Search

Background: Because there are no known treatments that alter the natural course of the pathophysiology of osteoarthritis, nonoperative treatment needs to be compared with known effective treatments that seek to mitigate symptoms or with similarly invasive inert (placebo) treatments to determine effectiveness. Comparing a treatment to an uninformative control group may inappropriately legitimize and support the use of potentially ineffective treatments. We therefore investigated the prevalence of inappropriate control groups in musculoskeletal research and asked whether these are associated with reporting a positive treatment effect., Questions/purposes: We systematically reviewed randomized trials of nonoperative treatments of osteoarthritis and asked: (1) What proportion of randomized trials use uninformative control groups (defined as a treatment less invasive than the tested treatment, or a treatment that might possibly not outperform placebo but is not acknowledged as such)? (2) Is the use of uninformative control groups independently associated with reporting a positive treatment effect (defined as p < 0.05 in favor of the intervention, or as making a recommendation favoring the intervention over the control treatment)?, Methods: In a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase up to September 2023 for randomized controlled trials published between 2020 to 2022 that compared one or more nonoperative treatments for the symptoms of osteoarthritis. We excluded studies that contained a surgical treatment group. We identified 103 trials that met eligibility criteria, with a total of 15,491 patients. The risk of bias was high in 60% (n = 62) of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, version 2. Although the high risk of bias in the included studies is concerning, it does not invalidate our design; instead, it highlights that some studies may use flawed methods to recommend treatments with unproven effectiveness beyond nonspecific effects because the kinds of bias observed would tend to increase the apparent benefit of the treatment(s) being evaluated. We used logistic regression to test the association of uninformative control groups with a positive treatment effect, accounting for potential confounders such as conflict of interest and study bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias score., Results: The use of uninformative control groups (treatments less invasive than the tested treatment, or treatments that might not outperform placebo but are not acknowledged as such) was found in 46% (47 of 103) of included studies. After accounting for potential confounding, there was no association between reporting positive treatment effects and the use of an uninformative control group. Studies with a low risk of bias had a lower likelihood of reporting a positive treatment effect (OR 0.2 [95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.9]; p = 0.04, model pseudo R2 = 0.21)., Conclusion: The finding that recent studies that mimic high-level evidence often use uninformative control groups that do not adequately account for nonspecific effects (perceived treatment benefits unrelated to a treatment's direct physiological effects) points to a high risk of legitimizing ineffective treatments. This raises the ethical imperative for patients, clinicians, journal peer reviewers, and journal editors to hold researchers to the standard of an adequate, informative control group. Awareness and risk of bias checklists might help patients and clinicians forgo new treatments based on seemingly high-level evidence that may carry only iatrogenic, financial, and psychological harm (false hope, in particular)., Level of Evidence: Level I, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. In a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase up to September 2023 for randomized controlled trials published between 2020 to 2022 that compared one or more nonoperative treatments for the symptoms of osteoarthritis. We excluded studies that contained a surgical treatment group. We identified 103 trials that met eligibility criteria, with a total of 15,491 patients. The risk of bias was high in 60% (n = 62) of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, version 2. Although the high risk of bias in the included studies is concerning, it does not invalidate our design; instead, it highlights that some studies may use flawed methods to recommend treatments with unproven effectiveness beyond nonspecific effects because the kinds of bias observed would tend to increase the apparent benefit of the treatment(s) being evaluated. We used logistic regression to test the association of uninformative control groups with a positive treatment effect, accounting for potential confounders such as conflict of interest and study bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias score., (Copyright © 2024 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Competing Interests: The author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Background: Although idiopathic median neuropathy at the carpal tunnel (IMNCT) is objective and verifiable, distinction of normal and abnormal nerves is imprecise and probabilistic. The associated symptoms and signs (carpal tunnel syndrome [CTS]) vary, particularly for nonsevere (mild and moderate) median neuropathy. Discordance between diagnosis of mild or moderate median neuropathy at the carpal tunnel using symptoms and signs and diagnosis based on objective tests is a measure of the potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment., Question/purpose: What is the difference in the estimated prevalence of mild-to-moderate IMNCT using nonsevere signs and symptoms compared with the estimated prevalence using electrodiagnostic studies (EDS) and ultrasound (US)?, Methods: We used data from an existing cross-sectional data registry. To create this registry, between January 2014 and January 2019, we considered all new adult English-speaking people who had an EDS that included the median nerve or people with a diagnosis of CTS who did not have surgery yet. A small and unrecorded number of people declined participation. The cross-sectional area of the median nerve at the distal wrist crease using US in people who already had EDS was measured. People with a diagnosis of CTS underwent both EDS and US. The six signs and symptoms of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome 6 (CTS-6, a validated tool to estimate the probability of IMNCT using ratings of symptoms and signs of CTS) were recorded. This resulted in a registry of 185 participants; we excluded 75 people for obvious, severe IMNCT (defined as nonrecordable nerve conduction velocity, thenar atrophy, or greater than 5 mm 2-point discrimination). Three of the 110 qualifying patients had missing information on ethnicity or race, but we accounted for this in our final analysis. Without a reference standard, as is the case with IMNCT, latent class analysis (LCA) can be used to