Orthopaedic outcome measures are used to evaluate the effect of operative interventions. They are used for audit and research. Knowledge of these measures is becoming increasingly important with league tables comparing surgeons and hospitals being made accessible to the profession and the general public. Several types of tool are available to describe outcome after hip surgery such as generic quality-of-life questionnaires, disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaires, hip-specific outcome measures and general short-term clinical measures. We provide an overview of the outcome measures commonly used to evaluate hip interventions

Objectives

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.

Non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head is a potentially devastating condition, the prevalence of which is increasing. Many joint-preserving forms of treatment, both medical and surgical, have been developed in an attempt to slow or reverse its progression, as it usually affects young patients.

However, it is important to evaluate the best evidence that is available for the many forms of treatment considering the variation in the demographics of the patients, the methodology and the outcomes in the studies that have been published, so that it can be used effectively.

The purpose of this review, therefore, was to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based guide to the management, both non-operative and operative, of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1267–79.

Objectives

The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) publishes hospital-level risk-adjusted mortality rates following hip fracture surgery in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The performance of the risk model used by the NHFD was compared with the widely-used Nottingham Hip Fracture Score.

We reviewed the cases of 38 children with 45 congenitally dislocated hips who presented for primary treatment after the age of three years. Of these, 34 hips were managed by the 'direct approach' of Somerville and Scott (1957); 14 of these required secondary operations for subluxation, often with a poor outcome. Eleven hips were treated by combined pelvic and femoral osteotomy which, in general, gave good results. At a mean follow-up of 16.7 years, 80% of the whole series had a good or excellent clinical result and 51% were good or excellent radiologically. Simultaneous correction both above and below the hip is considered to be the best treatment for the older child with congenital hip dislocation

In 1957 Somerville and Scott described their "direct approach" to the management of established congenital dislocation of the hip; arthrography after a period of traction served to distinguish the dislocated from the subluxated hip. We review the long-term outcome of hips which, using their criteria, were subluxated; 72 hips have been reviewed at periods ranging from 15 to 37 years after treatment by traction, closed reduction and femoral osteotomy. The results have been classified clinically and radiologically according to Severin's criteria. There was progressive deterioration with age in both clinical function and radiographic appearance: 48.5% of hips showed evidence of dysplasia or subluxation at review. The results are similar to those found in a series treated by open reduction and limbectomy, differing only in the much lower incidence of degenerative changes after closed reduction

We have reviewed 74 tuberculous hips in 73 children treated from 1950 to 1991. From 1979 to 1991 we treated 28 patients with rifampicin, isoniazid and pyrazinamide given for nine months (series A), using active mobilisation for the more recent cases. Before this, 46 hips had been treated with streptomycin and isoniazid with or without para-aminosalicyclic acid given for a mean of 18 months (series B), and all these patients were immobilised for a mean of 2.2 years. The radiological appearances at presentation as classified by Shanmugasundaram (1983) predicted the outcome. Most hips were of the 'normal' type (50% and 59% of series A and B respectively) followed by the dislocating type (25% and 13%) and the atrophic type (8% and 9%). There were good or excellent results in 93% of the 'normal' type. All the atrophic type had poor results. The dislocating type had a poor result if the joint space was narrow after reduction of the hip. Early mobilisation had no effect on the outcome of the 'normal' type of disease. The newer drug regimens allowed for shorter courses of treatment, but did not necessarily give a better outcome

Aims

To analyse the effectiveness of debridement and implant retention (DAIR) in patients with hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and the relationship to patient characteristics. The outcome was evaluated in hips with confirmed PJI and a follow-up of not less than two years.

The December 2015 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Delay to surgery in hip fracture; Hexapod fixators in the management of hypertrophic tibial nonunions; Thromboembolism after nailing pathological fractures; Tibial plateau fracture patterns under the spotlight; The health economic effects of long bone nonunion; Adverse outcomes in trauma; The sacral screw in children; Treating the contralateral SUFE

The October 2015 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: PCA not the best in resuscitation; Impact of trauma centre care; Quality of life after a hip fracture; Recovery and severity of injury: open tibial fractures in the spotlight; Assessment of the triplane fractures; Signs of an unstable paediatric pelvis; Safe insertion of SI screws: are two views required?; Post-operative delirium under the spotlight; Psychological effects of fractures; K-wires cost effective in DRAFFT

The August 2015 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Thromboprophylaxis not required in lower limb fractures; Subclinical thyroid dysfunction and fracture risk: moving the boundaries in fracture; Posterior wall fractures refined; Neurological injury and acetabular fracture surgery; Posterior tibial plateau fixation; Tibial plateau fractures in the longer term; Comprehensive orthogeriatric care and hip fracture; Compartment syndrome: in the eye of the beholder?

Objectives

The Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS, OKS) have been demonstrated to vary according to age and gender, making it difficult to compare results in cohorts with different demographics. The aim of this paper was to calculate reference values for different patient groups and highlight the concept of normative reference data to contextualise an individual’s outcome.

The June 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: neuraxial anaesthesia and large joint arthroplasty; revision total hip arthoplasty: factors associated with re-revision surgery; acetabular version and clinical outcomes in impingement surgery; hip precautions may be ineffective; implant selection and cost effectiveness; femoroacetabular impingement in the older age group; multiple revision in hip arthroplasty

The October 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: PRP is not effective in tennis elbow; eccentric physiotherapy effective in subacromial pain; dexamethasone in shoulder surgery; arthroscopic remplissage for engaging Hill-Sach’s lesions; a consistent approach to subacromial impingement; delay in fixation of proximal humeral fractures detrimental to outcomes.

The Bone & Joint Journal provides the latest evidence to guide the clinical practice of orthopaedic surgeons. The benefits of one intervention compared with another are presented using outcome measures; some may be specific to a limb or joint and some are more general health-related quality of life measures. Readers will be familiar with many of these outcome measures and will be able to judge the relative benefits of different interventions when measured using the same outcome tool; for example, different treatments for pain in the knee measured using a particular knee score. But, how should readers compare outcomes between different clinical areas using different outcome measures? This article explores the use of standardised effect sizes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:853–4.