Aims. To identify unanswered questions about the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and delivery of care of first-time soft-tissue knee injuries (ligament injuries, patella dislocations, meniscal injuries, and articular cartilage) in children (aged 12 years and older) and adults. Methods. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology for Priority Setting Partnerships was followed. An initial survey invited patients and healthcare professionals from the UK to submit any uncertainties regarding soft-tissue knee injury prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and delivery of care. Over 1,000 questions were received. From these, 74 questions (identifying common concerns) were formulated and checked against the best available evidence. An interim survey was then conducted and 27 questions were taken forward to the final workshop, held in January 2023, where they were discussed, ranked, and scored in multiple rounds of prioritization. This was conducted by healthcare professionals, patients, and carers. Results. The top ten included questions regarding prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation. The number one question was, ‘How urgently do soft-tissue knee injuries need to be treated for the best outcome?’. This reflects the concerns of patients, carers, and the wider multidisciplinary team. Conclusion. This validated process has generated ten important priorities for future soft-tissue knee injury research. These have been submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Research. All 27 questions in the final workshop have been published on the JLA website. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3):232–239

Aims. This study aims to identify the top unanswered research priorities in the field of knee surgery using consensus-based methodology. Methods. Initial research questions were generated using an online survey sent to all 680 members of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK). Duplicates were removed and a longlist was generated from this scoping exercise by a panel of 13 experts from across the UK who provided oversight of the process. A modified Delphi process was used to refine the questions and determine a final list. To rank the final list of questions, each question was scored between one (low importance) and ten (high importance) in order to produce the final list. Results. This consensus exercise took place between December 2020 and April 2022. A total of 286 clinicians from the BASK membership provided input for the initial scoping exercise, which generated a list of 105 distinct research questions. Following review and prioritization, a longlist of 51 questions was sent out for two rounds of the Delphi process. A total of 42 clinicians responded to the first round and 24 responded to the second round. A final list of 24 research questions was then ranked by 36 clinicians. The topics included arthroplasty, infection, meniscus, osteotomy, patellofemoral, cartilage, and ligament pathologies. The management of early osteoarthritis was the highest-ranking question. Conclusion. A Delphi exercise involving the BASK membership has identified the future research priorities in knee surgery. This list of questions will allow clinicians, researchers, and funders to collaborate in order to deliver high-quality research in knee surgery and further advance the care provided to patients with knee pathology. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):662–668

Aims. The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty. Methods. The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting. Results. A total of 769 questions were received during the initial survey with national reach across the UK. These were refined into 32 unique questions by an independent information specialist. The interim prioritization survey was completed by 201 respondents and 25 questions were taken to a final consensus group meeting between patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Consensus was reached for ranking the top ten questions for publication and dissemination. Conclusions. The top ten research priorities focused on pain, infection, stiffness, health service configuration, surgical and non-surgical management strategies, and outcome measures. This list will guide funders and help focus research efforts within the knee arthroplasty community. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1176–1182

The demand for knee arthroplasty (TKR) is increasing yet there are no established criteria for prioritizing patients. We investigated surgeon inter-observer reliability and factors that influenced their prioritization of patients by having three surgeons each independently consult on twelve randomly selected patients waiting for TKR. Surgeons had high reliability and were most influence by the patient’s pain and gait pattern when assigning priority. Surgeon assigned priority also correlated with common subjective outcome metrics. Formalized gait assessment may allow for more objective prioritization of patients waiting for TKR. The purpose of this study was to investigate the inter-observer reliability of surgeons assessing the priority of patients waiting for elective total knee arthroplasty (TKR) surgery, and to assess the discriminative methodology surgeons employ when assessing patients. Surgeon’s can reliably assign a priority to their patients waiting for TKR. Surgeons generally consider the patients pain and gait pattern when assigning priority. Wait lists for elective TKR are increasing and the demand will continue to grow. Objective criteria for prioritizing patients would allow for rational delivery of limited surgical resources. Surgeons have high inter-observer reliability when assigning patient priority (ICC = 0.86). Pain and gait pattern have a significant impact on the surgeon’s assessment of priority (p=0.25 and p< 0.001, respectively). The oxford twelve most closely correlated to the surgeon’s prioritization (r=0.80). Twelve patients waiting for TKR were randomly selected from three surgeons wait lists. Each surgeon independently examined all twelve patients and recorded their assessment of the patient’s acuity (priority) on a visual analogue scale. The impact of various aspects of the patient’s presentation on the surgeon’s assessment, such as pain control, function, gait, joint contracture and radiographic appearance, were recorded. All patients completed the SF-36, Oxford twelve and WOMAC questionnaires. Linear regression and Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients were used to assess the data. Through the complex patient-surgeon interaction during a standard consultation, surgeons are able to prioritize their patient’s with high reliability. Improved objective metrics for prioritizing patient’s may be possible by more formalized methods of gait assessment

Surgical waiting lists have led to development of clinical priority access criteria (CPAC) for prioritisation of patients selected for surgery. Although introduced widely into clinical practice in New Zealand CPAC tools have not been validated. Reliability studies were therefore undertaken by the CPAC Evaluation Consortium. Methodology Thirty eight orthopaedic surgeons practising in public hospitals were randomly selected to participate in a prioritisation exercise using computer administered clinical vignettes. Fifty vignettes were developed from the clinical histories of patients selected for total knee arthroplasty (15), carpal tunnel decompression (15) and miscellaneous orthopaedic procedures (20). These were prioritised using each of 3 priority tools producing scores between 0 and 100: visual analogue scale reflecting global clinical opinion (VAS), a generic point scoring system based on points assigned to 5 clinical domains (GOPC), and diagnosis-specific 5 point Likert scale of priority combined with a predetermined table of a range of scores for each diagnosis (ISS). The extent of inter-surgeon variability was striking but significantly less for ISS than GOPC or VAS. This was entirely explained by the complication of a predetermined table. The other two tools were similar except that the inter centile gap was larger for the clinical opinion based tool (VAS). As access to elective surgery is determined by a fixed financial threshold a reliable scoring system will ensure equity of access. This seems to be best achieved by using the Integrated Scoring System

Introduction. The knee is the most commonly injured joint in sporting accidents, leading to substantial disability, time off work and morbidity (1). Treatment and assessment vary around the UK (2), whilst there remains a limited number of high-quality randomised controlled trials assessing first time, acute soft tissue knee injuries (3,4). As the clinical and financial burden rises (5), vital answers are required to improve prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, and delivery of care. In association with the James Lind Alliance, this BASK, BOSTAA and BOA supported prioritising exercise was undertaken over a year. Methods. The James Lind Alliance methodology was followed; a modified nominal group technique was used in the final workshop. An initial survey invited patients and healthcare professionals to submit their uncertainties regarding soft tissue knee injury prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, and delivery of care. Seventy-four questions were formulated to encompass common concerns. These were checked against best available evidence. Following the interim survey, 27 questions were taken forward to the final workshop in January 2023, where they were discussed, ranked, and scored in multiple rounds of prioritisation by groups of healthcare professionals, patients, and carers. Results. Over 1000 questions were submitted initially. Twenty-seven were taken forward to the final workshop following the surveys. Nearly half of the responses were from patients/carers. The Top 10 (Figure 1) includes prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation questions, reflecting the concerns of patients, carers, and a wider multidisciplinary team. Conclusion. This validated process has generated an important, wide- ranging Top 10 priorities for future soft tissue knee injury research. These have been submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Research and are now available for researchers to investigate. The final 27 questions which were taken to the final workshop have also been published on the James Lind Alliance website. Research into these questions will lead to future high-quality research, thus improving patient care & outcomes. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