establish the probability that an individual has specific pathophysiologic findings. LCA is a statistical method that identifies sets of characteristics that tend to group together. This technique has been used, for example, in diagnosing true scaphoid fractures among suspected fractures based on a combination of demographic, injury, examination, and radiologic variables. The prevalence of mild-to-moderate IMNCT was estimated in two LCAs using four signs and symptoms characteristic of mild-to-moderate IMNCT, as well as EDS and US measures of median neuropathy., Results: The estimated prevalence of mild-to-moderate IMNCT based on signs and symptoms was 73% (95% CI 62% to 81%), while the estimated prevalence using EDS and US measurements was 51% (95% CI 37% to 65%)., Conclusion: The notable discordance of 22% between the estimated prevalence of mild-to-moderate IMNCT using signs and symptoms and prevalence based on EDS and US criteria, and the overlapping CIs of the probability estimations, indicate considerable uncertainty and a corresponding notable potential for underdiagnosis or overdiagnosis. When signs and symptoms suggest mild-to-moderate median neuropathy and surgery is being considered, patients and clinicians might consider additional testing, such as EDS or US, to increase the probability of actual median neuropathy that can benefit from surgery. We might benefit from a more accurate and reliable diagnostic strategy or tool for mild-to-moderate IMNCT; this might be the focus of a future study., Level of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic study., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2023 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Accurately distinguishing the severity of pathophysiology from the level of symptom intensity and incapability is a foundation of effective treatment strategies under the biopsychosocial paradigm of illness. With respect to idiopathic median neuropathy at the carpal tunnel (the symptoms and signs of which are referred to as carpal tunnel syndrome), surgeons who are more likely to recommend surgery based on the magnitude of symptoms and incapability rather than the severity of neuropathy may be underappreciating and undertreating mental health opportunities and overtreating mild, and on occasion unmeasurable, disease. A survey-based experiment that randomizes elements of the patient presentation can help determine the relative influence of magnitude of incapability on ratings of pathology severity., Question/purpose: What factors are associated with severity rating of idiopathic median neuropathy at the carpal tunnel on an 11-point ordinal scale?, Methods: One hundred eight hand and wrist members of the Science of Variation Group (among approximately 200 participants who complete at least one survey-experiment a year related to the upper extremity on average) reviewed seven scenarios of fictional median neuropathy with seven randomized variables: age, gender, limitations of daily activity (incapability), Tinel and Phalen test results, duration of numbness episodes, prevention of numbness with nocturnal splint immobilization, constant numbness, and weakness of palmar abduction. Participants had a mean age of 51 ± 10 years, 90% (97 of 108) were men, and 74% (80 of 108) were subspecialized in hand surgery. Surgeons were asked to rate the severity of idiopathic median neuropathy at the carpal tunnel on a on an 11-point ordinal scale. Factors associated with rated severity were sought in multilevel ordered logistic regression models. Fifteen surgeons did not complete all of their assigned randomized scenarios, resulting in a total of 675 ratings., Results: After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as magnitude of incapability, factors associated with severity rating on the 11-point ordinal scale included palmar abduction weakness (odds ratio 11 [95% confidence interval 7.7 to 15]), longer duration of symptom episodes (OR 4.5 [95% CI 3.3 to 6.2]), nocturnal numbness in spite of splint immobilization (OR 3.2 [95% CI 2.3 to 4.3]), constant numbness (OR 2.5 [95% CI 1.9 to 3.4]), positive Tinel and positive Phalen test results (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.6 to 2.9]), and older age (OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.2 to 2.1])., Conclusion: Our results suggest that surgeons rate the severity of idiopathic median neuropathy at the carpal tunnel based on evidence of worse pathophysiology and are not distracted by greater incapability., Clinical Relevance: Surgeons who consider greater incapability as an indication of more severe pathology seem to be practicing outside the norm and may be underappreciating and undertreating the unhelpful thoughts and feelings of worry or despair that consistently account for a notable amount of the variation in symptom intensity and magnitude of incapability., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Among people with musculoskeletal disorders, much of the variation in magnitude of incapability and pain intensity is accounted for by mental and social health opportunities rather than severity of pathology. Current questionnaires seem to combine distinct aspects of mental health such as unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms, and they can be long and burdensome. To identify personalized health strategies, it would be helpful to measure unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms at the point of care with just a few questions in a way that feels relevant to a person's health., Questions/purposes: (1) Do questions that address unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms independently account for variation in accommodation of pain? (2) Which questions best measure unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms?, Methods: This is a cross-sectional questionnaire study of people seeking care regarding upper and lower extremity conditions from one of eight specialist clinicians (one upper extremity, one arthroplasty, and one sports surgeon and their three nurse practitioners and two physician assistants) in one urban office. Between June 2020 and September 2020, 171 new and returning patients were approached and agreed to participate, and 89% (153) of patients completed all questionnaires. The most common reason for noncompletion was the use of a pandemic strategy allowing people to use their phone to finish the questionnaire, with more people leaving before completion. Women and divorced, separated, or widowed people were more likely to not complete the survey, and we specifically account for sex and marital status as potential confounders in our multivariable analysis. Forty-eight percent (73 of 153) of participants were women, with a mean age 48 ± 16 years. Participants completed demographics and the validated questionnaires: Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Negative Pain Thoughts Questionnaire, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (a measure of accommodation to