Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 1, Issue 4 | Pages 50 - 55
1 Apr 2012
O’Neill F Condon F McGloughlin T Lenehan B Coffey C Walsh M

Introduction. The objective of this study was to determine if a synthetic bone substitute would provide results similar to bone from osteoporotic femoral heads during in vitro testing with orthopaedic implants. If the synthetic material could produce results similar to those of the osteoporotic bone, it could reduce or eliminate the need for testing of implants on bone. Methods. Pushout studies were performed with the dynamic hip screw (DHS) and the DHS Blade in both cadaveric femoral heads and artificial bone substitutes in the form of polyurethane foam blocks of different density. The pushout studies were performed as a means of comparing the force displacement curves produced by each implant within each material. Results. The results demonstrated that test material with a density of 0.16 g/cm. 3. (block A) produced qualitatively similar force displacement curves for the DHS and qualitatively and quantitatively similar force displacement curves for the DHS Blade, whereas the test material with a density of 0.08 g/cm. 3. (block B) did not produce results that were predictive of those recorded within the osteoporotic cadaveric femoral heads. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that synthetic material with a density of 0.16 g/cm. 3. can provide a good substitute for cadaveric osteoporotic femoral heads in the testing of implants. However we do recognise that no synthetic material can be considered as a definitive substitute for bone, therefore studies performed with artificial bone substrates may need to be validated by further testing with a small bone sample in order to produce conclusive results


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 5, Issue 4 | Pages 153 - 161
1 Apr 2016
Kleinlugtenbelt YV Nienhuis RW Bhandari M Goslings JC Poolman RW Scholtes VAB

Objectives

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used to evaluate the outcome of treatment in patients with distal radial fractures. Which PROM to select is often based on assessment of measurement properties, such as validity and reliability. Measurement properties are assessed in clinimetric studies, and results are often reviewed without considering the methodological quality of these studies. Our aim was to systematically review the methodological quality of clinimetric studies that evaluated measurement properties of PROMs used in patients with distal radial fractures, and to make recommendations for the selection of PROMs based on the level of evidence of each individual measurement property.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases to identify relevant clinimetric studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies on measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Level of evidence (strong / moderate / limited / lacking) for each measurement property per PROM was determined by combining the methodological quality and the results of the different clinimetric studies.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 1, Issue 11 | Pages 310 - 314
1 Nov 2012
Griffin XL Achten J Parsons N Boardman F Griffiths F Costa ML

Fractures of the proximal femur are one of the greatest challenges facing the medical community, constituting a heavy socioeconomic burden worldwide. The National Hip Fracture Audit currently provides a framework for service evaluation. This evaluation is based upon the assessment of process rather than assessment of patient-centred outcome and therefore it fails to provide meaningful data regarding the clinical effectiveness of treatments. This study aims to capture data from the cohort of patients who present with a fracture of the proximal femur at a single United Kingdom Major Trauma Centre. Patient-centred outcomes will be recorded and provide a baseline cohort within which to test the clinical effectiveness of experimental interventions.