Aims. This study aimed to gather insights from elbow experts using the Delphi method to evaluate the influence of patient characteristics and fracture morphology on the choice between operative and nonoperative treatment for coronoid fractures. Methods. A three-round electronic (e-)modified Delphi survey study was performed between March and December 2023. A total of 55 elbow surgeons from Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America participated, with 48 completing all questionnaires (87%). The panellists evaluated the factors identified as important in literature for treatment decision-making, using a Likert scale ranging from "strongly influences me to recommend nonoperative treatment" (1) to "strongly influences me to recommend operative treatment" (5). Factors achieving Likert scores ≤ 2.0 or ≥ 4.0 were deemed influential for treatment recommendation. Stable consensus is defined as an agreement of ≥ 80% in the second and third rounds. Results. Of 68 factors considered important in the literature for treatment choice for coronoid fractures, 18 achieved a stable consensus to be influential. Influential factors with stable consensus that advocate for operative treatment were being a professional athlete, playing overhead sports, a history of subjective dislocation or subluxation during trauma, open fracture, crepitation with range of movement, > 2 mm opening during varus stress on radiological imaging, and having an anteromedial facet or basal coronoid fracture (O’Driscoll type 2 or 3). An anterolateral coronoid tip fracture ≤ 2 mm was the only influential factor with a stable consensus that advocates for nonoperative treatment. Most disagreement existed regarding the treatment for the terrible triad injury with an anterolateral coronoid tip fracture fragment ≤ 2 mm (O’Driscoll type 1 subtype 1). Conclusion. This study gives insights into areas of consensus among surveyed elbow surgeons in choosing between operative and nonoperative management of coronoid fractures. These findings should be used in conjunction with previous patient cohort studies when discussing treatment options with patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1150–1157

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. A review of the literature on elbow replacement found no consistency in the clinical outcome measures which are used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The aim of this study was to define core outcome domains for elbow replacement. Methods. A real-time Delphi survey was conducted over four weeks using outcomes from a scoping review of 362 studies on elbow replacement published between January 1990 and February 2021. A total of 583 outcome descriptors were rationalized to 139 unique outcomes. The survey consisted of 139 outcomes divided into 18 domains. The readability and clarity of the survey was determined by an advisory group including a patient representative. Participants were able to view aggregated responses from other participants in real time and to revisit their responses as many times as they wished during the study period. Participants were able to propose additional items for inclusion. A Patient and Public Inclusion and Engagement (PPIE) panel considered the consensus findings. Results. A total of 45 respondents completed the survey. Nine core mandatory domains were identified: ‘return to work or normal daily role’; delivery of care was measured in the domains ‘patient satisfaction with the outcome of surgery’ and ‘would the patient have the same operation again’; ‘pain’; ‘revision’; ‘elbow function’; ‘independence in activities of daily living’; ‘health-related quality of life’; and ‘adverse events’. ‘Elbow range of motion’ was identified as important by consensus but was felt to be less relevant by the PPIE panel. The PPIE panel unanimously stated that pain should be used as the primary outcome domain. Conclusion. This study defined core domains for the clinical outcomes of elbow replacement obtained by consensus from patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Pain may be used as the primary outcome in future studies, where appropriate. Further work is required to define the instruments that should be used. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):xxx–xxx

Aims

Extensive literature exists relating to the management of shoulder instability, with a more recent focus on glenoid and humeral bone loss. However, the optimal timing for surgery following a dislocation remains unclear. There is concern that recurrent dislocations may worsen subsequent surgical outcomes, with some advocating stabilization after the first dislocation. The aim of this study was to determine if the recurrence of instability following arthroscopic stabilization in patients without significant glenoid bone loss was influenced by the number of dislocations prior to surgery.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for patients with a proximal humerus fracture, using time-driven activity based costing (TDABC), and to compare treatment costs with reimbursement under the Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs).