Aims. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the highest level of evidence used to inform patient care. However, it has been suggested that the quality of randomization in RCTs in orthopaedic surgery may be low. This study aims to describe the quality of randomization in trials included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Systematic reviews of RCTs testing orthopaedic procedures published in 2022 were extracted from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A random sample of 100 systematic reviews was selected, and all included RCTs were retrieved. To be eligible for inclusion, systematic reviews must have tested an orthopaedic procedure as the primary intervention, included at least one study identified as a RCT, been published in 2022 in English, and included human clinical trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 Tool was used to assess random sequence generation as ‘adequate’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘no information’; we then calculated the proportion of trials in each category. We also collected data to test the association between these categories and characteristics of the RCTs and systematic reviews. Results. We included 917 unique RCTs. We found that 374 RCTs (40.8%) reported adequate sequence generation, 61 (6.7%) were inadequate, 410 (44.7%) lacked information, and 72 (7.9%) were observational studies incorrectly included as RCTs within the systematic review. Publication year, an author with statistical or epidemiological qualifications, and journal impact factor were each associated with adequate randomization. We found that 45 systematic reviews (45%) included at least one inadequately randomized RCT or an observational study incorrectly treated as a RCT. Conclusion. There is evidence of a lack of random allocation in RCTs included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. The conduct of RCTs and systematic reviews should be improved to minimize the risk of bias from inadequate randomization in RCTs and mislabelling of non-randomized studies as RCTs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1072–1080

Aim. The SOLARIO trial is a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of antibiotic strategy for bone and joint infection. SOLARIO compares short or long post-operative systemic antibiotic duration, for patients with confirmed infections, who had local antibiotics implanted and no infected metalwork retained when undergoing surgery. This analysis compared systemic antibiotic use in the short (intervention) and long (standard of care) arms of the trial, in the 12 months after index surgery. Method. Data was collected prospectively from study randomisation, within 7 days of index surgery. All systemic antibiotics prescribed for the index infection were recorded, from health records and patient recall, at randomisation, 6 weeks, 3-6 months and 12 months after study entry. Start and end dates for each antibiotic were recorded. Results. 251 patients were randomised to short systemic antibiotics (up to 7 post-operative days) and 249 patients, to long systemic antibiotics. 5 participants in the short group and 2 participants in the long group withdrew from study follow-up. Complete data for all systemic antibiotics taken in the 12 months following surgery, were available for 237 participants in the short group and 236 participants in the long group. 80 participants across both groups were noted as having deviated from their assigned treatment strategy. Both groups received empiric antibiotics, predominantly vancomycin and meropenem, for up to 7 days after surgery. Considering each prescribed antibiotic as a separate duration (even when administered concurrently), participants assigned to standard care received a mean of 74.9 antibiotic-days. Participants assigned to short systemic antibiotics received a mean of 27.5 antibiotic-days in the 12 months after surgery. The most commonly prescribed antibiotics in both treatment groups were vancomycin and meropenem: these antibiotics accounted for 7.1 days prescribed per participant in the long group, and 6.3 days in the short group (p=0.37). Reasons for post-randomisation antibiotic prescribing in the short treatment group included later planned surgery, identification of bacteria requiring additional systemic antibiotics, and treatment of superficial wound infections. WHO AWaRe classification ‘watch’ and ‘reserve’ group antibiotics, such as ciprofloxacin, rifampicin, vancomycin and meropenem, accounted for 39.4 antibiotic-days per long group participant, and 16.5 antibiotic-days per short group participant. Conclusions. Considering the combined duration of all systemic antibiotics prescribed over 12 months, including those co-administered, participants in the short arm of the SOLARIO trial received considerably fewer days of all antibiotic classes, and particularly those antibiotics restricted in the WHO AWaRe classification (2021)

Orthopaedic surgeons prescribe more opioids than any other surgical speciality. Opioids remain the analgesic of choice following arthroscopic knee and shoulder surgery. There is growing evidence that opioid-sparing protocols may reduce postoperative opioid consumption while adequately addressing patients’ pain. However, there are a lack of prospective, comparative trials evaluating their effectiveness. The objective of the current randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the efficacy of a multi-modal, opioid-sparing approach to postoperative pain management in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder and knee surgery. The NO PAin trial is a pragmatic, definitive RCT (NCT04566250) enrolling 200 adult patients undergoing outpatient shoulder or knee arthroscopy. Patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to an opioid-sparing group or standard of care. The opioid-sparing group receives a three-pronged prescription package consisting of 1) a non-opioid prescription: naproxen, acetaminophen and pantoprazole, 2) a limited opioid “rescue prescription” of hydromorphone, and 3) a patient education infographic. The control group is the current standard of care as per the treating surgeon, which consists of an opioid analgesic. The primary outcome of interest is oral morphine equivalent (OME) consumption up to 6 weeks postoperatively. The secondary outcomes are postoperative pain scores, patient satisfaction, quantity of OMEs prescribed and number of opioid refills. Patients are followed at both 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively. Data analysts and outcome assessors are blinded to the treatment groups. As of December 1, 2021 we have enrolled 166 patients, reaching 83% of target enrolment. Based on the current recruitment rate, we anticipate that enrolment will be completed by the end of January 2022 with final follow-up and study close out completed by March of 2022. The final results will be released at the Canadian Orthopaedic Association Meeting in June 2022 and be presented as follows. The mean difference in OME consumption was XX (95%CI: YY-YY, p=X). The mean difference in OMEs prescribed was XX (95%CI: YY-YY, p=X). The mean difference in Visual Analogue Pain Scores (VAS) and patient satisfaction are XX (95%CI: YY-YY, p=X). The absolute difference in opioid refills was XX (95%CI: YY-YY, p=X). The results of the current study will demonstrate whether an opioid sparing approach to postoperative outpatient pain management is effective at reducing opioid consumption while adequately addressing postoperative pain in patients undergoing outpatient shoulder and knee arthroscopy. This study is novel in the field of arthroscopic surgery, and its results will help to guide appropriate postoperative analgesic management following these widely performed procedures

