Multicentre clinical trials in trauma care are gaining prominence as a means of generating good-quality evidence to inform and influence clinical practice. We believe multicentre trials have an important role to play in supporting evidence-based practice, and further investment in such trials is justified.

The lack of a consensus for core health outcomes that should be reported in clinical research has hampered study design and evidence synthesis. We report a United Kingdom consensus for a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials of patients with a hip fracture.

We adopted a modified nominal group technique to derive consensus on 1) which outcome domains should be measured, and 2) methods of assessment. Participants reflected a diversity of perspectives and experience. They received an evidence synthesis and postal questionnaire in advance of the consensus meeting, and ranked the importance of candidate domains and the relevance and suitability of short-listed measures. During the meeting, pre-meeting source data and questionnaire responses were summarised, followed by facilitated discussion and a final plenary session. A COS was determined using a closed voting system: a 70% consensus was required.

Consensus supported a five-domain COS: mortality, pain, activities of daily living, mobility, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Single-item measures of mortality and mobility (indoor/outdoor walking status) and a generic multi-item measure of HRQL - the EuroQoL EQ-5D - were recommended. These measures should be included as a minimum in all hip fracture trials. Other outcome measures should be added depending on the particular interventions being studied.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1016–23.

Total hip replacement causes a short-term increase in the risk of mortality. It is important to quantify this and to identify modifiable risk factors so that the risk of post-operative mortality can be minimised. We performed a systematic review and critical evaluation of the current literature on the topic. We identified 32 studies published over the last 10 years which provide either 30-day or 90-day mortality data. We estimate the pooled incidence of mortality during the first 30 and 90 days following hip replacement to be 0.30% (95% CI 0.22 to 0.38) and 0.65% (95% CI 0.50 to 0.81), respectively. We found strong evidence of a temporal trend towards reducing mortality rates despite increasingly co-morbid patients. The risk factors for early mortality most commonly identified are increasing age, male gender and co-morbid conditions, particularly cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular complications appear to have overtaken fatal pulmonary emboli as the leading cause of death after hip replacement.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:175–82

The February 2014 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: length of stay; cementless metaphyseal fixation; mortality trends in over 400,000 total hip replacements; antibiotics in hip fracture surgery; blood supply to the femoral head after dislocation; resurfacing and THR in metal-on-metal replacement; diabetes and hip replacement; bone remodelling over two decades following hip replacement; and whether bisphosphonates affect acetabular fixation.

The surgical community is plagued with a reputation for both failing to engage and to deliver on clinical research. This is in part due to the absence of a strong research culture, however it is also due to a multitude of barriers encountered in clinical research; particularly those involving surgical interventions. ‘Trauma’ amplifies these barriers, owing to the unplanned nature of care, unpredictable work patterns, the emergent nature of treatment and complexities in the consent process. This review discusses the barriers to clinical research in surgery, with a particular emphasis on trauma. It considers how barriers may be overcome, with the aim to facilitate future successful clinical research.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:123–9.

Hip replacement is a very successful operation and the outcome is usually excellent. There are recognised complications that seem increasingly to give rise to litigation. This paper briefly examines some common scenarios where litigation may be pursued against hip surgeons. With appropriate record keeping, consenting and surgical care, the claim can be successfully defended if not avoided. We hope this short summary will help to highlight some common pitfalls. There is extensive literature available for detailed study.

We evaluated the quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery by examining how they adhere to validated methodological standards in their development. A structured review was performed for guidelines that were published between January 2005 and April 2013 in medical journals or on the Internet. A pre-defined computerised search was used in MEDLINE, Scopus and Google to identify the guidelines. The AGREE II assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in the study.

Seven international and national guidelines were identified. The overall methodological quality of the individual guidelines was good. ‘Scope and Purpose’ (median score 98% interquartile range (IQR)) 86% to 98%) and ‘Clarity of Presentation’ (median score 90%, IQR 90% to 95%) were the two domains that received the highest scores. ‘Applicability’ (median score 68%, IQR 45% to 75%) and ‘Editorial Independence’ (median score 71%, IQR 68% to 75%) had the lowest scores.

These findings reveal that although the overall methodological quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery is good, domains within their development, such as ‘Applicability’ and ‘Editorial Independence’, need to be improved. Application of the AGREE II instrument by the authors of guidelines may improve the quality of future guidelines and provide increased focus on aspects of methodology used in their development that are not robust.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:19–23.

Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in the evaluation of outcome of treatment. They are needed because differences between treatment effects have been minimised and observational studies may give a biased estimation of the outcome. However, conducting this kind of trial is challenging. Several methodological issues, including patient or surgeon preference, blinding, surgical standardisation, as well as external validity, have to be addressed in order to lower the risk of bias. Specific tools have been developed in order to take into account the specificity of evaluation of the literature on non-pharmacological intervention. A better knowledge of methodological issues will allow the orthopaedic surgeon to conduct more appropriate studies and to better appraise the limits of his intervention.

Aims

Osteoporosis and abnormal bone metabolism may prove to be significant factors influencing the outcome of arthroplasty surgery, predisposing to complications of aseptic loosening and peri-prosthetic fracture. We aimed to investigate baseline bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover in patients about to undergo arthroplasty of the hip and knee.

The October 2013 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Make it easy, release the MCL; Do patients remember clinical information in day surgery?; Osteoarthritis and arthroscopy?; How best to double your bundles; When to operate for infection; Cementless unicompartment knee replacement?; Tibial tubercle-trochlear groove confusion; Tarts, cherries and osteoarthritis

The August 2013 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: passive smoking and bone substitutes; platelet-rich plasma and osteogenesis; plantar fasciitis and platelet-rich plasma: a match made in heaven?; MRSA decolonisation decreases infection rates; gums, bisphosphonates and orthopaedics; PRAISE and partner violence; blunt impact and post-traumatic OA; and IDEAL research and implants

This editorial examines the influence of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) on the conduct of orthopaedic surgery. It proffers criticism and suggests ways of improvement.

Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial subject. A vast amount of epidemiological and trial data about venous thromboembolism has been published over the past 40 years. These data have been distilled and synthesised into guidelines designed to help the practitioner translate this extensive research into ‘evidence-based’ advice.

Guidelines should, in theory, benefit patient care by ensuring that every patient routinely receives the best prophylaxis; without guidelines, it is argued, patients may fail to receive treatment or be exposed to protocols which are ineffective, dangerous or expensive.

Guidelines, however, have not been welcomed or applied universally. In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have published their concerns about the thromboprophylaxis guidelines prepared by the American College of Chest Physicians. In Britain, controversy persists with many surgeons unconvinced of the risk/benefit, cost/benefit or practicality of thromboprophylaxis. The extended remit of the recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence thromboprophylaxis guidelines has been challenged.

The reasons for this disquiet are addressed in this paper and particular emphasis is placed on how clinically-acceptable guidelines could be developed and applied.

Hip implant retrieval analysis is the most important source of insight into the performance of new materials and designs of hip arthroplasties. Even the most rigorous in vitro testing will not accurately simulate the behavior of implant materials and new designs of prosthetic arthroplasties. Retrieval analysis has revealed such factors as the effects of gamma-in-air sterilisation of polyethylene, fatigue failure mechanisms of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement, fretting corrosion of Morse taper junctions, third body wear effects of both hard-on-hard and hard-on-soft bearing couples, and the effects of impingement of components on the full spectrum of bearing surfaces, none of which was predicted by pre-implantation in vitro testing of these materials and combinations. The temporal sequence of the retrieval process is approximately six years from first implantation through retrieval analysis, laboratory investigation, and publication of results, and thus, in addition to rigorous clinical evaluation, represents the true development and insight cycle for new designs and materials.

In Canada, Dupuytren's contracture is managed with partial fasciectomy or percutaneous needle aponeurotomy (PNA). Injectable collagenase will soon be available. The optimal management of Dupuytren’s contracture is controversial and trade-offs exist between the different methods. Using a cost-utility analysis approach, our aim was to identify the most cost-effective form of treatment for managing Dupuytren’s contracture it and the threshold at which collagenase is cost-effective. We developed an expected-value decision analysis model for Dupuytren’s contracture affecting a single finger, comparing the cost-effectiveness of fasciectomy, aponeurotomy and collagenase from a societal perspective. Cost-effectiveness, one-way sensitivity and variability analyses were performed using standard thresholds for cost effective treatment ($50 000 to $100 000/QALY gained). Percutaneous needle aponeurotomy was the preferred strategy for managing contractures affecting a single finger. The cost-effectiveness of primary aponeurotomy improved when repeated to treat recurrence. Fasciectomy was not cost-effective. Collagenase was cost-effective relative to and preferred over aponeurotomy at $875 and $470 per course of treatment, respectively.

In summary, our model supports the trend towards non-surgical interventions for managing Dupuytren’s contracture affecting a single finger. Injectable collagenase will only be feasible in our publicly funded healthcare system if it costs significantly less than current United States pricing.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1094–1100.