Aims. Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) develop deposits in the spine which may lead to vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). Our aim was to establish which spinopelvic parameters are associated with the greatest disability in patients with spinal myeloma and VCFs. Patients and Methods. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional review of 148 consecutive patients (87 male, 61 female) with spinal myeloma and analysed correlations between spinopelvic parameters and patient-reported outcome scores. The mean age of the patients was 65.5 years (37 to 91) and the mean number of vertebrae involved was 3.7 (1 to 15). Results. The thoracolumbar region was most commonly affected (109 patients, 73.6%), and was the site of most posterior vertebral wall defects (47 patients, 31.8%). Poorer Oswestry Disability Index scores correlated with an increased sagittal vertical axis (p = 0.006), an increased number of VCFs (p = 0.035) and sternal involvement (p = 0.012). Poorer EuroQol visual analogue scale scores correlated with posterior vertebral wall defects in the thoracolumbar region (p = 0.012). The sagittal vertical axis increased with the number of fractures and kyphosis in the thoracolumbar (p = 0.009) and lumbar (p < 0.001) regions. Conclusions. In MM, patients with VCFs have poorer clinical scores at presentation in the presence of sagittal imbalance. Outcome is particularly affected by multiple fractures in the thoracolumbar and lumbar regions and by failure to prevent kyphosis. Patients with MM should be screened for spinal lesions early. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1234–9

Introduction. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are used as outcome of many surgical treatments such as Hip and knee joint replacements, varicose vein and groin hernia surgery. Outcome scores in orthopaedics tend to be site and/or pathology specific. Trauma related pathology uses a surrogate outcome scores. A unified outcome score for trauma is needed to help with the measurement of outcomes in trauma patients and evaluate the actual impact that trauma inflicts to patients' lives. Materials & Methods. We have designed a PROM especially for Trauma patients, in order to measure the extent of recovery to pre-injury state. This score uses as baseline the pre-injury status of the patient and has the aim to determine the percentage of rehabilitation after any form of treatment. This PROM is not site specific and can be used for every Trauma condition. It uses simple wording, user friendly and accessed via phone conversation. The outcome score consists of eleven questions. The first ten questions use the 5-point Likert scale and the final question a scale from zero to ten. The questions are divided into three subgroups (Symptoms, Function and Mental status). The final question assesses the extent of return to pre-injury status. The SF-12v2 questionnaire was used for the validation of the COST questionnaire. We gathered COST and SF-12v2 questionnaires from patients who were at the end of their follow-up after treatment for various trauma conditions, treated either conservatively either operatively. Results. A total of 50 COST questionnaires were gathered in out outpatients department. The participants were 33 male and 17 female patients (aged 44.2 ±18.9 years) and the questionnaires collected at mean 9.7 months post-injury. A Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.89 was identified for the whole construct. The three dimensions of the scale had good internal consistency as well (Cronbach's Alpha test values 0.73, 0.85 and 0.81 for symptoms, function and mental status respectively). Strong/moderate correlation (Spearman's Rho test 0.45–0.65) was observed between the respective physical/mental dimensions of the COST and SF-12v2 questionnaires. Conclusion. There is a need for a specific PROM for Trauma pathology which is not site specific and easy to use and understand. COST is a useful tool to Trauma surgeons to measure the outcomes of their patients and has high internal consistency

Purpose. With growing attention being paid to quality and cost effectiveness in healthcare, outcome evaluations are becoming increasingly important. This determination can be especially difficult in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) given the complex pathology and extensive disabilities in this patient population. Several different scoring systems have been developed and validated for use in various shoulder pathologies. The purpose of this study was to assess the use three outcome scores in a population of patients undergoing RSA. We aim to demonstrate the validity of three outcome scores in patients undergoing RSA, and to determine if one score or a combination of scores is superior to others. Methods. Using a database of patients treated with RSA, we assessed preoperative and postoperative Constant Scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and subjective shoulder values (SSV) in 148 shoulders. The outcomes at each scoring period were described and the scores were compared to one another as well as to active range of motion using linear regression modeling. Results. There were no significant differences in the mean improvement of any of the scores. All of the outcome scales improvements were correlated with each other and improvement in forward elevation but not with external rotation. Using multivariate regression analysis all 3 outcome measures were able to predict 38.9% of the variation in improvement in functional outcomes (forward elevation). This was only slightly greater than that provided by improvements in the outcome variable CS alone (36.7%). Conclusion. The three shoulder outcome scores evaluated, regardless of whether they were patient reported or physician based, appear to appropriately reflect improvements after RSA with equal validity. The objective physician assessed Constant score had the strongest correlation with function of the arm, and use of a combination of all 3 outcome scores does not increase the ability to predict range of motion compared to using the Constant Score alone