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a condition of the hip where there is a mismatch of the femoral head and hip acetabulum. This mismatch creates abnormal contact between the bones and causes hip pain which can lead to damage, and eventually osteoarthritis of the hip. The diagnosis and treatment of FAI has become one of the most popular clinical scenarios in orthopaedic surgery, with hip arthroscopy procedures increasing exponentially over the past five years. Surgical intervention usually involves correcting the existing deformities by reshaping the ball and socket (“osteoplasty” or “rim trimming”) so that they fit together more easily while repairing any other existing soft tissue damage in the hip joint (e.g. labral repair). Although correction of the misshaped bony anatomy and associated intra-articular soft tissue damage of the hip is thought to appease impingement and improve pain and function, the current evidence is based on small, observational, and low quality studies. A lack of definitive evidence regarding the efficacy of osteochondroplasty in treating FAI fueled the design and execution of the FIRST randomized controlled trial (RCT). FIRST evaluated the impact of surgical correction of the hip impingement morphology with arthroscopic osteochondroplasty versus arthroscopic lavage on pain, function, and quality of life in adults aged 18–50 years diagnosed with non-arthritic FAI at one year. FIRST was a large definitive RCT (NCT01623843) enrolling patients with FAI requiring surgical intervention across 11 international clinical sites. Participants were randomized to either arthroscopic osteochondroplasty (shaving of bone) or lavage (washing the joint of painful inflammation debris). The primary outcome was patient-reported pain within one year of the initial surgery measured using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included function, health utility, and health-related quality of life using several general and hip-centric health questionnaires. An independent, blinded adjudication committee evaluated the quality of surgery, re-operations, and other patient complications. Patients and data analysts were blinded to the treatment groups. Two-hundred and twenty participants were enrolled into the FIRST trial over a six-year period (pilot phase: N=50, from 2012–2013 and definitive phase: N=170, from 2015–2018) at 11 clinical sites in Canada, Finland, and Denmark. The FIRST results will be released at the ISAKOS annual meeting as follows. The absolute difference in rate of pain reduction between groups was XX (95% CI: YY-YY, p=X). The mean differences of the Short-Form 12 (SF-12, MCS and PCS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) between groups are XX (95% CI: YY-YY, p=X)…, respectively. Reoperations occurred in XX of 220 (X%) patients over the one-year follow up period (OR:XX, 95% CI: YY-YY, p=X) and the patients treated with arthroscopic osteochondroplasty conferred the following risk of reoperation within one-year compared to arthroscopic lavage (RR:XX, 95% CI: YY-YY, p=X). This RCT represents major international efforts to definitively identify the optimal treatment strategy for FAI. The results of this trial will change practice, being used to prevent chronic hip pain and loss of function caused by hip osteoarthritis

