA/UKA) for end-stage knee osteoarthritis remains controversial. Although UKA results in a faster recovery, lower rates of morbidity and mortality and fewer complications, the long-term revision rate is substantially higher than that for TKA. The effect of each intervention on patient-reported outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether six-month patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are better in patients after TKA or UKA, using data from a large national joint registry (NJR).

We carried out a propensity score-matched cohort study which compared six-month PROMs after TKA and UKA in patients enrolled in the NJR for England and Wales, and the English national PROM collection programme. A total of 3519 UKA patients were matched to 10 557 TKAs.

The mean six-month PROMs favoured UKA: the Oxford Knee Score was 37.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 37.4 to 38.0) for UKA and 36.1 (95% CI 35.9 to 36.3) for TKA; the mean EuroQol EQ-5D index was 0.772 (95% CI 0.764 to 0.780) for UKA and 0.751 (95% CI 0.747 to 0.756) for TKA. UKA patients were more likely to achieve excellent results (odds ratio (OR) 1.59, 95% CI 1.47 to 1.72, p < 0.001) and to be highly satisfied (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.39, p <  0.001), and were less likely to report complications than those who had undergone TKA.

UKA gives better early patient-reported outcomes than TKA; these differences are most marked for the very best outcomes. Complications and readmission are more likely after TKA. Although the data presented reflect the short-term outcome, they suggest that the high revision rate for UKA may not be because of poorer clinical outcomes. These factors should inform decision-making in patients eligible for either procedure.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:793–801.

Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee replacement (TKR) was introduced to reduce the risk of aseptic loosening and wear of polyethylene inserts. However, no consistent clinical advantages of mobile- over fixed-bearing (FB) TKR have been found. In this study we evaluated whether mobile bearings have an advantage over fixed bearings with regard to revision rates and clinical outcome scores. Furthermore, we determined which modifying variables affected the outcome.

A systematic search of the literature was conducted to collect clinical trials comparing MB and FB in primary TKR. The primary outcomes were revision rates for any reason, aseptic loosening and wear. Secondary outcomes included range of movement, Knee Society score (KSS), Oxford knee score (OKS), Short-Form 12 (SF-12) score and radiological parameters. Meta-regression techniques were used to explore factors modifying the observed effect.

Our search yielded 1827 publications, of which 41 studies met our inclusion criteria, comprising over 6000 TKRs. Meta-analyses showed no clinically relevant differences in terms of revision rates, clinical outcome scores or patient-reported outcome measures between MB and FB TKRs. It appears that theoretical assumptions of superiority of MB over FB TKR are not borne out in clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1209–16.

The February 2015 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Intra-operative sensors for knee balance; Mobile bearing no advantage; Death and knee replacement: a falling phenomenon; The swings and roundabouts of unicompartmental arthroplasty; Regulation, implants and innovation; The weight of arthroplasty responsibility!; BMI in arthroplasty

A total of 187 patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) were randomly divided into two groups, one of which underwent synovectomy. The patients and assessors were blinded to the randomisation both before and after surgery. The duration of surgery, hospitalisation period, concealed bleeding, drainage volume, blood transfusion rate and range of movement of the knee at three days after the operation were analysed. Patients were followed up at four weeks and 12 months after their operation, and a visual analogue score (VAS) for pain, Knee Society score (KSS) and a patellar ballottement test were compared between the groups.

The mean amount of concealed bleeding was higher in the synovectomy group compared with the control group (1.24 l (0.08 to 3.28) vs 1.03 l (0.16 to 2.94); p = 0.042), as was the mean drainage volume (0.90 l (0.35 to 1.81) vs 0.81 (0.25 to 1.65); p = 0.030). The mean operating time was also higher in the synovectomy group compared with the controls (1.50 hours (1.34 to 1.75) vs 1.41 hours (1.21 to 1.79); p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in blood transfusion rate (p = 0.882), hospital stay (p = 0.805) or range of movement of the knee (p = 0.413) between the two groups. At four weeks and 12 months post-operatively there were no statistically significant differences in any of the measured parameters. We concluded that synovectomy confers no clinical advantages in TKR for primary OA while subjecting patients to higher levels of bleeding and longer operating times.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1197–200.

Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in the scores of patient-reported outcome measures allow clinicians to assess the outcome of intervention from the perspective of the patient. There has been significant variation in their absolute values in previous publications and a lack of consistency in their calculation.

The purpose of this study was first, to establish whether these values, following spinal surgery, vary depending on the surgical intervention and their method of calculation and secondly, to assess whether there is any correlation between the two external anchors most frequently used to calculate the MCID.

We carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data of adult patients who underwent elective spinal surgery between 1994 and 2009. A total of 244 patients were included. There were 125 men and 119 women with a mean age of 54 years (16 to 84); the mean follow-up was 62 months (6 to 199) The MCID was calculated using three previously published methods.