Aims

The metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score examines patient performance in relation to energy expenditure before and after knee arthroplasty. This study assesses its use in a knee arthroplasty population in comparison with the widely used Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol five-dimension index (EQ-5D), which are reported to be limited by ceiling effects.

Introduction. Patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be significantly better than after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The same has been observed for the capacity to forget during daily life activities about the operated joint. Recently a new patient reported outcome score, the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) a twelve item questionaire, has been used to evaluate postoperative outcome in joint arthroplasty. A better FJS-12 score was measured in THA than in TKA objectivating the intuitive feeling that the joint was more forgotten in THA than in TKA. Hypothesis. A higher preoperative FJS-12 score is the reason for a higher postoperative FJS-12 score in THA compared to TKA. Materials and methods. FJS-12 scores were prospectively collected in 75 THA and 75 TKA preoperatively and one year postoperative. Patients were stratified according to age and BMI. Effect size of treatment was calculated using the FJS-12. Results. No preoperative difference in mean (SD) FJS-12 was observed for THA (24(17) versus TKA (22(15)). The mean (SD) postoperative FJS-12 was significantly higher for THA (79(25)) than for TKA (73(22)). Effect size of treatment was 3.4 for TKA and 3.2 for THA. Mean (SD) for men in THA (89(25)) was significantly higher than for men in TKA (74(22)). Discussion. Postoperative differences in forgotten joint feeling after THA compared to TKA can not be explained by a preoperative difference. TKA is an effective surgery as measured by the effect size of treatment. Male TKA patients have worst outcome than male THA patients. This can probably be explained by mechanical or proprioceptive differences in between both types of arthroplasty

Introduction : The ultimate aim of any treatment for low back ache is to improve the quality of life as perceived by the patient. Changes in the condition specific disability measures like the Low Back Outcome Score are used as a measure for this purpose and the results interpreted in terms of statistical significance. It is not known, however, if these changes are considered to be clinically significant by the patients. Objective: To quantifies the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of Low Back Outcome Score in patient’s treated conservatively for Mechanical Low Back Pain. Design & Subject: Postal questionnaire was sent to a randomly selected cohort of 300 individuals who were treated in the Spinal Assessment Clinic (SAC) for low back pain. Outcome measures: Patient’s perception of the outcome of the rehabilitation programme was compared with the changes in LBOS from the time of initial presentation to the postal questionnaire. Results: 186 forms (62 % response rate) were returned. Data from 170 forms were analysed, as 16 forms were incomplete. An average improvement of 17.96(p=0.001) in 75-point LBOS was noticed in those (n = 61) who reported complete recovery. Those who reported Good but incomplete recovery ( n =61) improved their LBOS by 12.37 points( p=0.001). LBOS improvement of 7.52 points ( p = 0.002) was noticed in patients reporting a minimal improvement( n= 38). Ten patients had no change in their clinical condition ( LBOS change 2.8, p =0.485).Age and gender distribution of four groups remained same ( chi square = 1.39, df = 3,p > 0.5). Conclusions: The Minimum Clinically Important Difference for patients with Low Back Pain is a 7.5 (10%) change in the 75 point LBOS. An average change of 12 (16%) and 18(24%) can be considered to be Good and Excellent responses respectively to the treatment as perceived by the patients. This data will help to determine whether a statistically significant result is clinically meaningful