Given the low prevalence of sarcoma, international cooperation is necessary to recruit sufficient numbers of patients for surgical trials. The PARITY (Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery) trial is the first international multicentre trial in orthopedic oncology and successfully achieved target enrollment of 600 patients across 12 countries. It is important to reflect upon the challenges encountered and experiences gained to inform future trials. The objective of this study is to describe recruitment patterns and examine the differences in enrollment across different PARITY sites and identify variables associated with varying levels of recruitment. Data from this study was obtained from the PARITY trial Methods Centre and correspondence data. We performed descriptive statistics to demonstrate the recruitment patterns over time. We compared recruitment, time to set up, and time to enroll the first patient between North American and international sites, and sites that had dedicated research personnel. Two-tailed non-paired t-tests were performed to compare average monthly recruitment rates between groups with significance being set at alpha=0.05. A total of 600 patients from 48 clinical sites and 12 countries were recruited from January 2013 through to October 2019. Average monthly enrollment increased every year of the study. There were 36 North American and 12 international sites. North American sites were able to set up significantly faster than international sites (19.3 vs. 28.3 months p=0.037). However, international sites had a significantly higher recruitment rate per month once active (0.2/month vs. 0.62/month, p=0.018). Of active sites, 40 (83%) had research support personnel and 8 (17%) sites did not. Sites with research personnel were able to reach ‘enrolment ready’ status significantly faster than sites without research support (19.6 vs. 30.7 months, p=0.032). However, there was no significant difference in recruitment rate per month once the sites began enrolling (0.28/month vs. 0.2/month, p=0.63). Trial sites that took longer than 1 year to recruit their first patient had 3x lower average recruitment rate compared to sites that were able to recruit their first patient within a year of being enrolment ready. The PARITY trial is the first multicentre RCT in orthopaedic oncology. The PARITY investigators were able to increase the recruitment levels throughout the trial and generally avoid trial fatigue. This was a North American based trial which may explain the longer start up times internationally given the different regulatory bodies associated with drug-related trials. However, international sites should be considered critical as they were able to recruit significantly more patients per month once active. The absence of research support personnel should not preclude a site from inclusion. These sites took longer to setup but had no difference in monthly recruitment once active. This study will create a framework for identifying and targeting high yield sites for future randomized control trials within orthopaedic oncology to maximum recruitment and resource allocation. Data quality is another consideration that will be addressed in future analyses of the PARITY trial

Background. Digital injuries are among the most common presentations to the emergency department. In order to sufficiently examine and manage these injuries, adequate, prompt, and predictable anaesthesia is essential. In this trial, we aim to primarily compare the degree of pain and anaesthesia onset time between the two-injection dorsal block technique (TD) and the single-injection volar subcutaneous block technique (SV). Further, we describe the temporal and anatomical effects of both techniques for an accurate delineation of the anesthetized regions. Methods. A single-centre prospective randomized controlled trial involving patients presenting with isolated wounds to the fingers requiring primary repair under local anaesthesia. Patients were randomized to either the SV or TD blocks. The primary outcome was procedure-related pain (Numerical Rating Scale). Further, we assessed the extent of anaesthesia along with the anaesthesia onset time. Results. A total of 100 patients were included in the final analysis, 50 on each arm of the study. The median pain score during injection was significantly higher in patients who received TD block than patients who received SV block (median [interquartile range] = 4 [2.25, 5] vs. 3 [2, 4], respectively, P = 0.006). However, anaesthesia onset time was not statistically different among the groups (P = 0.39). The extent of anaesthesia was more predictable in the dorsal block compared to the volar block. Conclusion. The single-injection volar subcutaneous blocks are less painful with a similar anaesthesia onset time. Injuries presenting in the proximal dorsal region may benefit from the two-injection dorsal blocks, given the anatomical differences and timely anaesthesia of the region

Thumb carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) arthritis is a common and debilitating condition. The mainstay of surgical management is Trapeziectomy. Concerns about possible functional implications of collapse of the metacarpal into the arthroplasty space as well as the potential for scaphometacarpal led to the development of techniques to try and prevent this. The purpose of this study was to investigate if there were any significant differences in the long-term outcomes of patients who participated in a randomized trial of trapeziectomy alone compared with trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI). Sixty-five patients participated in our original trial, the 1 year findings of which were published in 2007. These patients were invited for a follow-up visit at a mean of 17 years (range 15–20) postoperatively. Twenty-eight patients attended, who had 34 operations, 14 trapeziectomy alone and 20 with LRTI. Patients were asked to complete a visual analogue scale (VAS) for satisfaction with the outcome of their procedure, rated on a scale from 0 (most dissatisfied) to 100 (most satisfied). They also completed the short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (QuickDASH) at their appointment. They underwent a functional assessment with a hand therapist and had a radiograph of the thumb. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of satisfaction with surgery or functional outcomes, with most measurements showing minimal or no differences in means between the two groups. There was no difference in the space between the metacarpal and scaphoid on radiograph. Radial abduction was the only parameter that was significantly greater in the patients with simple trapeziectomy (median 79°) compared with trapeziectomy with LRTI (median 71°) (p = 0.04). Even at 17 years there is no significant benefit of LRTI over trapeziectomy alone for thumb carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis

Aim. Rifampicin and fluoroquinolone based therapy is generally considered as first-choice targeted oral antimicrobial therapy for staphylococcal prosthetic joint infections (PJI) treated with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR). Alternative equally effective antimicrobial strategies are urgently needed due to toxicity and drug-drug interactions that frequently occur with this strategy. Data from recent clinical studies suggests equipoise for other antimicrobial treatment regimens. The objective of the Rifampicin Combination Therapy versus Targeted Antimicrobial Monotherapy in the Oral Antimicrobial Treatment Phase of Staphylococcal Prosthetic Joint Infection (RiCOTTA)-trial is to evaluate whether monotherapy with clindamycin is non-inferior to rifampicin/fluoroquinolone combination therapy in patients with staphylococcal PJI that are treated with DAIR. Method. The RiCOTTA-trial is a multicenter, non-inferiority, open-label, randomized controlled trial evaluating clindamycin versus rifampicin/fluoroquinolone combination therapy in the oral treatment phase in patients with staphylococcal PJI managed with DAIR. The trial is performed in 16 hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients are adults with staphylococcal knee or hip PJI managed by DAIR. Patients are included one to six days before antibiotic treatment is switched from intravenous to oral therapy. Patients with a contraindication for rifampicin, with a megaprosthesis or who receive intravenous antibiotics for more than three weeks after initial debridement are excluded. Primary outcome is treatment success one year after finishing antimicrobial treatment. Success is defined as the absence of: i. Infection related re-surgery, ii. New episode of antibiotic treatment for infection of the index joint after the initial treatment phase of 12 weeks, iii. Ongoing use of antibiotics for the index joint at the end of follow-up, iv. Death. The estimated treatment success of rifampicin combination therapy is 85% and the monotherapy strategy is considered not inferior when the difference in treatment success will be less than 10%. Enrolment of 158 patients per group (316 in total) is needed to confirm non-inferiority of monotherapy with a power of 80%. The trial is currently open for enrolment. The study is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee Leiden, the Hague, Delft, the Netherlands and registered under EU trial number 2022-501620-26-00 in Clinical Trial Information System. Conclusions. Currently, the RiCOTTTA study is the largest randomised clinical trial that compares targeted oral monotherapy with rifampicin combination treatment for staphylococcal PJI. Noninferiority of monotherapy would result in a change in national PJI guidelines and enable clinicians to use a more patient-tailored approach when considering antibiotics for patients during the oral treatment phase of PJI

Objective. Carpal tunnel release surgery is a commonly performed procedure for alleviating symptoms of median nerve compression and restoring hand function. With pressure on theatre time these procedures are now commonly performed in a step-down out-patient facility under local anaesthetic. The choice of suture for skin closure in this procedure can impact the quality of wound healing, patient outcomes and the follow-up required however the question of the best type of suture remains unanswered. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of absorbable and non-absorbable sutures using a randomised control trial design. Methods. Eighty patients diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome were enrolled and underwent outpatient carpal tunnel release surgery under local anaesthetic in a staged fashion. Random number generation was used to assign each hand to receive interrupted nylon or Vicryl Rapide sutures. Pre-operative data collection included patient demographics, ASA, inflammatory conditions, smoking status as well as a Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) for each hand. Patients were followed up at 2 and 6 weeks after each operation and the BCTQ was repeated along with the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and the VAS score for wound discomfort. This study has approval from the DHB ethics committee, Local Iwi, HDC and ANZ Clinical Trials:ACTRN12623000100695. Results. Statistical analysis assessed patient preference and the scores between the groups. Multi-variate analysis was performed to assess the factors that may be contributing to patient choice. Conclusion. Insights into patient preference and clinical outcomes associated with absorbable sutures and non-absorbable sutures in the setting of out-patient surgery are discussed

Orthopaedic surgeons prescribe more opioids than any other surgical speciality. Opioids remain the analgesic of choice following arthroscopic knee and shoulder surgery. There is growing evidence that opioid-sparing protocols may reduce postoperative opioid consumption while adequately addressing patients’ pain. However, there are a lack of prospective, comparative trials evaluating their effectiveness. The objective of the current randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the efficacy of a multi-modal, opioid-sparing approach to postoperative pain management in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder and knee surgery. The NO PAin trial is a pragmatic, definitive RCT (NCT04566250) enrolling 200 adult patients undergoing outpatient shoulder or knee arthroscopy. Patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to an opioid-sparing group or standard of care. The opioid-sparing group receives a three-pronged prescription package consisting of 1) a non-opioid prescription: naproxen, acetaminophen and pantoprazole, 2) a limited opioid “rescue prescription” of hydromorphone, and 3) a patient education infographic. The control group is the current standard of care as per the treating surgeon, which consists of an opioid analgesic. The primary outcome of interest is oral morphine equivalent (OME) consumption up to 6 weeks postoperatively. The secondary outcomes are postoperative pain scores, patient satisfaction, quantity of OMEs prescribed and number of opioid refills. Patients are followed at both 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively. Data analysts and outcome assessors are blinded to the treatment groups. As of December 1, 2021 we have enrolled 166 patients, reaching 83% of target enrolment. Based on the current recruitment rate, we anticipate that enrolment will be completed by the end of January 2022 with final follow-up and study close out completed by March of 2022. The final results will be released at the Canadian Orthopaedic Association Meeting in June 2022 and be presented as follows. The mean difference in OME consumption was XX (95%CI: YY-YY, p=X). The mean difference in OMEs prescribed was XX (95%CI: YY-YY, p=X). The mean difference in Visual Analogue Pain Scores (VAS) and patient satisfaction are XX (95%CI: YY-YY, p=X). The absolute difference in opioid refills was XX (95%CI: YY-YY, p=X). The results of the current study will demonstrate whether an opioid sparing approach to postoperative outpatient pain management is effective at reducing opioid consumption while adequately addressing postoperative pain in patients undergoing outpatient shoulder and knee arthroscopy. This study is novel in the field of arthroscopic surgery, and its results will help to guide appropriate postoperative analgesic management following these widely performed procedures

