Aims. Lower limb reconstruction (LLR) has a profound impact on patients, affecting multiple areas of their lives. Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are employed to assess these impacts; however, there are concerns that they do not adequately capture all outcomes important to patients, and may lack content validity in this context. This review explored whether PROMs used with adults requiring, undergoing, or after undergoing LLR exhibited content validity and adequately captured outcomes considered relevant and important to patients. Methods. A total of 37 PROMs were identified. Systematic searches were performed to retrieve content validity studies in the adult LLR population, and hand-searches used to find PROM development studies. Content validity assessments for each measure were performed following Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. A mapping exercise compared all PROMs to a conceptual framework previously developed by the study team (‘the PROLLIT framework’) to explore whether each PROM covered important and relevant concepts. Results. The systematic searches found 13 studies, while hand searches found 50 PROM development studies, and copies of all 37 measures. Although several studies discussed content validity, none were found which formally assessed this measurement property in the adult LLR population. Development of many PROMs was rated as inadequate, no PROM had sufficient content validity in the study population, and none covered all areas of the PROLLIT framework. The LIMB-Q was the most promising and comprehensive measure assessed, although further validation in a wider sample of LLR patients was recommended. Conclusion. Current PROMs used in adults requiring, undergoing, or after undergoing LLR lack content validity and do not assess all important and relevant outcomes. There is an urgent need for improved outcome measurement in this population. This can be achieved through development of a new PROM, or through validation of existing measures in representative samples. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1049–1066

Objectives. The diagnosis of surgical site infection following endoprosthetic reconstruction for bone tumours is frequently a subjective diagnosis. Large clinical trials use blinded Central Adjudication Committees (CACs) to minimise the variability and bias associated with assessing a clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to determine the level of inter-rater and intra-rater agreement in the diagnosis of surgical site infection in the context of a clinical trial. Materials and Methods. The Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial CAC adjudicated 29 non-PARITY cases of lower extremity endoprosthetic reconstruction. The CAC members classified each case according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) criteria for surgical site infection (superficial, deep, or organ space). Combinatorial analysis was used to calculate the smallest CAC panel size required to maximise agreement. A final meeting was held to establish a consensus. Results. Full or near consensus was reached in 20 of the 29 cases. The Fleiss kappa value was calculated as 0.44 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.53), or moderate agreement. The greatest statistical agreement was observed in the outcome of no infection, 0.61 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.72, substantial agreement). Panelists reached a full consensus in 12 of 29 cases and near consensus in five of 29 cases when CDC criteria were used (superficial, deep or organ space). A stable maximum Fleiss kappa of 0.46 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.35) at CAC sizes greater than three members was obtained. Conclusions. There is substantial agreement among the members of the PARITY CAC regarding the presence or absence of surgical site infection. Agreement on the level of infection, however, is more challenging. Additional clinical information routinely collected by the prospective PARITY trial may improve the discriminatory capacity of the CAC in the parent study for the diagnosis of infection. Cite this article: J. Nuttall, N. Evaniew, P. Thornley, A. Griffin, B. Deheshi, T. O’Shea, J. Wunder, P. Ferguson, R. L. Randall, R. Turcotte, P. Schneider, P. McKay, M. Bhandari, M. Ghert. The inter-rater reliability of the diagnosis of surgical site infection in the context of a clinical trial. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:347–352. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.58.BJR-2016-0036.R1

Aims

Currently, there is no single, comprehensive national guideline for analgesic strategies for total joint replacement. We compared inpatient and outpatient opioid requirements following total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to determine risk factors for increased inpatient and outpatient opioid requirements following total hip or knee arthroplasty.