Introduction: The ultimate aim of any treatment for low back ache is to improve the quality of life as perceived by the patients. Changes in the condition specific disability measures like the Low Back Outcome Score are used as a measure for this purpose and the results interpreted in terms of statistical significance. It is not known, however, if these changes are considered to be clinically significant by the patients. This study quantifies the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of Low Back Outcome Score from the patient’s perspective that were treated conservatively for Mechanical Low Back Pain. Method: In August and September 1999, a postal questionnaire was sent to a randomly selected cohort of 300 individuals who were treated in the Spinal Assessment Clinic (SAC) for low back pain. Patient’s perception of the outcome of the rehabilitation programme was compared with the changes in LBOS from the time of initial presentation to the postal questionnaire. Results: 186 forms (62 % response rate) were returned. Data from 170 forms were analysed, as 16 forms were incomplete. An average improvement of 17.96(p=0.001) in 75-point LBOS was noticed in those (n = 61) who reported complete recovery. Those who reported Good but incomplete recovery ( n =61) improved their LBOS by 12.37 points( p=0.001). LBOS improvement of 7.52 points ( p = 0.002) was noticed in patients reporting a minimal improvement( n= 38). Ten patients had no change in their clinical condition ( LBOS change 2.8, p =0.485).Age and gender distribution of four groups remained same ( chi square = 1.39, df = 3,p > 0.5). Conclusion: The Minimum Clinically Important Difference for patients with Low Back Pain is a 7.5 (10%) change in the 75 point LBOS. An average change of 12 (16%) and 18(24%) can be considered to be Good and Excellent responses respectively to the treatment as perceived by the patients. This data will help to determine whether a statistically significant result is clinically meaningful

To prospectively determine the relationship between the two most commonly used generic spinal outcome measures, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS). Outcome measures inform audit and research. Few spine surgical specific outcome measures are in general use. Generic measures are used for a variety of spinal disorders it is not known which is best or exactly how they relate for different conditions. Pre-operatively and two years post surgical results were available in 240 patients. There were 125 males, 115 females. Sub groups numbering 82 discetomy, 78 decompression, 26 revision and 19 fusions were analysed. Average age 55 years (range 23-88). The pre op average ODI was 55% and the LBOS was 29. Correlation was -0.73. The overall post operative score at 2 years was 34% ODI and 37 LBOS, the correlation was better at -0.87. The correlation between the two scores post operatively was very good for Discectomy surgery (-0.916) and fusion surgery (-0.907) but not so close pre operatively with Discectomy (-0.786) and fusion correlation poor at (-0.302). Revision surgery and decompression surgery had similar good correlation post operatively. The correlation of both outcome measures to the Modified Zung depression index was poor. The poor pre operative correlation suggests that thresholds for surgery cannot be compared within registries using different measures. The post operative scores and change in scores correlate better. This is important in comparative studies using different outcomes scores within the same spine registry. No conflict of Interest. Registered database and audit of service standard

Introduction: Radial shortening has been associated with a poor functional outcome following a fractured distal radius. Traditionally, outcome has been measured using doctor-based scores such as the Gartland and Werley Scoring System or modifications thereof. Aims: The aim of this study is to compare patient based outcome scores with the Frykman class of the fracture and radial shortening both at injury and fracture union. Methods: We followed up 60 patients over 55 who underwent closed reduction and k-wire fixation of distal radial fractures. Outcome was recorded by the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) score, a validated subjective outcome measure. Results: No association was found between radial shortening either at injury or fracture union with subjective outcome score but there was a significant association between Frykman Classification and outcome (p< 0.05). Discussion: Our results showed that for distal radius fractures that united with a moderate degree of radial shortening, increasing Frykman Class was associated with a worse functional score

Introduction This is a Prospective Comparative cohort study to determine the change in the Low Back Outcomes Score (LBOS) after intensive non-operative, multi-disciplinary treatment for low back pain and to compare this with data collected from earlier cohorts undergoing surgical fusion. Recently published Randomised Controlled Trials have been inconclusive regarding the benefits of surgery compared with rehabilitation for low back pain. We examine this question using the Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS) as an outcome measure. Methods The LBOS was acquired prior to and two years following treatment in cohorts undergoing fusion or rehabilitation for low back pain. Follow up was 70% and 90% respectively. The surgical group had a lower starting LBOS ( 18 v 27) but the rehabilitation group had a higher proportion of cases involved in compensation, litigation, and who were not working. Results A significantly greater improvement in LBOS was seen in the surgically treated group than was seen in the rehabilitation group (18 v 10). Discussion Although we do not propose surgery before non-operative treatments are exhausted, these results suggest that surgical treatment can have significant benefits for selected patients who have not improved despite a state of the art rehabilitation programme