The aim of this study was to evaluate a new joint arthroplasty clinical priority scoring tool. A new arthroplasty scoring tool based on pain, function, social limitation, potential of benefit from surgery and consequence of more than 6 months delay was developed and evaluated using 16 patient scenarios (vignettes) related to hip and knee osteoarthritis. Sixteen orthopaedic surgeons were asked to score the vignettes using clinical ranking, ISS tool and the new tool. Significant variation in ranks allocated by surgeons was recorded for all three tools. Vignettes at either end of the scale ie. those who are severely or minimally disabled had less variability compared to a large group in the middle range. Comparing the three tools there did not appear to by any advantage of one over the other. Most of the variations occurred in the interpretation of benefit from the operation and consequence of delay. Scoring tools rely heavily on judgement based decisions. More work is required to understand judgement processes used by surgeons and audit/feedback mechanisms may help in reducing the variations in priority assignment

The New Zealand health score was developed by the New Zealand government to ensure that patients with the greatest needs were given priority. It allows explicit rationing of health care by clinical priority rather than waiting time (the current UK system). The scoring system has not been validated against an accepted measure of health status and the aim of this study was to compare the New Zealand score with the SF-36. Patients on the orthopaedic waiting list for hip or knee replacement were sent postal questionnaires to collect demographic data and complete an SF-36 and New Zealand score. 581 patients were sent questionnaires. The response rate was 72% and data was available on 243 knee replacement and 168 hip replacement patients. For patients awaiting hip replacement there was good correlation between the NZ and all health domains of the SF-36 (correlation coefficient: 0.19 – 0.62). In contrast, there was poor correlation between the NZ score and the SF-36 for patients awaiting knee replacement with only physical function having a significant correlation (coefficient 0.25). Breakdown of the NZ score into pain and function components did not improve the correlation with SF-36 scores for these patients. The New Zealand clinical priority scoring system correlates well with health status, as measured by the SF-36, for patients with hip arthritis awaiting hip replacement. However, the NZ score does not correlate with the SF-36 for patients awaiting knee replacement. This system is now being used by some centres in the UK for waiting list management but has been introduced without comparison to any well-established measures of health status. Its use for the prioritisation of patients who require knee replacement should be questioned

Aims

This study aims to define the epidemiology of trauma presenting to a single centre providing all orthopaedic trauma care for a population of ∼ 900,000 over the first 40 days of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to that presenting over the same period one year earlier. The secondary aim was to compare this with population mobility data obtained from Google.

Health fund providers often require objective motivation for surgery, and patients often try to pressurise surgeons into operating. The author developed a scoring system to weigh up objectively the indications and contraindications for and urgency of joint replacement.

A considerably expanded Harris Hip Score and American Knee Society ratings are used. Rather than using a subjective adjective to evaluate pain, it is objectively evaluated by type and frequency of analgesic. The totality of the patient’s condition is considered in assessing functional ability, particularly with regard to other affected joints and the patient’s ability to perform normal activities of daily living. Taken into account is how much walking, climbing and stair-climbing a patient’s work demands and whether getting to work requires a long walk or use of public transport. The functional demands of daily home life are assessed, and also how much assistance is available to the patient.

By adding the American scores to the additional scores for pain and functional ability, and then subtracting that total from the functional demand, one arrives at a score for the degree of compromise. The scoring includes a prediction of the risk of morbidity and mortality. When this risk is balanced by the degree of compromise, one arrives at a score for contraindication. Put another way, pain + functional ability - functional demand =compromise, and compromise x risk of mortality and morbidity =100.

Health fund providers often require objective motivation for surgery, and patients often try to pressurise surgeons into operating. The author developed a scoring system to weigh up objectively the indications and contra-indications for and urgency of joint replacement.

A considerably expanded Harris Hip Score and American Knee Society ratings are used. Rather than using a subjective adjective to evaluate pain, it is objectively evaluated by type and frequency of analgesic. The totality of the patient’s condition is considered in assessing functional ability, particularly with regard to other affected joints and the patient’s ability to perform normal activities of daily living. Taken into account is how much walking, climbing and stair-climbing a patient’s work demands and whether getting to work requires a long walk or use of public transport. The functional demands of daily home life are assessed, and also how much assistance is available to the patient.

By adding the American scores to the additional scores for pain and functional ability, and then subtracting that total from the functional demand, one arrives at a score for the degree of compromise. The scoring includes a prediction of the risk of morbidity and mortality. When this risk is balanced by the degree of compromise, one arrives at a score for contra-indication. Put another way, pain + functional ability – functional demand = compromise, and compromise x risk of mortality and morbidity = contraindication.