Our results show that the value of the MCID varies considerably with the operation and its method of calculation. There was good correlation between the two external anchors. The global outcome tool correlated significantly better.

We conclude that consensus needs to be reached on the best method of calculating the MCID. This then needs to be defined for each spinal procedure. Using a blanket value for the MCID for all spinal procedures should be avoided.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:366–71.

We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 33 consecutive patients who had undergone an extra-articular, total or partial scapulectomy for a malignant tumour of the shoulder girdle between 1 July 2001 and 30 September 2013. Of these, 26 had tumours which originated in the scapula or the adjacent soft tissue and underwent a classic Tikhoff–Linberg procedure, while seven with tumours arising from the proximal humerus were treated with a modified Tikhoff-Linberg operation. We used a Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System for soft-tissue reconstruction in nine patients, but not in the other 24.

The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score (MSTS) was 17.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9 to 19.4); 17.6 (95% CI 15.5 to 19.6) after the classic Tikhoff–Linberg procedure and 18.1 (95% CI 13.8 to 22.3) after the modified Tikhoff–Linberg procedure. Patients who had undergone a LARS soft-tissue reconstruction had a mean score of 18.6 (95% (CI) 13.9 to 22.4) compared with 17.2 (95% CI 15.5 to 19.0) for those who did not.

The Tikhoff–Linberg procedure is a useful method for wide resection of a malignant tumour of the shoulder girdle which helps to preserve hand and elbow function. The method of soft-tissue reconstruction has no effect on functional outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:684–90.

We evaluated the clinical results and complications after extra-articular resection of the distal femur and/or proximal tibia and reconstruction with a tumour endoprosthesis (MUTARS) in 59 patients (mean age 33 years (11 to 74)) with malignant bone or soft-tissue tumours. According to a Kaplan–Meier analysis, limb survival was 76% (95% confidence interval (CI) 64.1 to 88.5) after a mean follow-up of 4.7 years (one month to 17 years). Peri-prosthetic infection was the most common indication for subsequent amputation (eight patients). Survival of the prosthesis without revision was 48% (95% CI 34.8 to 62.0) at two years and 25% (95% CI 11.1 to 39.9) at five years post-operatively. Failure of the prosthesis was due to deep infection in 22 patients (37%), aseptic loosening in ten patients (17%), and peri-prosthetic fracture in six patients (10%). Wear of the bearings made a minor revision necessary in 12 patients (20%). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 23 (10 to 29). An extensor lag > 10° was noted in ten patients (17%).

These results suggest that limb salvage after extra-articular resection with a tumour prosthesis can achieve good functional results in most patients, although the rates of complications and subsequent amputation are higher than in patients treated with intra-articular resection.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1425–31.

The December 2014 Wrist & Hand Roundup360 looks at: ultrasound for carpal tunnel diagnosis; where we are at with management of undisplaced scaphoid fractures; ARPE for thumb metacarpals?; extravasation injuries in the hand and wrist; research and practice in hand surgery; and physio ineffective in hand osteoarthritis

Patellofemoral complications are common after total knee replacement (TKR). Leaving the patellar unsurfaced after TKR may lead to complications such as anterior knee pain, and re-operation to surface it. Complications after patellar resurfacing include patellar fracture, aseptic loosening, patellar instability, polyethylene wear, patellar clunk and osteonecrosis. Historically, patellar complications account for one of the larger proportions of causes of failure in TKR, however, with contemporary implant designs, complication rates have decreased. Most remaining failures relate to patellofemoral tracking. Understanding the causes of patellofemoral maltracking is essential to prevent these complications as well as manage them when they occur.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):84–6.

The December 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: cuff tears and plexus injury;

corticosteroids and physiotherapy in SAI; diabetes and elbow arthroplasty; distal biceps tendon repairs; shockwave therapy in frozen shoulder; hydrodilation and steroids for adhesive capsulitis; just what do our patients read?; and what happens to that stable radial head fracture?

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is known to lead to a reduction in periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD). In theory, this may lead to migration, instability and aseptic loosening of the prosthetic components. Bisphosphonates inhibit bone resorption and may reduce this loss in BMD. We hypothesised that treatment with bisphosphonates and calcium would lead to improved BMD and clinical outcomes compared with treatment with calcium supplementation alone following TKA. A total of 26 patients, (nine male and 17 female, mean age 67 years) were prospectively randomised into two study groups: alendronate and calcium (bisphosphonate group, n = 14) or calcium only (control group, n = 12). Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) measurements were performed post-operatively, and at three months, six months, one, two, four, and seven years post-operatively.

Mean femoral metaphyseal BMD was significantly higher in the bisphosphonate group compared with controls, up to four years following surgery in some areas of the femur (p = 0.045). BMD was observed to increase in the lateral tibial metaphysis in the bisphosphonate group until seven years (p = 0.002), and was significantly higher than that observed in the control group throughout (p = 0.024). There were no significant differences between the groups in the central femoral metaphyseal, tibial medial metaphyseal or diaphyseal regions of interest (ROI) of either the femur or tibia.

Bisphosphonate treatment after TKA may be of benefit for patients with poor bone quality. However, further studies with a larger number of patients are necessary to assess whether this is clinically beneficial.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:337–45.

Surgical interventions consisting of internal fixation (IF) or total hip replacement (THR) are required to restore patient mobility after hip fractures. Conventionally, this decision was based solely upon the degree of fracture displacement. However, in the last ten years, there has been a move to incorporate patient characteristics into the decision making process. Research demonstrating that joint replacement renders superior functional results when compared with IF, in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures, has swayed the pendulum in favour of THR. However, a high risk of dislocation has always been the concern. Fortunately, there are newer technologies and alternative surgical approaches that can help reduce the risk of dislocation. The authors propose an algorithm for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: if minimally displaced, in the absence of hip joint arthritis, IF should be performed; if arthritis is present, or the fracture is displaced, then THR is preferred.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):43–7.

The December 2014 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: infection and temporising external fixation; Vitamin C in distal radial fractures; DRAFFT: Cheap and cheerful Kirschner wires win out; femoral neck fractures not as stable as they might be; displaced sacral fractures give high morbidity and mortality; sanders and calcaneal fractures: a 20-year experience; bleeding and pelvic fractures; optimising timing for acetabular fractures; and tibial plateau fractures.

In this study we randomised 140 patients who were due to undergo primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to have the procedure performed using either patient-specific cutting guides (PSCG) or conventional instrumentation (CI).

The primary outcome measure was the mechanical axis, as measured at three months on a standing long-leg radiograph by the hip–knee–ankle (HKA) angle. This was undertaken by an independent observer who was blinded to the instrumentation. Secondary outcome measures were component positioning, operating time, Knee Society and Oxford knee scores, blood loss and length of hospital stay.

A total of 126 patients (67 in the CI group and 59 in the PSCG group) had complete clinical and radiological data. There were 88 females and 52 males with a mean age of 69.3 years (47 to 84) and a mean BMI of 28.6 kg/m² (20.2 to 40.8). The mean HKA angle was 178.9° (172.5 to 183.4) in the CI group and 178.2° (172.4 to 183.4) in the PSCG group (p = 0.34). Outliers were identified in 22 of 67 knees (32.8%) in the CI group and 19 of 59 knees (32.2%) in the PSCG group (p = 0.99). There was no significant difference in the clinical results (p = 0.95 and 0.59, respectively). Operating time, blood loss and length of hospital stay were not significantly reduced (p = 0.09, 0.58 and 0.50, respectively) when using PSCG.

The use of PSCG in primary TKA did not reduce the proportion of outliers as measured by post-operative coronal alignment.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:56–63.

Accurate, reproducible outcome measures are essential for the evaluation of any orthopaedic procedure, in both clinical practice and research.

Commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have drawbacks such as ‘floor’ and ‘ceiling’ effects, limitations of worldwide adaptability and an inability to distinguish pain from function. They are also unable to measure the true outcome of an intervention rather than a patient’s perception of that outcome.

Performance-based functional outcome tools may address these problems. It is important that both clinicians and researchers are aware of these measures when dealing with high-demand patients, using a new intervention or implant, or testing a new rehabilitation protocol.

This article provides an overview of some of the clinically-validated performance-based functional outcome tools used in the assessment of patients undergoing hip and knee surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1431–5.

The December 2013 Oncology Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Peri-articular resection fraught with complications; Navigated margins; Skeletal tumours and thromboembolism; Conditional survival in Ewing’s sarcoma; Reverse shoulders and tumour; For how long should we follow up sarcoma patients?; and already metastasised?

The December 2014 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: national guidance on arthroplasty thromboprophylaxis is effective; unicompartmental knee replacement has the edge in terms of short-term complications; stiff knees, timing and manipulation; neuropathic pain and total knee replacement; synovial fluid α-defensin and CRP: a new gold standard in joint infection diagnosis?; how to assess anterior knee pain?; where is the evidence? Five new implants under the spotlight; and a fresh look at ACL reconstruction

The October 2014 Wrist & Hand Roundup360 looks at: pulsed electromagnetic field of no use in acute scaphoid fractures; proximal interphalangeal joint replacement: one at a time or both at once; trapeziometacarpal arthrodesis in the young patient; Tamoxifen and Dupytren’s disease; and endoscopic or open for de Quervain’s syndrome?