Statement of purposes of the study and background: Validated outcome measures should be an essential tool in clinical practice. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), since its publication in 1980, is now a principle measure of condition-specific outcome in spinal management. The Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS), another popular measure, emphasises objective questions and gives a broad based status for low back illness. We have analysed the use of these instruments to see if they were directly comparable. Method: Fifty five consecutive patients attending our clinic between February and June 2005 for treatment of low back disorders completed the questionnaires. These were then scored in the conventional manner. To directly compare LBOS with ODI the LBOS score was converted to a percentage and inversed. The individual LBOS evaluations were then marked in two ways. Firstly the questions that did not appear to correlate to the ODI were removed. Secondly the weighting system was adjusted to match the ODI weighting. Statistical regression analysis was performed. Results: Direct comparison of ODI versus an inverse of the LBOS percentage score gave a scatter of results. The R squared result was 0.117. Removing the non-core answers from the LBOS gave an R squared value of 0.130. Removing the weighting of the LBOS gave an R squared value of 0.132. Removing the non-core questions and weighting system of the LBOS gave an R squared value of 0.133. Conclusion: These two validated disease specific outcome tools provide very different results when applied to the same group of patients. This has significant implications for outcome research especially when comparing studies which do not use similar instruments

Aims. The Single Assessment Numerical Evalution (SANE) score is a pragmatic alternative to longer patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The purpose of this study was to investigate the concurrent validity of the SANE and hip-specific PROMs in a generalized population of patients with hip pain at a single timepoint upon initial visit with an orthopaedic surgeon who is a hip preservation specialist. We hypothesized that SANE would have a strong correlation with the 12-question International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT)-12, the Hip Outcome Score (HOS), and the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), providing evidence for concurrent validity of the SANE and hip-specific outcome measures in patients with hip pain. Methods. This study was a cross-sectional retrospective database analysis at a single timepoint. Data were collected from 2,782 patients at initial evaluation with a hip preservation specialist using the iHOT-12, HOS, HOOS, and SANE. Outcome scores were retrospectively analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficients. Results. Mean raw scores were iHOT-12 67.01 (SD 29.52), HOS 58.42 (SD 26.26), HOOS 86.85 (SD 32.94), and SANE 49.60 (SD 27.92). SANE was moderately correlated with the iHOT-12 (r = -0.4; 95% CI -0.35 to -0.44; p < 0.001), HOS (r = 0.57; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.60; p < 0.001), and HOOS (r = -0.55; 95% CI -0.51 to -0.58; p < 0.001). The iHOT-12 and HOOS were recorded as a lower score, indicating better function, which accounts for the negative r values. Conclusion. This study was the first to investigate the relationship between the SANE and the iHOT-12, HOS, and HOOS in a population of patients with hip pain at the initial evaluation with an orthopaedic surgeon, and found moderate correlation between SANE and the iHOT-12, HOS, and HOOS. The SANE may be a pragmatic alternative for clinical benchmarking in a general population of patients with hip pain. The construct validity of the SANE should be questioned compared to legacy measures whose content validity has been more rigorously investigated. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):904–910