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess orthopaedic oncologic patient morbidity resulting from COVID-19 related institutional delays and surgical shutdowns during the first wave of the pandemic in New York, USA. Methods. A single-centre retrospective observational study was conducted of all orthopaedic oncologic patients undergoing surgical evaluation from March to June 2020. Patients were prioritized as level 0-IV, 0 being elective and IV being emergent. Only priority levels 0 to III were included. Delay duration was measured in days and resulting morbidities were categorized into seven groups: prolonged pain/disability; unplanned preoperative radiation and/or chemotherapy; local tumour progression; increased systemic disease; missed opportunity for surgery due to progression of disease/lost to follow up; delay in diagnosis; and no morbidity. Results. Overall, 25 patients met inclusion criteria. There were eight benign tumours, seven metastatic, seven primary sarcomas, one multiple myeloma, and two patients without a biopsy proven diagnosis. There was no priority level 0, two priority level I, six priority level II, and 17 priority level III cases. The mean duration of delay for priority level I was 114 days (84 to 143), priority level II was 88 days (63 to 133), and priority level III was 77 days (35 to 269). Prolonged pain/disability and delay in diagnosis, affecting 52% and 40%,respectively, represented the two most frequent morbidities. Local tumour progression and increased systemic disease affected 32% and 24% respectively. No patients tested positive for COVID-19. Conclusion. COVID-19 related delays in surgical management led to major morbidity in this studied orthopaedic oncologic patient population. By understanding these morbidities through clearer hindsight, a thoughtful approach can be developed to balance the risk of COVID-19 exposure versus delay in treatment, ensuring optimal care for orthopedic oncologic patients as the pandemic continues with intermittent calls for halting surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(4):236–242

Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Despite improvements in trauma-related morbidity and mortality in high-income countries over recent years, outcomes following MSK injuries in low and middle-income countries, such as South Africa (SA), have not. Despite governmental recognition that this is required, funding and research into this significant health burden are limited within SA. This study aims to identify research priorities within MSK trauma care using a consensus-based approach amongst MSK health care practitioners within SA. Members from the Orthopaedic Research Collaborative (ORCA), based in SA, collaborated using a two round modified Delphi technique to form a consensus on research priorities within orthopaedic trauma care. Members involved in the process were orthopaedic healthcare practitioners within SA. Participants from the ORCA network, working within SA, scored research priorities across two Delphi rounds from low to high priority. We have published the overall top 10 research priorities for this Delphi process. Questions were focused on two broad groups - clinical effectiveness in trauma care and general trauma public health care. Both groups were represented by the top two priorities, with the highest ranked question regarding the overall impact of trauma in SA and the second regarding the clinical treatment of open fractures. This study has defined research priorities within orthopaedic trauma in South Africa. Our vision is that by establishing consensus on these research priorities, policy and research funding will be directed into these areas. This should ultimately improve musculoskeletal trauma care across South Africa and its significant health and socioeconomic impacts

Background. Involving research users in setting priorities for research is essential to ensure research outcomes are patient-centred and to maximise research value and impact. The Musculoskeletal (MSK) Disorders Research Advisory Group Versus Arthritis led a research priority setting exercise across MSK disorders. Methods. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHRNI) method of setting research priorities with a range of stakeholders were utilised. The MSKD RAG identified, through consensus, four research Domains: Mechanisms of Disease; Diagnosis and Impact; Living Well with MSK disorders and Successful Translation. Following ethical approval, the research priority exercise involved four stages and two surveys, to: 1) gather research uncertainties; 2) consolidate these; 3) score uncertainties using agreed criteria of importance and impact on a score of 1–10; and 4) analyse scoring, for prioritisation. Results. The first survey had 209 respondents, who described 1290 research uncertainties, which were refined into 68 research questions. 285 people responded to the second survey. The largest group of respondents represented patients and carers, followed by researchers and healthcare professionals. A ranked list was produced, with scores ranging between 12 and 18. Key priorities included developing and testing new treatments, better targeting of treatments, early diagnosis, prevention and better understanding and management of pain, with an emphasis on understanding underpinning mechanisms. Conclusions. For the first time, we have summarised priorities for research across MSKD, from discovery science to applied clinical and health research, including translation. We present a call to action to researchers and funders to target these priorities. Conflict of Interest: None. Sources of funding: We thank the funder, Versus Arthritis for their support of the research advisory groups and this activity