pain). In an exploratory factor analysis, we found that questions group together on four topics: (1) distress about symptoms (unhelpful feelings of worry and despair), (2) unhelpful thoughts about symptoms (such as worst-case thinking and pain indicating harm), (3) being able to plan, and (4) discomfort with uncertainty. We used a multivariable analysis, accounting for potential confounding demographics, to determine whether the identified question groupings account for variation in accommodation of pain-and thus are clinically relevant. Then, we used a confirmatory factor analysis to determine which questions best represent clinically relevant groupings of questions., Results: After accounting for sex, marital status, work, and income, we found that distress and unhelpful thoughts about symptoms were independently associated with accommodation of pain, and together, they explained 60% of its variation (compared with 52% for distress alone and 40% for unhelpful thoughts alone). Variation in symptoms of distress was best measured by the question "I feel I can't stand it anymore" (76%). Variation in unhelpful thoughts was best addressed by the question "I wouldn't have this much pain if there wasn't something potentially dangerous going on in my body" (64%)., Conclusion: We found that distress (unhelpful feelings) and unhelpful thoughts about symptoms are separate factors with important and comparable associations with accommodation to pain. It also appears that these two factors can be measured with just a few questions. Being attentive to the language people use and the language of influential questions might improve clinician identification of mental health opportunities in the form of distress and unhelpful thoughts about symptoms, which in turn might contribute to better accommodation and alleviation of symptoms., Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Introduction: Cognitive biases are known to affect all aspects of human decision-making and reasoning. Examples include misjudgment of probability, preferential attention to evidence that confirms one's beliefs, and preference for certainty. It is not known whether cognitive biases influence orthopaedic surgeon decision-making. This study measured the influence of a few cognitive biases on orthopaedic decision-making in hypothetical vignettes. The questions we addressed were as follows: Do orthopaedic surgeons display the cognitive biases of base rate neglect and confirmation bias in hypothetical vignettes? Can anchoring and framing biases be demonstrated?, Methods: One hundred ninety-six orthopaedic surgeons completed a survey consisting of three vignettes evaluating base rate neglect, five evaluating confirmation bias, and two separate vignettes each randomly exposing half of the group to different anchors and frames., Results: For the three vignettes evaluating base rate neglect, 43% (84 of 196) chose answers consistent with base rate neglect in vignette 1, 88% (173 of 196) in vignette 2, and 35% (69 of 196) in vignette 3. Regarding confirmation bias, 51% (100 of 196) chose an answer consistent with confirmation bias for vignette 1, 11% (22 of 196) for vignette 2, 22% (43 of 196) for vignette 3, 22% (44 of 196) for vignette 4, and 29% (56 of 196) for vignette 5. There was a measurable anchoring heuristic (56% versus 34%; a difference of 22%) and framing effect (77% versus 61%; a difference of 16%)., Conclusion: The influence of cognitive biases can be documented in patient vignettes presented to orthopaedic surgeons. Strategies can anticipate cognitive bias and develop practice debiasing strategies to limit potential error., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Background: Patient perceptions of their limitations after illness and injury can be quantified using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Few studies have assessed construct validity (using correlations and factor analysis) and precision (floor and ceiling effects) of a range of frequently used PROMs longitudinally in a population of patients recovering from common upper extremity fractures according to area (general health, region-specific, or joint-specific measures) and mode of administration (fixed-scale or computer adaptive test)., Questions/purposes: (1) What is the strength of the correlation between different PROMs within 1 week, 2 to 4 weeks and 6 to 9 months after shoulder, elbow, and wrist fractures? (2) Using a factor analysis, what underlying constructs are being measured by these PROMs? (3) Are there strong floor and ceiling effects with these instruments?, Methods: Between January 2016 and August 2016, 734 patients recovering from an isolated shoulder, elbow, or wrist fracture completed physical-limitation PROMs at baseline (the initial office visit after diagnosis in the emergency department), 2 to 4 weeks after injury, and at the final assessment 6 to 9 months after injury. In all, 775 patients were originally approached; 31 patients (4%) declined to participate due to time constraints, four patients died of unrelated illness, and six patients were lost to follow-up. The PROMs included the PROMIS Physical Function (PF, a computer adaptive, general measure of physical function), the PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE, a computer adaptive measure of upper extremity physical function), the QuickDASH (a fixed-scale, region-specific measure), the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and the Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) (a fixed-scale, joint-specific measure), and the EQ-5D-3L (a fixed-scale measure of general health). PROMs were evaluated during recovery for construct validity (using correlations and factor analysis) and precision (using floor and ceiling effects)., Results: Physical-limitation PROMs were intercorrelated at all time points, and the correlation strengthened over time (for example, PROMIS UE and QuickDASH at 1 week, r = -0.4665; at 2 to 4 weeks, r = -0.7763; at 6 to 9 months, r = -0.8326; p < 0.001). Factor analysis generated two factors or groupings of PROMs that could be described as capability (perceived ability to perform or engage in activities), and quality of life (an overall sense of health and wellbeing) that varied by time point and fracture type, Joint-specific and general-health PROMs demonstrated high ceiling effects 6 to 9 months after injury and PROMIS PF, PROMIS UE and QuickDASH had no floor or ceiling effects at any time points., Conclusions: There is a substantial correlation between PROMs that assess physical limitations (based on anatomic region) and general health after upper extremity fractures, and these relationships strengthen during recovery. Regardless of the delivery mode or area of focus, PROMs largely appear to represent two underlying constructs: capability and quality of life. Computer adaptive tests may be favored over fixed-scale measures for their efficiency and limited censoring., Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study.