Aims. Both anatomical and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA and rTSA) provide functional improvements. A reported benefit of aTSA is better range of motion (ROM). However, it is not clear which procedure provides better outcomes in patients with limited foward elevation (FE). The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of aTSA and rTSA in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), an intact rotator cuff, and limited FE. Methods. This was a retrospective review of a single institution’s prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database for TSAs undertaken between 2007 and 2020. A total of 344 aTSAs and 163 rTSAs, which were performed in patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff with a minimum follow-up of two years, were included. Using the definition of preoperative stiffness as passive FE ≤ 105°, three cohorts were matched 1:1 by age, sex, and follow-up: stiff aTSAs (85) to non-stiff aTSAs (85); stiff rTSAs (74) to non-stiff rTSAs (74); and stiff rTSAs (64) to stiff aTSAs (64). We the compared ROMs, outcome scores, and complication and revision rates. Results. Compared with non-stiff aTSAs, stiff aTSAs had poorer passive FE and active external rotation (ER), whereas there were no significant postoperative differences between stiff rTSAs and non-stiff rTSAs. There were no significant differences in preoperative function when comparing stiff aTSAs with stiff rTSAs. However, stiff rTSAs had significantly greater postoperative active and passive FE (p = 0.001 and 0.004, respectively), and active abduction (p = 0.001) compared with stiff aTSAs. The outcome scores were significantly more favourable in stiff rTSAs for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California, Los Angeles score, and the Constant score, compared with stiff aTSAs. When comparing the proportion of stiff aTSAs versus stiff rTSAs that exceeded the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit, stiff rTSAs achieved both at greater rates for all measurements except active ER. The complication rate did not significantly differ between stiff aTSAs and stiff rTSAs, but there was a significantly higher rate of revision surgery in stiff aTSAs (p = 0.007). Conclusion. Postoperative overhead ROM, outcome scores, and rates of revision surgery favour the use of a rTSA rather than aTSA in patients with glenohumeral OA, an intact rotator cuff and limited FE, with similar rotational ROM in these two groups. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(12):1303–1313

The primary treatment goal for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, a common hip condition in athletes, is to improve pain and function. In selected patients, in the short term following intervention, arthroscopic hip surgery is superior to a pragmatic NHS- type physiotherapy programme. Here, we report the three-year follow-up results from the FemoroAcetabular Impingement Trial (FAIT), comparing arthroscopic hip surgery with physiotherapy in the management of patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. Two-group parallel, assessor-blinded, pragmatic randomised controlled study across seven NHS England sites. 222 participants aged 18 to 60 years with FAI syndrome confirmed clinically and radiologically were randomised (1:1) to receive arthroscopic hip surgery (n = 112) or physiotherapy and activity modification (n = 110). We previously reported on the hip outcome score at eight months. The primary outcome measure of this study was minimum Joint Space Width (mJSW) on Anteroposterior Radiograph at 38 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included the Hip Outcome Score and Scoring Hip Osteoarthritis with MRI (SHOMRI) score. Minimum Joint Space Width data were available for 101 participants (45%) at 38 months post randomisation. Hip outcome score and MRI data were available for 77% and 62% of participants respectively. mJSW was higher in the arthroscopy group (mean (SD) 3.34mm (1.01)) compared to the physiotherapy group (2.99mm (1.33)) at 38 months, p=0.017, however this did not exceed the minimally clinically important difference of 0.48mm. SHOMRI score was significantly lower in the arthroscopy group (mean (SD) 9.22 (11.43)) compared to the physiotherapy group (22.76 (15.26)), p-value <0.001. Hip outcome score was higher in the arthroscopy group (mean (SD) 84.2 (17.4)) compared with the physiotherapy group (74.2 (21.9)), p-value < 0.001). Patients with FAI syndrome treated surgically may experience slowing of osteoarthritisprogression and superior pain and function compared with patients treated non- operatively