Introduction. Comparative studies examining Fixed-Bearing (FB) and Mobile-Bearing (MB) Total Ankle Replacement (TAR) designs have demonstrated similar results and successful long-term outcomes for both. To date there has been no study directly comparing FB and MB designs of the same prosthesis. We present the first prospective randomised trial comparing patient satisfaction, functional outcomes and radiographic results of the Salto Talaris Fixed-Bearing and the Salto Mobile-Bearing Total Ankle Replacement in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis. Methods. A total of 108 adult patients with end-stage ankle arthritis were enrolled in the study between November 2014 and October 2021 with similar demographic comparison. Prospective patient-reported outcomes and standardised weightbearing ankle radiographs were performed preoperatively, at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months post-operatively, followed by yearly intervals. All surgeries were performed by a single non-design orthopaedic foot and ankle specialist with experience in over 200 Salto and Salto Talaris TAR prior to the study. Radiographs were examined independently by two clinicians. Complete patient data and radiographs were available for 103 patients with an average follow up of 2 years. Results. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement from preoperative evaluation to most recent follow up with no statistically significant difference between the two groups in all outcome measures. Radiographic incidence of subchondral cyst formation was 8.9% and 38.2% for FB and MB, respectively. Talar subsidence occurred in 2.2% and 5.5% of FB and MB, respectively. Discussion. Our study demonstrates a higher than previously reported rate of cyst formation in the MB TAR and comparatively higher talar subsidence in the MB TAR vs FB however this did not correlate with clinical outcome measures which were favourable for both groups. Conclusion. Fixed-Bearing and Mobile-Bearing Total Ankle Replacement demonstrate comparable favourable

Our primary objective was to compare healing rates in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair for degenerative tears, with and without bone channeling. Our secondary objectives were to compare disease-specific quality of life and patient reported outcomes as measured by the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and Constant score between groups. Patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair at three sites were randomized to receive either bone channeling augmentation or standard repair. Healing rates were determined by ultrasound at 6 and 24 months post operatively. WORC, ASES, and Constant scores were compared between groups at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post operatively. One hundred sixty-eight patients were recruited and randomized between 2013 to 2018. Statistically significant improvements occurred in both groups from pre-operative to all time points in all clinical outcome scores (p < 0 .0001). Intention to treat analysis revealed no statistical differences in healing rates between the two interventions at 24 months post-operative. No differences were observed in WORC, ASES or Constant scores at any time-point. This trial did not demonstrate superiority of intra-operative bone channeling in rotator cuff repair surgery at 24 months post-operative. Healing rates and patient-reported function and quality of life measures were similar between groups

Novel immersive virtual reality (IVR) technologies are revolutionizing medical education. Virtual anatomy education using head-mounted displays allows users to interact with virtual anatomical objects, move within the virtual rooms, and interact with other virtual users. While IVR has been shown to be more effective than textbook learning and 3D computer models presented in 2D screens, the effectiveness of IVR compared to cadaveric models in anatomy education is currently unknown. In this study, we aim to compare the effectiveness of IVR with direct cadaveric bone models in teaching upper and lower limb anatomy for first-year medical students. A randomized, double-blind crossover non-inferiority trial was conducted. Participants were first-year medical students from a single University. Exclusion criteria included students who undertook prior undergraduate or graduate degrees in anatomy. In the first stage of the study, students were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to IVR or cadaveric bone groups studying upper limb skeletal anatomy. All students were then crossed over and used cadaveric bone or IVR to study lower limb skeletal anatomy. All students in both groups completed a pre-and post-intervention knowledge test. The educational content was based on the University of Toronto Medical Anatomy Curriculum. The Oculus Quest 2 Headsets (Meta Technologies) and PrecisionOS Anatomy application (PrecisionOS Technology) were utilized for the virtual reality component. The primary endpoint of the study was student performance on the pre-and post-intervention knowledge tests. We hypothesized that student performance in the IVR groups would be comparable to the cadaveric bone group. 50 first-year medical students met inclusion criteria and were computer randomized (1:1 ratio) to IVR and cadaveric bone group for upper limb skeletal anatomy education. Forty-six students attended the study, 21 completed the upper limb modules, and 19 completed the lower limb modules. Among all students, average score on the pre-intervention knowledge test was 14.6% (Standard Deviation (SD)=18.2%) and 25.0% (SD=17%) for upper and lower limbs, respectively. Percentage increase in students’ scores between pre-and post-intervention knowledge test, in the upper limb for IVR, was 15 % and 16.7% for cadaveric bones (p = 0. 2861), and for the lower limb score increase was 22.6% in the IVR and 22.5% in the cadaveric bone group (p = 0.9356). In this non-inferiority crossover randomized controlled trial, we found no significant difference between student performance in knowledge tests after using IVR or cadaveric bones. Immersive virtual reality and cadaveric bones were equally effective in skeletal anatomy education. Going forward, with advances in VR technologies and anatomy applications, we can expect to see further improvements in the effectiveness of these technologies in anatomy and surgical education. These findings have implications for medical schools having challenges in acquiring cadavers and cadaveric parts