Background: It is proposed that vitamin C administration can reduce disproportionate pain and stiffness after distal radius fracture; however, randomized trials that tested this hypothesis have had inconsistent results., Questions/purposes: (1) Is administering vitamin C after distal radius fracture associated with better ROM, patient-reported upper extremity function, and pain scores? (2) What factors are associated with post-fracture finger stiffness and worse upper extremity function?, Methods: This is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, noncrossover study. Between August 2014 and July 2017, we approached 204 consecutive patients, of which 195 were eligible, and 134 chose to participate. Participants were randomized to receive once-daily 500 mg vitamin C (67 participants) or placebo (67 participants) within 2 weeks after distal radius fracture. All patients received usual care at the discretion of their surgeon. The mean age of participants was 49 ± 17 years, 99 patients (74%) were women, and 83 (62%) were treated nonoperatively. The primary outcome was the distance between the fingertip and distal palmar crease 6 weeks after fracture. This measure is easy to obtain and previously has been shown to correlate with aggregate ROM of all finger joints. The secondary outcomes were total active finger motion, total active thumb motion, upper extremity-specific limitations, and pain intensity.An a priori power analysis suggested 126 patients would provide 80% power to detect a difference of 2 cm (SD 4.0) fingertip distance to palmar crease with α set at 0.05 using a two-tailed Student's t-test. Accounting for 5% lost to followup, we included 134 patients.All analyses were intention-to-treat. Ten participants of the intervention group and five of the placebo group were lost to followup. Their missing data were addressed by multiple imputation, after which we performed linear regression analysis for our outcome variables., Results: Administration of vitamin C was not associated with ROM, function, or pain scores at 6 weeks (distance to palmar crease: β -0.23; 95% CI -1.7 to 1.2; p = 0.754; finger ROM: β 4.9; 95% CI, -40 to 50; p = 0.829; thumb ROM: β 0.98; 95% CI, -18 to 20; p = 0.918, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] score: β 0.32; 95% CI, -2.6 to 3.2; p = 0.828; pain score: β -0.62; 95% CI, -0.62 to 0.89; p = 0.729) nor at 6 months (PROMIS score: β -0.21; 95% CI, -3.7 to 3.3; p = 0.904; pain score: β 0.31; 95% CI, -0.74 to 1.4; p = 0.559). At 6 weeks, we found that more finger stiffness was mildly associated with greater age (β -1.5; 95% CI, -2.8 to -0.083; p = 0.038). Thumb stiffness was mildly associated with greater age (β -0.72; 95% CI, -1.3 to -0.18; p = 0.009) and strongly associated with operative treatment (β -32; 95% CI, -50 to -13; p = 0.001). Greater pain interference was modestly associated with greater functional limitations at 6 weeks (β -0.32; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.12; p = 0.002) and 6 months (β -0.36; 95% CI, -0.60 to -0.11; p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Vitamin C does not seem to facilitate recovery after distal radius fracture, but amelioration of maladaptation to nociception (pain interference) merits greater attention., Level of Evidence: Level I, therapeutic study.

Background: Studies on how psychologic factors influence the placebo effect have shown conflicting results in an experimental setting. Pessimists are more likely to experience a nocebo effect (feel worse after an inert intervention), whereas other studies suggest that patients with more symptoms of depression or anxiety or greater neuroticism have a greater response to a placebo. This is important because treatment benefits are potentiated by placebo effects, and optimal utilization of this phenomenon may improve clinical outcomes., Questions/purposes: (1) What psychologic factors are associated with a decrease in magnitude of limitations (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH] score) and pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS] for pain) after placebo injections for the treatment of painful nontraumatic upper extremity conditions? (2) What psychologic factors are associated with achieving a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in disability and pain intensity?, Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data acquired in two prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trials of patients with lateral elbow pain, trapeziometacarpal arthrosis, and de Quervain tendinopathy who received a single injection of dexamethasone and lidocaine or lidocaine alone (placebo). One hundred six patients were included between June 2003 and February 2008. Sixty-three patients (59%) received dexamethasone and lidocaine, and we analyzed the subset of 43 patients (41%) who received lidocaine alone. The primary outcomes of interest were the DASH questionnaire and the VAS for pain measured three times: when they received the injection, between 1 and 3 months after the injection, and between 5 and 8 months after the injection. Seven patients missed the first followup visit and 14 patients missed the second visit. Based on previous research, we chose a MCID threshold of 10 for the DASH and a threshold of 1.0 for the VAS score. In bivariate analysis, we accounted for sex, race, marital status, degree, education, work status, pretreatment pain, diagnosis, symptoms of depression (Center of Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale), coping strategies in response to nociception (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), and personality traits (measured with the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control scale and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised score). Variables with p values < 0.10 in bivariate analysis were included in the multivariable regression models. An a priori power analysis showed that a sample of 43 participants provides 80% statistical power, with α set at 0.05, for a regression with five predictors if the depression score would account for 15% or more of the variability in pain score. We used multiple imputations (imputations = 50) for a total of 66 (8.5%) missing or incomplete questionnaires., Results: In the final multivariable models, no psychologic factors were associated with a change in DASH score between injection and followup, and no factors were associated with greater decrease in pain intensity. After injection, no psychologic factors were independently associated with achieving a MCID in the DASH and VAS., Conclusions: Our study confirms that patient factors are less important mediators of the placebo effect than clinician factors. In other words, clinician warmth and competence can help diminish symptoms and limitations of people in various states of mind, even when using inert or ineffective treatments., Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study.

