Acute bone and joint infections in children are serious, and misdiagnosis can threaten limb and life. Most young children who present acutely with pain, limping, and/or loss of function have transient synovitis, which will resolve spontaneously within a few days. A minority will have a bone or joint infection. Clinicians are faced with a diagnostic challenge: children with transient synovitis can safely be sent home, but children with bone and joint infection require urgent treatment to avoid complications. Clinicians often respond to this challenge by using a series of rudimentary decision support tools, based on clinical, haematological, and biochemical parameters, to differentiate childhood osteoarticular infection from other diagnoses. However, these tools were developed without methodological expertise in diagnostic accuracy and do not consider the importance of imaging (ultrasound scan and MRI). There is wide variation in clinical practice with regard to the indications, choice, sequence, and timing of imaging. This variation is most likely due to the lack of evidence concerning the role of imaging in acute bone and joint infection in children. We describe the first steps of a large UK multicentre study, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, which seeks to integrate definitively the role of imaging into a decision support tool, developed with the assistance of individuals with expertise in the development of clinical prediction tools. Cite this article:
Following the publication in 2007 of the guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) for patients undergoing surgery, concerns were raised by British orthopaedic surgeons as to the appropriateness of the recommendations for their clinical practice. In order to address these concerns NICE and the British Orthopaedic Association agreed to engage a representative panel of orthopaedic surgeons in the process of developing expanded VTE guidelines applicable to all patients admitted to hospital. The functions of this panel were to review the evidence and to consider the applicability and implications in orthopaedic practice in order to advise the main Guideline Development Group in framing recommendations. The panel considered both direct and indirect evidence of the safety and efficacy, the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis and its implication in clinical practice for orthopaedic patients. We describe the process of selection of the orthopaedic panel, the evidence considered and the contribution of the panel to the latest guidelines from NICE on the prophylaxis against VTE, published in January 2010.
Procedures performed at the incorrect anatomical site are commonly perceived as being relatively rare. However, they can be a devastating event for patients and doctors. Evidence from the United Kingdom and North America suggests that wrong-site, wrong-procedure and wrong-patient events occur more commonly than we think. Furthermore, their incidence may be increasing as NHS Trusts increase the volume and complexity of procedures undertaken in order to cope with increasing demands on the system. In previous studies from North America orthopaedic surgery has been found to be the worst-offending specialty. In this paper we review the existing literature on wrong-site surgery and analyse data from the National Patient Safety Agency and NHS Litigation Authority on 292 cases of wrong-site surgery in England and Wales. Orthopaedic surgery accounted for 87 (29.8%) of these cases. In the year 2006 to 2007, the rate of wrong-site surgery in England and Wales was highest in orthopaedic surgery, in which the estimated rate was 1:105 712 cases.
Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in the evaluation of outcome of treatment. They are needed because differences between treatment effects have been minimised and observational studies may give a biased estimation of the outcome. However, conducting this kind of trial is challenging. Several methodological issues, including patient or surgeon preference, blinding, surgical standardisation, as well as external validity, have to be addressed in order to lower the risk of bias. Specific tools have been developed in order to take into account the specificity of evaluation of the literature on non-pharmacological intervention. A better knowledge of methodological issues will allow the orthopaedic surgeon to conduct more appropriate studies and to better appraise the limits of his intervention.
The Oxford hip and knee scores have been extensively used since they were first described in 1996 and 1998. During this time, they have been modified and used for many different purposes. This paper describes how they should be used and seeks to clarify areas of confusion.
