The aims of the study were to review and analyse the reported
series of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR)
in the management of infected total hip arthroplasties (THAs) to
establish the overall success and the influencing factors. Using a standardised recognised study protocol, meta-analysis
of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines, a comprehensive
review and analysis of the literature was performed. The primary
outcome measure was the success of treatment. The search strategy
and inclusion criteria which involved an assessment of quality yielded
39 articles for analysis, which included 1296 patients.Aims
Patients and methods
This study aimed to compare the change in health-related quality
of life of patients receiving a traditional cemented monoblock Thompson
hemiarthroplasty compared with a modern cemented modular polished-taper
stemmed hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular hip fractures. This was a pragmatic, multicentre, multisurgeon, two-arm, parallel
group, randomized standard-of-care controlled trial. It was embedded
within the WHiTE Comprehensive Cohort Study. The sample size was
964 patients. The setting was five National Health Service Trauma
Hospitals in England. A total of 964 patients over 60 years of age who
required hemiarthroplasty of the hip between February 2015 and March
2016 were included. A standardized measure of health outcome, the
EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, was carried out on admission and
at four months following the operation.Aims
Patients and Methods
This study investigates the reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients following hip fracture. We compare the relative merits and make recommendations for the use for two methods of measuring HRQoL; (i) including patients who died during follow-up and (ii) including survivors only. The World Hip Trauma Evaluation has previously reported changes in HRQoL using EuroQol-5D for patients with hip fractures. We performed additional analysis to investigate the effect of including or excluding those patients who died during the first four months of the follow-up period.Objectives
Methods
The aim of this study was to review the role
of clinical trial networks in orthopaedic surgery. A total of two
electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched from inception
to September 2013 with no language restrictions. Articles related
to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), research networks and orthopaedic
research, were identified and reviewed. The usefulness of trainee-led
research collaborations is reported and our knowledge of current
clinical trial infrastructure further supplements the review. Searching
yielded 818 titles and abstracts, of which 12 were suitable for
this review. Results are summarised and presented narratively under
the following headings: 1) identifying clinically relevant research
questions; 2) education and training; 3) conduct of multicentre
RCTs and 4) dissemination and adoption of trial results. This review
confirms growing international awareness of the important role research
networks play in supporting trials in orthopaedic surgery. Multidisciplinary
collaboration and adequate investment in trial infrastructure are crucial
for successful delivery of RCTs. Cite this article:
We validated the North American Spine Society (NASS) outcome-assessment instrument for the lumbar spine in a computerised touch-screen format and assessed patients’ acceptance, taking into account previous computer experience, age and gender. Fifty consecutive patients with symptomatic and radiologically-proven degenerative disease of the lumbar spine completed both the hard copy (paper) and the computerised versions of the NASS questionnaire. Statistical analysis showed high agreement between the paper and the touch-screen computer format for both subscales (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.94, 95% confidence interval (0.90 to 0.97)) independent of computer experience, age and gender. In total, 55% of patients stated that the computer format was easier to use and 66% preferred it to the paper version (p <
0.0001 among subjects expressing a preference). Our data indicate that the touch-screen format is comparable to the paper form. It may improve follow-up in clinical practice and research by meeting patients’ preferences and minimising administrative work.