Novel immersive virtual reality (IVR) technologies are revolutionizing medical education. Virtual anatomy education using head-mounted displays allows users to interact with virtual anatomical objects, move within the virtual rooms, and interact with other virtual users. While IVR has been shown to be more effective than textbook learning and 3D computer models presented in 2D screens, the effectiveness of IVR compared to cadaveric models in anatomy education is currently unknown. In this study, we aim to compare the effectiveness of IVR with direct cadaveric bone models in teaching upper and lower limb anatomy for first-year medical students. A randomized, double-blind crossover non-inferiority trial was conducted. Participants were first-year medical students from a single University. Exclusion criteria included students who undertook prior undergraduate or graduate degrees in anatomy. In the first stage of the study, students were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to IVR or cadaveric bone groups studying upper limb skeletal anatomy. All students were then crossed over and used cadaveric bone or IVR to study lower limb skeletal anatomy. All students in both groups completed a pre-and post-intervention knowledge test. The educational content was based on the University of Toronto Medical Anatomy Curriculum. The Oculus Quest 2 Headsets (Meta Technologies) and PrecisionOS Anatomy application (PrecisionOS Technology) were utilized for the virtual reality component. The primary endpoint of the study was student performance on the pre-and post-intervention knowledge tests. We hypothesized that student performance in the IVR groups would be comparable to the cadaveric bone group. 50 first-year medical students met inclusion criteria and were computer randomized (1:1 ratio) to IVR and cadaveric bone group for upper limb skeletal anatomy education. Forty-six students attended the study, 21 completed the upper limb modules, and 19 completed the lower limb modules. Among all students, average score on the pre-intervention knowledge test was 14.6% (Standard Deviation (SD)=18.2%) and 25.0% (SD=17%) for upper and lower limbs, respectively. Percentage increase in students’ scores between pre-and post-intervention knowledge test, in the upper limb for IVR, was 15 % and 16.7% for cadaveric bones (p = 0. 2861), and for the lower limb score increase was 22.6% in the IVR and 22.5% in the cadaveric bone group (p = 0.9356). In this non-inferiority crossover randomized controlled trial, we found no significant difference between student performance in knowledge tests after using IVR or cadaveric bones. Immersive virtual reality and cadaveric bones were equally effective in skeletal anatomy education. Going forward, with advances in VR technologies and anatomy applications, we can expect to see further improvements in the effectiveness of these technologies in anatomy and surgical education. These findings have implications for medical schools having challenges in acquiring cadavers and cadaveric parts

The aim of this study was to investigate surgeons’ reported change of treatment preference in response to the results and conclusion from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and to study patterns of change between subspecialties and nationalities. Two questionnaires were developed through the Delphi process for this cross-sectional survey of surgical preference. The first questionnaire was sent out before the publication of a RCT and the second questionnaire was sent out after publication. The RCT investigated repair or non-repair of the pronator quadratus (PQ) muscle during volar locked plating of distal radial fractures (DRFs). Overall, 380 orthopaedic surgeons were invited to participate in the first questionnaire, of whom 115 replied. One hundred surgeons were invited to participate in the second questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of surgeons for whom a treatment change was warranted, who then reported a change of treatment preference following the RCT. Secondary outcomes included the reasons for repair or non-repair, reasons for and against following the RCT results, and difference of preferred treatment of the PQ muscle between surgeons of different nationalities, qualifications, years of training, and number of procedures performed per year. Of the 100 surgeons invited for the second questionnaire, 74 replied. For the primary outcome, 6 of 32 surgeons (19%), who usually repaired the PQ muscle and therefore a change of treatment preference was warranted, reported a change of treatment preference based on the RCT publication. Of the secondary outcomes, restoring anatomy was the most common response for repairing the PQ muscle. The majority of the orthopaedic surgeons, where a change of treatment preference was warranted based on the results and conclusion of a RCT, did not report willingness to change their treatment preference