Aims. The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). Results. The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. Conclusion. The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753–758

Given the prolonged waits for hip arthroplasty seen across the U.K. it is important that we optimise priority systems to account for potential disparities in patient circumstances and impact. We set out to achieve this through a two-stage approach. This included a Delphi-study of patient and surgeon preferences to determine what should be considered when determining patient priority, followed by a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to decide relative weighting of included attributes. The study was conducted according to the published protocol ([. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. ](. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. )). The Delphi study was performed online over 3 rounds with anonymous ranking and feedback. Included factors were voted as either Consensus in, Consensus out, or No Consensus• following an established scoring criterion. A final consensus meeting determined the prioritisation factors (and their levels) to be included in the DCE. The DCE was then conducted using an online platform, with surgeons performing 18 choice sets regarding which merited greater priority between two hypothetical patients. Results were collated and analysed using multinomial logit regression analysis (MNL). For the Delphi study there were 43 responses in the first round, with a subsequent 91% participation rate. Final consensus inclusion was achieved for Pain; Mobility/Function; Activities of Daily Living; Inability to Work/Care; Length of Time Waited; Radiological Severity and Mental Wellbeing. 70 individuals subsequently contributed to the DCE, with radiological severity being the most significant factor (Coefficient 2.27 \[SD 0.31\], p<0.001), followed by pain (Coefficient 1.08 \[SD 0.13\], p<0.001) and time waited (Coefficient for 1-month additional wait 0.12 \[SD 0.02\], p<0.001). The calculated trade-off in waiting time for a 1-level change in pain (e.g., moderate to severe pain) was 9.14 months. These results present a new method of determining comparative priority for those on primary hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required

Aims. Restarting planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is a clinical and societal priority, but it is unknown whether it can be done safely and include high-risk or complex cases. We developed a Surgical Prioritization and Allocation Guide (SPAG). Here, we validate its effectiveness and safety in COVID-free sites. Methods. A multidisciplinary surgical prioritization committee developed the SPAG, incorporating procedural urgency, shared decision-making, patient safety, and biopsychosocial factors; and applied it to 1,142 adult patients awaiting orthopaedic surgery. Patients were stratified into four priority groups and underwent surgery at three COVID-free sites, including one with access to a high dependency unit (HDU) or intensive care unit (ICU) and specialist resources. Safety was assessed by the number of patients requiring inpatient postoperative HDU/ICU admission, contracting COVID-19 within 14 days postoperatively, and mortality within 30 days postoperatively. Results. A total of 1,142 patients were included, 47 declined surgery, and 110 were deemed high-risk or requiring specialist resources. In the ten-week study period, 28 high-risk patients underwent surgery, during which 68% (13/19) of Priority 2 (P. 2. , surgery within one month) patients underwent surgery, and 15% (3/20) of P. 3. (< three months) and 16% (11/71) of P. 4. (> three months) groups. Of the 1,032 low-risk patients, 322 patients underwent surgery. Overall, 21 P. 3. and P. 4. patients were expedited to ‘Urgent’ based on biopsychosocial factors identified by the SPAG. During the study period, 91% (19/21) of the Urgent group, 52% (49/95) of P. 2. , 36% (70/196) of P. 3. , and 26% (184/720) of P. 4. underwent surgery. No patients died or were admitted to HDU/ICU, or contracted COVID-19. Conclusion. Our widely generalizable model enabled the restart of planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, without compromising patient safety or excluding high-risk or complex cases. Patients classified as Urgent or P. 2. were most likely to undergo surgery, including those deemed high-risk. This model, which includes assessment of biopsychosocial factors alongside disease severity, can assist in equitably prioritizing the substantial list of patients now awaiting planned orthopaedic surgery worldwide. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):134–140