Abstract. Objective. Meta-analysis of clinical trials highlights that non-operative management of degenerative knee meniscal tears is as effective as surgical management. Surgical guidelines though support arthroscopic partial meniscectomy which remains common in NHS practice. Physiotherapists are playing an increasing role in triage of such patients though it is unclear how this influences clinical management and patient outcomes. Methods. A 1-year cohort (July 2019–June 2020) of patients presenting with MRI confirmed degenerative meniscal tears to a regional orthopaedic referral centre (3× ESP physiotherapists) was identified. Initial clinical management was obtained from medical records alongside subsequent secondary care management and routinely collected outcome scores in the following 2-years. Management options included referral for surgery, conservative (steroid injection and rehabilitation), and no active treatment. Outcome scores collected at 1- and 2-years included the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) questionnaire and 0–10 numerical rating scales for worst and average pain. Treatment allocation is presented as absolute and proportional figures. Change in outcomes across the cohort was evaluated with repeated measures ANOVA, with Bonferroni correction for multiple testing, and post-hoc Tukey pair-wise comparisons. As treatment decision is discrete, no direct contrast is made between outcomes of differing interventions but additional explorative outcome change over time evaluated by group. Significance was accepted at p=0.05 and effect size as per Cohen's values. Results. 81 patients, 50 (61.7%) male, mean age 46.5 years (SD13.13) presented in the study timeframe. 32 (40.3%) received conservative management and 49 (59.7%) were listed for surgery. Six (18.8%) of the 32 underwent subsequent surgery and nine of the 49 (18.4%) patients switched from planned surgery to receiving non-operative care. Two post-operative complications were noted, one cerebrovascular accident and one deep vein thrombosis. The cohort improved over the course of 2-years in all outcome measures with improved mean FJS-12 (34.36 points), mean worst pain (3.74 points) average pain (2.42 points) scores. Overall change (all patients) was statistically significant for all outcomes (p<0.001), with sequential year-on-year change also significant (p<0.001). Effect size of these changes were large with all Cohen-d values over 1. Controlling for age and BMI, males reported superior change in FJS-12 (p=0.04) but worse pain outcomes (p<0.03). Further explorative analysis highlighted positive outcomes across all surgical, conservative and no active treatment groups (p<0.05). The 15 (18%) patients that switched between surgical and non-surgical management also reported positive outcome scores (p<0.05). Conclusion(s). In a regional specialist physiotherapy-led soft tissue knee clinic around 60% of degenerative meniscal tears assessed were referred for surgery. Over 2-years, surgical, non-operative and no treatment management approaches in this cohort all resulted in clinical improvement suggesting that no single strategy is effective in directly treating the meniscal pathology, and that perhaps none do. Clinical intervention rather is directed at individual symptom management based on clinical preferences. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Aims. The purpose of this study was to determine the association between prior sleeve gastrectomy in patients undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty, and 90-day complications, incidence of revision arthroplasty, and patient-reported outcome scores at final follow-up. Methods. This is a retrospective, single-centre analysis. Patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasty with a prior sleeve gastrectomy were eligible for inclusion (n = 80 patients). A morbidly obese control group was established from the same institutional registry using a 1:2 match, for cases:controls with arthroplasty based on propensity score using age, sex, pre-sleeve gastrectomy BMI, Current Procedural Terminology code to identify anatomical location, and presurgical haemoglobin A1C. Outcomes included 90-day complications, incidence of revision arthroplasty, and patient-reported outcome scores at final follow-up. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated associations of underlying preoperative demographic and treatment characteristics with outcomes. Results. Complications within 90 days of surgery were increased in the sleeve gastrectomy group relative to the obese control group after controlling for underlying preoperative demographic characteristics (odds ratio (OR) 4.00 (95% CI 1.14 to 13.9); p = 0.030). Postoperative revisions were similar in the sleeve gastrectomy group relative to the obese control group after controlling for underlying preoperative demographic characteristics (OR 17.8 (95% CI 0.64 to 494.3); p = 0.090). Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression decreased by a greater amount from pre- to postoperative in the obese controls relative to the sleeve gastrectomy group (OR 4.04 (95% CI 0.06 to 8.02); p = 0.047). PROMIS pain interference and physical function change from pre- to postoperative was not associated with sleeve gastrectomy status. Conclusion. We found a higher rate of complications at 90 days in patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy prior to primary hip or knee arthroplasty relative to a matched, obese control population. Prosthetic revision rates were similar between the two groups, while improvements in PROMIS depression scores were larger in the obese cohort. This study suggests that sleeve gastrectomy to achieve preoperative weight loss prior to arthroplasty surgery may not mitigate early complication risks in obese patient populations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):935–941