Background: No consensus exists on the best method of articular reconstruction in patients who require proximal humerus resection for the management of primary bone sarcomas, soft-tissue sarcomas extending into the bone, benign and locally aggressive primary bone tumors, and metastatic disease., Methods: We identified patients from two institutions who underwent wide resection of the proximal humerus along with oncologic reconstruction using osteoarticular allografts (OAs), endoprostheses, or allograft-prosthesis composites. We prospectively collected functional outcomes and retrospectively assessed complications and implant survival., Results: A total of 150 patients were included in this study. The average Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score was 26 for 25 patients, of which we gathered their functional data, with no differences in physical function among the three constructional methods according to the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, upper extremity Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, upper extremity Musculoskeletal Tumor Society, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores. Overall, the survival rate of the prosthesis was >50%. A trend was noted for a higher risk of failure in the OA group secondary to the allograft fracture., Discussion: All three articular oncologic shoulder reconstructions were comparable in terms of function. This large series confirms a higher fracture rate in OAs, which explains the observed higher revision rate and apparent lower survival rate in this subgroup.

Background: Opioid-centric pain management strategies have created an epidemic of prescription opioid abuse. This study assesses whether opioid intake is associated with disability, satisfaction with treatment, and pain at the time of suture removal and at 5 to 8 months after suture removal following open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures., Methods: We enrolled 102 adult patients in the study at the time of suture removal, 59 of whom were available for follow-up at 5 to 8 months. At the time of suture removal, we recorded opioid use; trauma-related factors; and scores on measures of disability, pain, and treatment satisfaction. Patients who were available for follow-up completed the disability, pain, and treatment satisfaction measures at 5 to 8 months and their opioid use at that time was recorded., Results: No association was found between opioid intake and disability at the time of suture removal. No association was found between opioid intake and satisfaction with treatment or satisfaction with pain management at the time of suture removal. At 5 to 8 months after suture removal, no variables were associated with opioid intake. The psychologic measures of pain anxiety and catastrophic thinking were the factors most consistently associated with disability, treatment satisfaction, satisfaction with pain management, pain at rest, and pain with activity at both of the time points., Conclusion: Patients with ankle fractures may be able to use fewer opioids than are currently prescribed and experience levels of disability and treatment satisfaction comparable with those of patients who take greater amounts of opioids, independent of injury characteristics., Level of Evidence: Prognostic level II.

Background: Much of the decision-making in orthopaedics rests on uncertain evidence. Uncertainty is therefore part of our normal daily practice, and yet physician uncertainty regarding treatment could diminish patients' health. It is not known if physician uncertainty is a function of the evidence alone or if other factors are involved. With added experience, uncertainty could be expected to diminish, but perhaps more influential are things like physician confidence, belief in the veracity of what is published, and even one's religious beliefs. In addition, it is plausible that the kind of practice a physician works in can affect the experience of uncertainty. Practicing physicians may not be immediately aware of these effects on how uncertainty is experienced in their clinical decision-making., Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) Does uncertainty and overconfidence bias decrease with years of practice? (2) What sociodemographic factors are independently associated with less recognition of uncertainty, in particular belief in God or other deity or deities, and how is atheism associated with recognition of uncertainty? (3) Do confidence bias (confidence that one's skill is greater than it actually is), degree of trust in the orthopaedic evidence, and degree of statistical sophistication correlate independently with recognition of uncertainty?, Methods: We created a survey to establish an overall recognition of uncertainty score (four questions), trust in the orthopaedic evidence base (four questions), confidence bias (three questions), and statistical understanding (six questions). Seven hundred six members of the Science of Variation Group, a collaboration that aims to study variation in the definition and treatment of human illness, were approached to complete our survey. This group represents mainly orthopaedic surgeons specializing in trauma or hand and wrist surgery, practicing in Europe and North America, of whom the majority is involved in teaching. Approximately half of the group has more than 10 years of experience. Two hundred forty-two (34%) members completed the survey. We found no differences between responders and nonresponders. Each survey item measured its own trait better than any of the other traits. Recognition of uncertainty (0.70) and confidence bias (0.75) had relatively high Cronbach alpha levels, meaning that the questions making