Search

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures have become crucial in the clinical evaluation of patients. Appropriate selection, in a young population, of the instrument is vital to providing evidence-based patient-centered healthcare. This systematic review applies the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology to provide a critically appraised overview of patient-reported outcome measures targeted at pediatric orthopedic patients with lower limb impairment. Method: A systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify original studies reporting the development and/or validation of patient-reported outcome measures evaluating children with impairment of the lower extremity. Data extraction, quality assessment, and risk of bias evaluation were performed following the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Results: A total of 6919 articles were screened. Thirty-three studies were included, reporting evidence on the measurement properties of 13 different patient-reported outcome measures and 20 translations. Four studies reported on content validity and patient-reported outcome measure development. The methodological quality of studies on structural validity, content validity, or patient-reported outcome measure development was mostly rated as "doubtful" or "very good." The quality of evidence on measurement properties varied noticeably, with most studies needing to perform improve their methodological quality to justify their results. Conclusion: This review provides an extensive overview of all available patient-reported outcome measures for patients with lower extremity impairment within pediatric orthopedics. We cautiously advise the use of four patient-reported outcome measures. However, the scarce availability of research on content validity and patient-reported outcome measure development highlights an area for future research endeavors to improve our knowledge on the currently available patient-reported outcome measures. Level of evidence: Diagnostic level 1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose -- While registry studies have suggested a higher risk of revision for posterior-stabilized (PS) compared with posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee replacements (TKR) using cement, it is unknown whether this is also the case for uncemented TKR. We aimed to compare the revision rates of PS and CR designs in patients receiving primary uncemented TKR. Patients and methods -- Data from the Dutch arthroplasty register (LROI) was analyzed, comprising 12,226 uncemented primary CR TKRs and 750 uncemented PS TKRs registered between 2007 and 2022. Competing risk and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to compare revision rates, risks of revision, and reasons for revision between groups. Sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze the risk, concerning the 5 most commonly used implants and performing hospitals for each group. Results -- Uncemented PS TKRs had higher 10-year revision rates for any reason and aseptic loosening (6.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6-9.2 and 3.9%, CI 2.6-6.7) compared with uncemented CR TKRs (4.2%, CI 3.8-4.7 and 1.4%, CI 1.2-1.7). PS TKRs were 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to be revised for any reason and aseptic loosening, respectively. These results remained consistent after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, previous surgeries, bearing mobility, and surface modification, with sensitivity analyses. Conclusion -- We found that uncemented PS implants have a higher rate of revision than uncemented CR implants, mainly due to a higher risk of aseptic loosening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For knee-related surgery, there is a great demand for internationally useable subjective scoring systems. Before such measurements can be used, they should be translated and validated for the population [...]

Background: Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) remains the gold standard for treatment of debilitating symptoms of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Even though providing satisfactory results for the majority of patients, some studies report dissatisfaction after TKA to be as high as 20%. Among other things, pain catastrophising and self-efficacy are thought to compromise results of TKA. Implant manufacturers keep improving upon their designs in an attempt to improve functional outcomes. One of these novel knee systems is the Attune. To our knowledge, there are no clinical follow-up studies reporting results of the uncemented version. The main objective of this multicentre prospective observational study is to evaluate revision rate, complications, radiographic outcomes (i.e. alignment and radiolucent lines) and patient reported outcomes of the uncemented Attune mobile bearing TKA. Secondary objectives are (1) to assess physical function, return to sport and return to work after TKA and (2) to evaluate the long-term effect of preoperative psychological factors on satisfaction after TKA.Methods: All patients presenting in the participating centres with knee pathology warranting joint replacement therapy will be considered for inclusion, an absolute indication for cemented fixation is the only exclusion criterium. Evaluation of clinical and radiographic performance (e.g. radiolucent lines) is done at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years and 10 years after surgery using validated patient reported outcome measures. Cumulative revision rates are calculated after 5 and 10 years using Kaplan-Meier methods. Physical function is assessed with performance based measurements before and 1 year after surgery. Return to sports is assessed using the Tegner and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity rating scale before and 1 year after surgery. Return to work is evaluated by inviting patients of working age to complete a short questionnaire 1 year after surgery. Psychologic factors are assessed using questionnaires for pain catastrophising, pain self-efficacy and mental health before, 5 years and 10 years after surgery. Preoperative psychologic scores are correlated to functional outcomes.Discussion: The current study aims to report the clinical performance of a novel implant and can help provide insight in factors that play a role in satisfaction after TKA.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04247672 (January 30, 2020). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Osteochondral talar defects usually affect athletic patients. The primary surgical treatment consists of arthroscopic debridement and microfracturing. Although this is mostly successful, early sport resumption is difficult to achieve, and it can take up to one year to obtain clinical improvement. Pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) may be effective for talar defects after arthroscopic treatment by promoting tissue healing, suppressing inflammation, and relieving pain. We hypothesize that PEMF-treatment compared to sham-treatment after arthroscopy will lead to earlier resumption of sports, and aim at 25% increase in patients that resume sports. Methods/Design A prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted in five centers throughout the Netherlands and Belgium. 68 patients will be randomized to either active PEMF-treatment or sham-treatment for 60 days, four hours daily. They will be followed-up for one year. The combined primary outcome measures are (a) the percentage of patients that resume and maintain sports, and (b) the time to resumption of sports, defined by the Ankle Activity Score. Secondary outcome measures include resumption of work, subjective and objective scoring systems (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society – Ankle-Hindfoot Scale, Foot Ankle Outcome Score, Numeric Rating Scales of pain and satisfaction, EuroQol-5D), and computed tomography. Time to resumption of sports will be analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Discussion This trial will provide level-1 evidence on the effectiveness of PEMFs in the management of osteochondral ankle lesions after arthroscopy. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register (NTR1636)