Aim. In 10% of the presumed aseptic hip or knee revisions, a low-grade infection is unexpectedly diagnosed based on the tissue samples taken during revision. Extended antimicrobial prophylaxis can possibly reduce the failure rate in cases of unexpected PJI, because the prophylaxis can be considered as early empiric treatment. In this randomized controlled study we analysed whether extended antimicrobial prophylaxis compared to a single dose is beneficial to improve the outcome of treatment in unexpected PJI in revision arthroplasty. Method. This study was nested in a randomized clinical trial comparing single-dose cefazolin with prolonged prophylaxis (15 doses of cefazolin over 5 days) for revision arthroplasty of the hip or knee. For this analysis, patients were included if an unsuspected PJI (defined as ≥2 positive intraoperative tissue samples with the same microorganism) was diagnosed. PJI treatment consisted of 12 weeks of a rifampicin-based regimen in Staphylococcal PJI, without removal of the prosthesis. We examined Infection characteristics and success of treatment after one year, defined as the absence of signs or treatment for PJI during follow-up. Results. After randomization of 662 patients, 68 unexpected PJI were diagnosed. In 5 cases no antimicrobial treatment was started. The success rate after one year follow-up for those who received PJI treatment was 96% (28/29) in the single dose group and 91% (31/34) in the extended prophylaxis group (p=1.00). The most frequently identified pathogens in unexpected PJI were Cutibacterium acnes (n=50) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (n=14). The causatives were susceptible for the cefazolin prophylaxis in 61 of the 63 cases. The interval between the stopped prophylaxis and the re-start of antimicrobial treatment was on average 10 days (SD 4) for the single dose and 5 days (SD 4) for the extended group. The mean duration of antimicrobial treatment was 83 days (SD 12) and did not differ between both groups (p=0.16). Conclusions. This is the first randomized controlled trial in which extended prophylaxis showed no benefit on the prosthesis survival for patients with an unexpected PJI after assumed aseptic revision of the hip or knee prosthesis. The results imply that extended prophylaxis should not be given as part of early empiric therapy

Fractures of the humeral diaphysis occur in a bimodal distribution and represent 3-5% of all fractures. Presently, the standard treatment of isolated humeral diaphyseal fractures is nonoperative care using splints, braces, and slings. Recent data has questioned the effectiveness of this strategy in ensuring fracture healing and optimal patient function. The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to assess whether operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures with a plate and screw construct provides a better functional outcome than nonoperative treatment. Secondary objectives compared union rates and both clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Eligible patients with an isolated, closed humeral diaphyseal fracture were randomized to either nonoperative care (initial sugar-tong splint, followed by functional coaptation brace) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF; plate and screw construct). The primary outcome measure was the Disability Shoulder, Arm, Hand (DASH) score assessed at 2-, 6-, 16-, 24-, and 52-weeks. Secondary outcomes included the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA), the Constant Shoulder Score, range of motion (ROM), and radiographic parameters. Independent samples t-tests and Chi-squared analyses were used to compare treatment groups. The DASH, SMFA, and Constant Score were modelled over time using a multiple variable mixed effects model. A total of 180 patients were randomized, with 168 included in the final analysis. There were 84 patients treated nonoperatively and 84 treated with ORIF. There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups for age (mean = 45.4 years, SD 16.5 for nonoperative group and 41.7, SD 17.2 years for ORIF group; p=0.16), sex (38.1% female in nonoperative group and 39.3% female in ORIF group; p=0.87), body mass index (mean = 27.8, SD 8.7 for nonoperative group and 27.2, SD 6.2 for ORIF group; p=0.64), or smoking status (p=0.74). There was a significant improvement in the DASH scores at 6 weeks in the ORIF group compared to the nonoperative group (mean=33.8, SD 21.2 in the ORIF group vs. mean=56.5, SD=21.1 in the nonoperative group; p < 0 .0001). At 4 months, the DASH scores were also significantly better in the ORIF group (mean=21.6, SD=19.7 in the ORIF group vs. mean=31.6, SD=24.6 in the nonoperative group; p=0.009. However, there was no difference in DASH scores at 12-month follow-up between the groups (mean=8.8,SD=10.9 vs. mean=11.0, SD=16.9 in the nonoperative group; p=0.39). Males had improved DASH scores at all timepoints compared with females. There was significantly quicker time to union (p=0.016) and improved position (p < 0 .001) in the ORIF group. There were 13 (15.5%) nonunions in the nonoperative group and four (4.7%) combined superficial and deep infections in the ORIF group. There were seven radial nerve palsies in the nonoperative group and five (a single iatrogenic) radial nerve palsies in the ORIF group. This large RCT comparing operative and nonoperative treatment of humeral diaphyseal fractures found significantly improved functional outcome scores in patients treated surgically at 6 weeks and 4 months. However, the early functional improvement did not persist at the 12-month follow-up. There was a 15.5% nonunion rate, which required surgical intervention, in the nonoperative group and a similar radial nerve palsy rate between groups