up these traits are closely related and probably measure the same construct. This was lower for statistical understanding (0.48) and trust in the orthopaedic evidence base (0.37). Subsequently, combining each trait's individual questions, we calculated a 0 to 10 score for each trait. The mean recognition of uncertainty score was 3.2 ± 1.4., Results: Recognition of uncertainty in daily practice did not vary by years in practice (0-5 years, 3.2 ± 1.3; 6-10 years, 2.9 ± 1.3; 11-20 years, 3.2 ± 1.4; 21-30 years, 3.3 ± 1.6 years; p = 0.51), but overconfidence bias did correlate with years in practice (0-5 years, 6.2 ± 1.4; 6-10 years, 7.1 ± 1.3; 11-20 years, 7.4 ± 1.4; 21-30 years, 7.1 ± 1.2 years; p < 0.001). Accounting for a potential interaction of variables using multivariable analysis, less recognition of uncertainty was independently but weakly associated with working in a multispecialty group compared with academic practice (β regression coefficient, -0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.0 to -0.055; partial R(2), 0.021; p = 0.029), belief in God or any other deity/deities (β, -0.57; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.11; partial R(2), 0.026; p = 0.015), greater confidence bias (β, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.14; partial R(2), 0.084; p < 0.001), and greater trust in the orthopaedic evidence base (β, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.058; partial R(2), 0.040; p = 0.002). Better statistical understanding was independently, and more strongly, associated with greater recognition of uncertainty (β, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.17-0.34; partial R(2), 0.13; p < 0.001). Our full model accounted for 29% of the variability in recognition of uncertainty (adjusted R(2), 0.29)., Conclusions: The relatively low levels of uncertainty among orthopaedic surgeons and confidence bias seem inconsistent with the paucity of definitive evidence. If patients want to be informed of the areas of uncertainty and surgeon-to-surgeon variation relevant to their care, it seems possible that a low recognition of uncertainty and surgeon confidence bias might hinder adequately informing patients, informed decisions, and consent. Moreover, limited recognition of uncertainty is associated with modifiable factors such as confidence bias, trust in orthopaedic evidence base, and statistical understanding. Perhaps improved statistical teaching in residency, journal clubs to improve the critique of evidence and awareness of bias, and acknowledgment of knowledge gaps at courses and conferences might create awareness about existing uncertainties., Level of Evidence: Level 1, prognostic study.

Background: There is substantial unexplained geographical and surgeon-to-surgeon variation in rates of surgery. One would expect surgeons to treat patients and themselves similarly based on best evidence and accounting for patient preferences., Questions/purposes: (1) Are surgeons more likely to recommend surgery when choosing for a patient than for themselves? (2) Are surgeons less confident in deciding for patients than for themselves?, Methods: Two hundred fifty-four (32%) of 790 Science of Variation Group (SOVG) members reviewed 21 fictional upper extremity cases (eg, distal radius fracture, De Quervain tendinopathy) for which surgery is optional answering two questions: (1) What treatment would you choose/recommend: operative or nonoperative? (2) On a scale from 0 to 10, how confident are you about this decision? Confidence is the degree that one believes that his or her decision is the right one (ie, most appropriate). Participants were orthopaedic, trauma, and plastic surgeons, all with an interest in treating upper extremity conditions. Half of the participants were randomized to choose for themselves if they had this injury or illness. The other half was randomized to make treatment recommendations for a patient of their age and gender. For the choice of operative or nonoperative, the overall recommendation for treatment was expressed as a surgery score per surgeon by dividing the number of cases they would operate on by the total number of cases (n = 21), where 100% is when every surgeon recommended surgery for every case. For confidence, we calculated the mean confidence for all 21 cases per surgeon; overall score ranges from 0 to 10 with a higher score indicating more confidence in the decision for treatment., Results: Surgeons were more likely to recommend surgery for a patient (44.2% ± 14.0%) than they were to choose surgery for themselves (38.5% ± 15.4%) with a mean difference of 6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1%-9.4%; p = 0.002). Surgeons were more confident in deciding for themselves than they were for a patient of similar age and gender (self: 7.9 ± 1.0, patient: 7.5 ± 1.2, mean difference: 0.35 [CI, 0.075-0.62], p = 0.012)., Conclusions: Surgeons are slightly more likely to recommend surgery for a patient than they are to choose surgery for themselves and they choose for themselves with a little more confidence. Different perspectives, preferences, circumstantial information, and cognitive biases might explain the observed differences. This emphasizes the importance of (1) understanding patients' preferences and their considerations for treatment; (2) being aware that surgeons and patients might weigh various factors differently; (3) giving patients more autonomy by letting them balance risks and benefits themselves (ie, shared decision-making); and (4) assessing how dispassionate evidence-based decision aids help inform the patient and influences their decisional conflict., Level of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic study.