Minimally displaced paediatric proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) can be reliably managed non-operatively, however there is considerable debate regarding the appropriate management of severely displaced PHFs, particularly in older children and adolescents with limited remodelling potential. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to answer the questions: “What are the functional and quality-of-life outcomes of paediatric PHFs?” and “What factors have been associated with a poorer outcome?”. A review of Medline and EMBASE was performed on 4. th. July 2021 using search terms relevant to PHFs, surgery, non-operative management, paediatrics and outcomes. Studies including ≥10 paediatric patients with PHFs, which assessed clinical outcomes by use of an established outcome measure, were selected. The following clinical information was collected: participant characteristics, treatment, complications, and outcomes. Twelve articles were selected, including four prospective cohort studies and eight retrospective cohort studies. Favourable outcome scores were found for patients with minimally displaced fractures, and for children aged less than ten years, irrespective of treatment methodology or grade of fracture displacement. Older age at injury and higher grade of fracture displacement were reported as risk factors for a poorer patient-reported outcome score. An excellent functional outcome can be expected following non-operative management for minimally displaced paediatric PHFs. Prospective trials are required to establish a guideline for the management of severely displaced PHFs in children and adolescents according to fracture displacement and the degree of skeletal maturity

Joint registries suggest a downward trend in the use of uncemented Total Knee Replacements (TKR) since 2003, largely related to reports of early failures of uncemented tibial and patella components. Advancements in uncemented design such as trabecular metal may improve outcomes, but there is a scarcity of high-quality data from randomised trials. 319 patients <75 years of age were randomised to either cemented or uncemented TKR implanted using computer navigation. Patellae were resurfaced in all patients. Patient outcome scores, re-operations and radiographic analysis of radiolucent lines were compared. Two year follow up was available for 287 patients (144 cemented vs 143 uncemented). There was no difference in operative time between groups, 73.7 v 71.1 mins (p= 0.08). There were no statistical differences in outcome scores at 2 years, Oxford knee score 42.5 vs 41.8 (p=0.35), International Knee Society 84.6 vs 84.0 (p=0.76), Forgotten Joint Score 66.7 vs 66.4 (p=0.91). There were two revisions, both for infection one in each group (0.33%). 13 cemented and 8 uncemented knees underwent re-operation, the majority of these being manipulation under anaesthetic (85.7%), with no difference (8.3% vs 5.3%, 95% CI -2.81% to 8.89%, p = 0.31). No difference was found in radiographic analysis at 2 years, 1 lucent line was seen in the cemented group and 3 in the uncemented group (0.67% v 2.09%, 95%CI -4.1% to 1.24%, p = 0.29). We found no difference in clinical or radiographic outcomes between cemented and uncemented TKR including routine patella resurfacing at two years. Early results suggest there is no difference between cemented and uncemented TKR at 2 years with reference to survivorship, patient outcomes and radiological parameters

Due to shorter hospital stays and faster patient rehabilitation Unicompartmental Knee Replacements (UKR) are now considered more cost effective than Total Knee Joint Replacements (TKJR). Obesity however, has long been thought of as a relative contraindication to UKR due to an unproven theoretical concern of early loosening. This study is a retrospective review of patient reported outcome scores and revision rates of all UKR with recorded BMI performed by the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) from January 2011 and September 2021. Patient reported outcome scores were taken preoperatively, at 6 months, 1 year, 5 years and 10 years post operatively. These included WOMAC, Oxford, HAAS, UCLA, WHOQOL, normality, pain and patient satisfaction. 873 patients had functional scores recorded at 5 years and 164 patients had scores recorded at 10 years. Further sub-group analysis was performed based on patient BMI of <25, 25–30, 30–35 and >35. Revision data was available for 2377 UKRs performed in Christchurch during this period. Both obese (BMI >30) and non-obese (BMI <30) patients had significantly improved post-operative scores compared to preoperative. Pre-operatively obese patients had significantly lower functional scores except for pain and UCLA. All functional scores were lower in obese patients at 5 years but this did not meet minimum clinical difference. At 10 years, there was significantly lower HAAS, satisfaction and WOMAC scores for obese patients but no difference in Oxford, normality, WHOQOL, UCLA and pain scores. There was no significant difference in the improvement from pre-operative scores between obese and non-obese patients. All cause revision rate for obese patients at 10 years was 0.69 per 100 observed component years compared to 0.76 in non-obese. This was not statistically significant. Our study proves that UKR is an excellent option in obese patients with post-operative improvement in functional scores and 10 year survivorship equivalent to non-obese patients