Aims

The best method of treating unstable pelvic fractures that involve the obturator ring is still a matter for debate. This study compared three methods of treatment: nonoperative, isolated posterior fixation and combined anteroposterior stabilization.

Objectives

The patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire are patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used for clinical and research purposes. Methodological high-quality clinimetric studies that determine the measurement properties of these PROMs when used in patients with a distal radial fracture are lacking. This study aimed to validate the PRWE and DASH in Dutch patients with a displaced distal radial fracture (DRF).

The December 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: cuff tears and plexus injury;

corticosteroids and physiotherapy in SAI; diabetes and elbow arthroplasty; distal biceps tendon repairs; shockwave therapy in frozen shoulder; hydrodilation and steroids for adhesive capsulitis; just what do our patients read?; and what happens to that stable radial head fracture?

Objectives

Electronic forms of data collection have gained interest in recent years. In orthopaedics, little is known about patient preference regarding pen-and-paper or electronic questionnaires. We aimed to determine whether patients undergoing total hip (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) prefer pen-and-paper or electronic questionnaires and to identify variables that predict preference for electronic questionnaires.

Aims

Since redesign of the Oxford phase III mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) femoral component to a twin-peg design, there has not been a direct comparison to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Thus, we explored differences between the two cohorts.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is commonly performed and has been for many years. Despite this, the technical details related to ACL anatomy, such as tunnel placement, are still a topic for debate. In this paper, we introduce the flat ribbon concept of the anatomy of the ACL, and its relevance to clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1020–6.

The use of journal clubs and, more recently, case-based discussions in order to stimulate debate among orthopaedic surgeons lies at the heart of orthopaedic training and education. A virtual learning environment can be used as a platform to host virtual journal clubs and case-based discussions. This has many advantages in the current climate of constrained time and diminishing trainee and consultant participation in such activities. The virtual environment model opens up participation and improves access to journal clubs and case-based discussions, provides reusable educational content, establishes an electronic record of participation for individuals, makes use of multimedia material (including clinical imaging and photographs) for discussion, and finally, allows participants to link case-based discussions with relevant papers in the journal club.

The Leicester experience highlights the many advantages and some of the potential difficulties in setting up such a virtual system and provides useful guidance for those considering such a system in their own training programme. As a result of the virtual learning environment, trainee participation has increased and there is a trend for increased consultant input in the virtual journal club and case-based discussions.

It is likely that the use of virtual environments will expand to encompass newer technological approaches to personal learning and professional development.

Objectives

Despite the fact that research fraud and misconduct are under scrutiny in the field of orthopaedic research, little systematic work has been done to uncover and characterise the underlying reasons for academic retractions in this field. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of retractions and identify the reasons for retracted publications in the orthopaedic literature.

Satisfaction with care is important to both patients and to those who pay for it. The Net Promoter Score (NPS), widely used in the service industries, has been introduced into the NHS as the ‘friends and family test’; an overarching measure of patient satisfaction. It assesses the likelihood of the patient recommending the healthcare received to another, and is seen as a discriminator of healthcare performance. We prospectively assessed 6186 individuals undergoing primary lower limb joint replacement at a single university hospital to determine the Net Promoter Score for joint replacements and to evaluate which factors contributed to the response.

Achieving pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 2.13, confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 2.49), the meeting of pre-operative expectation (OR 2.57, CI 2.24 to 2.97), and the hospital experience (OR 2.33, CI 2.03 to 2.68) are the domains that explain whether a patient would recommend joint replacement services. These three factors, combined with the type of surgery undertaken (OR 2.31, CI 1.68 to 3.17), drove a predictive model that was able to explain 95% of the variation in the patient’s recommendation response. Though intuitively similar, this ‘recommendation’ metric was found to be materially different to satisfaction responses. The difference between THR (NPS 71) and TKR (NPS 49) suggests that no overarching score for a department should be used without an adjustment for case mix. However, the Net Promoter Score does measure a further important dimension to our existing metrics: the patient experience of healthcare delivery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:622–8.

The December 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Vitamin E infusion helpful in polyethylene; Hip replacement in fracture and arthritis; Non-surgical treatment for arthritis; Cost and approach in hip surgery; Who does well in FAI surgery?; AAOS Thromboembolism guidelines; Thromboprophylaxis and periprosthetic joint infection; Fluid collections not limited to metal-on-metal THR

A recent Supreme Court ruling in the United Kingdom has significantly altered the emphasis of informed consent, moving from a historically ‘doctor-focused’ to a more ‘patient-focused’ approach, in line with the situation in other international jurisdictions.

The reasons for the change are discussed with some recommendations about how our attitudes need to change in the future.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1159–61.

The effective capture of outcome measures in the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in the Crimean war in the 1850s.

Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself.

With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store and interpret data.

Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry. Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000 patients have been entered onto the database.

There has been significant publicity regarding the collection of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores. Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves, with many more entered by the surgical teams.

Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results be reported and in what forum?

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:871–4.

The April 2015 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Hyperostotic spine in injury; App based back pain control; Interspinous process devices should be avoided in claudication; Robot assisted pedicle screws: fad or advance?; Vancomycin antibiotic power in spinal surgery; What to do with that burst fracture?; Increasing complexity of spinal fractures in major trauma pathways; Vitamin D and spinal fractures

We validated the North American Spine Society (NASS) outcome-assessment instrument for the lumbar spine in a computerised touch-screen format and assessed patients’ acceptance, taking into account previous computer experience, age and gender.

Fifty consecutive patients with symptomatic and radiologically-proven degenerative disease of the lumbar spine completed both the hard copy (paper) and the computerised versions of the NASS questionnaire. Statistical analysis showed high agreement between the paper and the touch-screen computer format for both subscales (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.94, 95% confidence interval (0.90 to 0.97)) independent of computer experience, age and gender. In total, 55% of patients stated that the computer format was easier to use and 66% preferred it to the paper version (p < 0.0001 among subjects expressing a preference). Our data indicate that the touch-screen format is comparable to the paper form. It may improve follow-up in clinical practice and research by meeting patients’ preferences and minimising administrative work.