Background: Previous studies, predominantly in the primary care setting, identified time spent with the physician as an important predictor of satisfaction. It is unknown if the same holds true in hand surgery., Questions/purposes: Is patient satisfaction measured immediately after an office visit associated with the duration of time spent with the hand surgeon? What other factors are associated with satisfaction directly after the visits and 2 weeks after the appointment?, Methods: We prospectively enrolled 81 patients visiting our hand and upper extremity surgery outpatient clinic. We recorded their demographics and measured physical function, pain behavior, symptoms of depression, time spent in the waiting room, time spent with the physician, and patient satisfaction. Office times were measured using our patient ambulatory tracking system and by a research assistant outside the clinic room. To assess satisfaction we used items from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey (a federally developed standardized survey instrument) relevant to our study. Two weeks later, 51 (64%) patients were available for telephone followup and the same measures were completed. Mean time spent with the hand surgeon was 8 ± 5 minutes and mean in-office wait time to see the hand surgeon was 32 ± 18 minutes. A priori power analyses indicated that 77 patients would provide 80% power to detect an effect size f(2) = 0.18 for a regression with five predictors. This means that we would detect time spent with the physician as a significant factor if it accounted for 7% or more of the variability in satisfaction., Results: Time spent with the hand surgeon was not associated with patient satisfaction measured directly after the visit (r = -0.023; p = 0.84). Longer time waiting to see the physician correlated with decreased patient satisfaction (r = -0.30; p = 0.0057). The final multivariable model for increased satisfaction directly after the office visit included shorter waiting time (regression coefficient [β] -0.0014; partial R(2) 0.094; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.0024 to -0.00042; p = 0.006) and being married/living with a partner (β 0.057; partial R(2) 0.11; 95% CI, 0.021-0.093; p = 0.002 [adjusted R(2) 0.18; p < 0.001]). Similarly, multivariable analysis found higher patient satisfaction 2 weeks after the visit to be independently associated with shorter waiting time (β -0.0037; partial R(2) 0.10; 95% CI, -0.0070 to -0.00054; p = 0.023) and being married/living with a partner (β 0.15; partial R(2) 0.12; 95% CI, 0.033-0.26; p = 0.012 [adjusted R(2) 0.16; p = 0.0052])., Conclusions: Patient satisfaction among patients undergoing hand surgery may relate more to shorter time in the waiting room and to the quality more than the quantity of time spent with the patient., Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study.

Background: There are substantial variations in medical services that are difficult to explain based on differences in pathophysiology alone. The scale of variation and the number of people affected suggest substantial potential to lower healthcare costs with the reduction of practice variation. Our study assessed practice variation across three affiliated urban sites in one city in the United States and related healthcare costs following the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis (OA) in patients., Questions/purposes: (1) What are the factors associated with increased costs and surgery in the first year after diagnosis of hand OA? (2) How much practice variation exists among hand surgeons in terms of the number of patient visits, use of imaging tests, use of injections, occupational therapy use, and surgery? (3) What proportion of total cost is accounted for by patients who consult with an additional provider?, Methods: Patients receiving a new diagnosis of primary hand OA between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2011, were identified from the research database of three affiliated urban hospitals in a single city in the United States. We included 2814 patients (69%, 1929 women) treated by six hand surgeons. We recorded all visits, imaging tests, injections, occupational therapy visits, and surgical procedures in the first year after that diagnosis. Costs were extracted from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Reliability of the database was assessed by manual checking of 120 patient charts (4.3% of all data); reliability was determined to be 94% (113 of 120) for diagnoses, 97% (116 of 120) correct surgeon, 100% (120 of 120) second surgeon, 99% (278 of 282) visits, 99% (132 of 134) imaging procedures, 92% (11 of 12) injections, 95% (21 of 22) surgical procedures, and 85% (102 of 120) prescribing occupational therapy., Results: Predictors of increased costs included younger patient age (regression coefficient [β] -3.5, semipartial R(2) 0.0049, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.4 to -1.7, p < 0.001), seeing a second surgeon (β 283, semipartial R(2) 0.0095, 95% CI 176-391, p < 0.001), and specific surgeons (surgeon 1: β -243, semipartial R(2) 0.026, 95% CI -298 to -188, p < 0.001; surgeon 2: β -177, semipartial R(2) 0.0090, 95% CI -246 to -109, p < 0.001; surgeon 6: β 124, semipartial R(2) 0.0050, 95% CI 59-189, p < 0.001) (adjusted R(2) = 0.056). Similarly, factors associated with increased surgical intervention included younger patient age (β -0.0026, semipartial R(2) 0.0071, 95% CI -0.0037 to -0.0015, p < 0.001), male sex (β 0.041, semipartial R(2) 0.0028, 95% CI -0.069 to -0.012, p = 0.005), seeing a second surgeon (β 0.16, semipartial R(2) 0.0091, 95% CI 0.094-0.22, p < 0.001), and specific surgeons (surgeon 1: β -0.14, semipartial R(2) 0.026, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.11, p < 0.001; surgeon 2: β -0.13, semipartial R(2) 0.014, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.091, p < 0.001). There were large variations in the average number of visits (1.5-fold), imaging tests (threefold), use of injections (51-fold), occupational therapy (twofold), and surgery rates (sevenfold) among providers. One hundred twenty patients (4.3%) consulted a second surgeon within the first year after receiving the diagnosis of hand OA, which accounted for 8.1% (USD 68,826/USD 845,304) of the total costs., Conclusions: Patients who saw additional providers and who were of younger age incurred higher costs and a greater likelihood of undergoing surgery; the latter was also greater in male patients. Use of medical services and associated costs vary widely among providers treating patients with hand OA. Initiatives addressing practice variation-increased use of decision aids, for example-merit additional study., Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Publication of a manuscript does not end an author's responsibilities. Reasons to contact an author after publication include clarification, access to raw data, and collaboration. However, legitimate questions have been raised regarding whether these responsibilities generally are being met by corresponding authors of biomedical publications., Questions/purposes: This study aims to establish (1) what proportion of corresponding authors accept the responsibility of correspondence; (2) identify characteristics of responders; and (3) assess email address decay with time. We hypothesize that the response rate is unrelated to journal impact factor., Methods: We contacted 450 corresponding authors throughout various fields of biomedical research regarding the availability of additional data from their study, under the pretense of needing these data for a related review article. Authors were randomly selected from 45 journals whose impact factors ranged from 52 to 0; the source articles were published between May 2003 and May 2013. The proportion of corresponding authors who replied, along with author characteristics were recorded, as was the proportion of emails that were returned for inactive addresses; 446 authors were available for final analysis., Results: Fifty-three percent (190/357) of the authors with working email addresses responded to our request. Clinical researchers were more likely to reply than basic/translational scientists (51% [114/225] versus 34% [76/221]; p<0.001). Impact factor and other author characteristics did not differ. Logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of replying decreased by 15% per year (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.91; p<0.001), and showed a positive relationship between clinical research and response (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9; p=0.001). In 2013 all email addresses (45/45) were reachable, but within 10 years, 49% (21/43) had become invalid., Conclusions: Our results suggest that contacting corresponding authors is problematic throughout the field of biomedical research. Defining the responsibilities of corresponding authors by journals more explicitly-particularly after publication of their manuscript-may increase the response rate on data requests. Possible other ways to improve communication after research publication are: (1) listing more than one email address per corresponding author, eg, an institutional and personal address; (2) specifying all authors' email addresses; (3) when an author leaves an institution, send an automated reply offering alternative ways to get in touch; and (4) linking published manuscripts to research platforms.

