Aims

This study evaluated the effect of treating clinician speciality on management of zone 2 fifth metatarsal fractures.

Aims. A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial. Methods. We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment. Results. Recruiters faced four common obstacles when recruiting to a surgical orthopaedic trial: patient preferences for an intervention; a complex recruitment pathway; various logistical issues; and conflicting views on equipoise. Clinicians expressed concerns that the trial may not show significant differences in the treatments, validating their equipoise. However, they experienced role conflicts due to their own preference and perceived patient preference for an intervention arm. Conclusion. This study provided initial information about barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial. We shared these findings in an all-site investigators’ meeting and encouraged researchers to find solutions to identified barriers; this led to the successful completion of recruitment. Complex trials may benefit for using of a mixed-methods approach to mitigate against recruitment failure, and to improve patient participation and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):631–637

Clinicians are often asked by patients, “When can I drive again?” after lower limb injury or surgery. This question is difficult to answer in the absence of any guidelines. This review aims to collate the currently available evidence and discuss the factors that influence the decision to allow a patient to return to driving. Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched using the following terms: ‘brake reaction time’, ‘brake response time’, ‘braking force’, ‘brake pedal force’, ‘resume driving’, ‘rate of application of force’, ‘driving after injury’, ‘joint replacement and driving’, and ‘fracture and driving’. Of the relevant literature identified, most studies used the brake reaction time and total brake time as the outcome measures. Varying recovery periods were proposed based on the type and severity of injury or surgery. Surveys of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Police, insurance companies in the United Kingdom and Orthopaedic Surgeons offered a variety of opinions. There is currently insufficient evidence for any authoritative body to determine fitness to drive. The lack of guidance could result in patients being withheld from driving for longer than is necessary, or returning to driving while still unsafe. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:290–4

We developed the Oxford ankle foot questionnaire to assess the disability associated with foot and ankle problems in children aged from five to 16 years. A survey of 158 children and their parents was carried out to determine the content, scaling, reliability and validity of the instrument. Scores from the questionnaire can be calculated to measure the effect of foot or ankle problems on three domains of children’s lives: physical, school and play, and emotional. Scores for each domain were shown to be internally consistent, stable, and to vary little whether reported by child or parent. Satisfactory face, content and construct validity were demonstrated. The questionnaire is appropriate for children with a range of conditions and can provide clinically useful information to supplement other assessment methods. We are currently carrying out further work to assess the responsiveness of questionnaire scores to change over time and with treatment.