Fractures of the humeral diaphysis occur in a bimodal distribution and represent 3-5% of all fractures. Presently, the standard treatment of isolated humeral diaphyseal fractures is nonoperative care using splints, braces, and slings. Recent data has questioned the effectiveness of this strategy in ensuring fracture healing and optimal patient function. The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to assess whether operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures with a plate and screw construct provides a better functional outcome than nonoperative treatment. Secondary objectives compared union rates and both clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Eligible patients with an isolated, closed humeral diaphyseal fracture were randomized to either nonoperative care (initial sugar-tong splint, followed by functional coaptation brace) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF; plate and screw construct). The primary outcome measure was the Disability Shoulder, Arm, Hand (DASH) score assessed at 2-, 6-, 16-, 24-, and 52-weeks. Secondary outcomes included the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA), the Constant Shoulder Score, range of motion (ROM), and radiographic parameters. Independent samples t-tests and Chi-squared analyses were used to compare treatment groups. The DASH, SMFA, and Constant Score were modelled over time using a multiple variable mixed effects model. A total of 180 patients were randomized, with 168 included in the final analysis. There were 84 patients treated nonoperatively and 84 treated with ORIF. There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups for age (mean = 45.4 years, SD 16.5 for nonoperative group and 41.7, SD 17.2 years for ORIF group; p=0.16), sex (38.1% female in nonoperative group and 39.3% female in ORIF group; p=0.87), body mass index (mean = 27.8, SD 8.7 for nonoperative group and 27.2, SD 6.2 for ORIF group; p=0.64), or smoking status (p=0.74). There was a significant improvement in the DASH scores at 6 weeks in the ORIF group compared to the nonoperative group (mean=33.8, SD 21.2 in the ORIF group vs. mean=56.5, SD=21.1 in the nonoperative group; p < 0 .0001). At 4 months, the DASH scores were also significantly better in the ORIF group (mean=21.6, SD=19.7 in the ORIF group vs. mean=31.6, SD=24.6 in the nonoperative group; p=0.009. However, there was no difference in DASH scores at 12-month follow-up between the groups (mean=8.8,SD=10.9 vs. mean=11.0, SD=16.9 in the nonoperative group; p=0.39). Males had improved DASH scores at all timepoints compared with females. There was significantly quicker time to union (p=0.016) and improved position (p < 0 .001) in the ORIF group. There were 13 (15.5%) nonunions in the nonoperative group and four (4.7%) combined superficial and deep infections in the ORIF group. There were seven radial nerve palsies in the nonoperative group and five (a single iatrogenic) radial nerve palsies in the ORIF group. This large RCT comparing operative and nonoperative treatment of humeral diaphyseal fractures found significantly improved functional outcome scores in patients treated surgically at 6 weeks and 4 months. However, the early functional improvement did not persist at the 12-month follow-up. There was a 15.5% nonunion rate, which required surgical intervention, in the nonoperative group and a similar radial nerve palsy rate between groups

Patients awaiting resolution of swelling and oedema prior to ankle surgery can represent a significant burden on hospital beds. Our study assessed whether external pneumatic intermittent compression (EPIC) can reduce delays to surgery. Our prospective randomised controlled trial (n= 20) compared outcomes of patients treated with EPIC vs control group managed with ice and elevation. Included were patients aged <18 years with isolated closed ankle fractures admitted for management of swelling prior to surgery. Excluded were open fractures, injuries to contralateral leg, diabetes, absent pulses, peripheral vascular disease, inability to consent, no requirement for admission. Eligible patients were randomised to active or control arms. All patients were managed initially with reduction and back slab application. Patients in active arm fitted with EPIC (Hydroven 3000) device over the back slab. Assessment by treating team determined the time at which patient is assessed ready for surgery. Patients in the treatment arm were assessed as ready for surgery sooner, (123 hrs vs 168hrs, T score = 1.925, P 0.035) and had a shorter time to surgery (167 hrs vs 216 hrs, T score = 1.748, P 0.047) Length of stay was reduced bud did not reach statistical significance. (259 hrs vs 269 hrs, T score 0.229, P 0.41). Our results showed a statistically and clinically significant reduction in time that patients were assessed ready for surgery and time to surgery in the treatment cohort. We conclude that although further data is needed to achieve an adequately powered study and assess the safety profile of the EPIC, incorporation of EPIC into routine clinical practice has the potential for significant cost savings

Cryocompression therapy is a non-invasive and non-pharmacological modality used in managing acute post-operative inflammation and pain. A prospective, randomised controlled trial (RCT) was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of a post-operative cryocompression protocol using the Game Ready™ (GR) device versus usual care on recovery following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A single centre RCT was conducted with 70 TKAs (68 patients) randomised to a 2-week intervention period consisting of treatment with GR cryocompression (n=33, 33.3% males) or a usual care protocol of ice with static compression using tubigrip (n=35, 54.3% males). Knee range of movement (ROM) (flexion and extension), a visual analogue pain score (VAS) and limb circumference were documented at day 1, 2 and 14, as well as 6 and 12 weeks post-surgery. ROM was also recorded at day 90, while medication use and length of hospital stay were documented. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the KOOS and patient satisfaction questionnaire were employed. The GR group demonstrated 2.3° more (p=0.05) knee extension ROM overall, as well as 2. 8° more at day 1 (p=0.048), 3.8° at day 14 (p=0.007) and 5.4° at 3 months (p=0.017). There were no group differences (p>0.05) observed in pain (VAS), flexion ROM, limb circumference, opioid use or other PROMs. Across the full cohort, higher pain levels resulted in increased opioid intake (p=0.002), older patients used significantly less opioids (p<0.001) and males reported significantly less pain (VAS) than females (p=0.048). Using GR following TKA is a safe, non-invasive tool that can be used to aid in the post-operative recovery period. Patients using the GR cryocompression device gained significantly more extension ROM compared to the conventional ice with compression group, despite no other group differences