Background: Triangular fibrocartilage complex abnormalities seem to be more common with age, but the degree to which this is so, and the degree to which the presence of an abnormality is associated with symptoms, are topics of controversy., Questions/purposes: We wished to perform a systematic review to determine the prevalence of triangular fibrocartilage complex abnormalities, and to determine if the prevalence of abnormalities are greater with increasing age. In addition, we stratified age groups based on symptoms., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library through August 15, 2013. Studies that reported triangular fibrocartilage complex abnormalities by age were included. Fifteen studies including 977 wrists met our criteria and reported a total of 368 (38%) triangular fibrocartilage complex abnormalities. Eight studies included symptomatic patients; the remainder studied cadavers (six studies) or asymptomatic volunteers (one study). Patients were divided into four age groups (< 30, 30-49, 50-69, and 70 years and older) for pooled analysis, comparing the proportions of patients with and without abnormalities between groups using chi-square analysis. We also evaluated the proportions after stratifying each age group by symptoms., Results: Overall, the prevalence of triangular fibrocartilage complex abnormalities increased with age, from 27% (80/301) in patients younger than 30 years to 49% (130/265) in patients 70 years and older (p < 0.001), odds ratio (OR), 2.7, 95% CI, 1.9-3.8 (p < 0.001). In asymptomatic patients, triangular fibrocartilage complex prevalence abnormality increased from 15% (24/159) to 49% (129/263) in the same age groups (p < 0.001), OR, 5.4, 95% CI, 3.3-8.9 (p < 0.001). For symptomatic patients prevalence ranged from 39% (56/142) to 70% (14/20) in patients between 50 and 69 years old (p < 0.034), OR, 3.6, 95% CI, 1.3-9.9 (p < 0.014)., Conclusion: Triangular fibrocartilage complex abnormalities are common in symptomatic and asymptomatic wrists, and they are increasingly common with age. As in all situations where abnormalities are so common that they may be incidental, we need (1) a reliable and accurate method for determining whether these abnormalities are the cause of symptoms; and (2) evidence that treatment of these abnormalities improves symptoms better than placebo., Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Tumors of the appendicular skeleton commonly affect the proximal humerus, but there is no consensus regarding the best reconstructive technique after proximal humerus resection for tumors of the shoulder., Questions/purposes: We wished to perform a systematic review to determine which surgical reconstruction offers the (1) best functional outcome as measured by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, (2) longest construct survival, and (3) lowest complication rate after proximal humerus resection for malignant or aggressive benign tumors of the shoulder., Methods: We searched the literature up to June 1, 2013, from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Only studies reporting results in English, Dutch, or German and with followups of 80% or more of the patients at a minimum of 2 years were included. Twenty-nine studies with 693 patients met our criteria, seven studies (24%) were level of evidence III and the remainder were level IV. Studies reported on reconstruction with prostheses (n = 17), osteoarticular allografts (n = 10), and allograft-prosthesis composites (n = 11). Owing to substantial heterogeneity and bias, we narratively report our results., Results: Functional scores in prosthesis studies ranged from 61% to 77% (10 studies, 141 patients), from 50% to 78% (eight studies, 84 patients) in osteoarticular graft studies, and from 57% to 91% (10 studies, 141 patients) in allograft-prosthesis composite studies. Implant survival ranged from 0.38 to 1.0 in the prosthesis group (341 patients), 0.33 to 1.0 in the osteoarticular allograft group (143 patients), and 0.33 to 1.0 in allograft-prosthesis group (132 patients). Overall complications per patient varied between 0.045 and 0.85 in the prosthesis group, 0 and 1.5 in the osteoarticular graft group, and 0.19 and 0.79 in the prosthesis-composite graft group. We observed a higher fracture rate for osteoarticular allografts, but other specific complication rates were similar., Conclusions: Owing to the limitations of our systematic review, we found that allograft-prosthesis composites and prostheses seem to have similar functional outcome and survival rates, and both seem to avoid fractures that are observed with osteoarticular allografts. Further collaboration in the field of surgical oncology, using randomized controlled trials, is required to establish the superiority of any particular treatment.