Background: Bone cement implantation syndrome (BCIS) is characterized by hypoxia, hypotension, and the loss of consciousness during cemented arthroplasty; it may result in death. Its incidence has only been explored for hemiarthroplasty and THA after fracture or cancer. To our knowledge, there are no studies that comprehensively explore and compare the incidence of BCIS in other arthroplasty procedures.Questions/purposes: (1) To report the incidence of BCIS in TKA, unicondylar knee arthroplasty, hip hemiarthroplasty, THA, shoulder arthroplasty, TKA, and revision THA and TKA; (2) to determine whether severe BCIS is associated with an increased risk of death within 30 days of surgery; and (3) to identify factors associated with the development of severe BCIS.Methods: All patients undergoing cemented arthroplasty for any reason (TKA [11% cemented, 766 of 7293], unicondylar knee arthroplasty [100% cemented, 562 procedures], hip hemiarthroplasty for femur fractures [100% cemented, 969 procedures], THA [8% cemented, 683 of 8447], shoulder arthroplasty [84% cemented, 185 of 219], and revision arthroplasty of the hip and knee [36% cemented, 240 of 660]) between January 2008 and August 2019 were considered for inclusion in the current retrospective observational study. Fixation choice was dependent on surgeon preference (THA and TKA), prosthesis design (shoulder arthroplasty), or bone quality (revision arthroplasty). The following procedures were excluded because of insufficient data: < 1% (1 of 766) of TKAs, 1% (4 of 562) of unicondylar knee arthroplasties, 6% (54 of 969) of hip hemiarthroplasties, 1% (6 of 683) of THAs, 6% (12 of 185) of shoulder arthroplasties, and 14% (34 of 240) of revision procedures. This resulted in a final inclusion of 3294 procedures (765 TKAs [23%], 558 unicondylar knee arthroplasties [17%], 915 hip hemiarthroplasties [28%], 677 THA [21%], 173 shoulder arthroplasties [5%], and 206 revision arthroplasties [6%]), of which 28% (930 of 3294) had an emergent indication for surgery. Of the patients, 68% (2240 of 3294) were females, with a mean age of 75 ± 11 years. All anesthetic records were extracted from our hospital's database, and the severity of BCIS was retrospectively scored (Grade 0 [no BCIS], Grade 1 [O2% < 94% or fall in systolic blood pressure of 20% to 40%], Grade 2 [O2% < 88% or fall in systolic blood pressure of > 40%], and Grade 3 [cardiovascular collapse requiring CPR]). Procedures were dichotomized into no or moderate BCIS (Grades 0 and 1) and severe BCIS (Grades 2 and 3). The adjusted 30-day mortality of patients with severe BCIS was assessed with a multivariate Cox regression analysis. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the development of severe BCIS.Results: BCIS occurred in 26% (845 of 3294) of arthoplasty procedures. The incidence was 31% (282 of 915) in hip hemiarthroplasty, 28% (210 of 765) in TKA, 24% (165 of 677) in THA, 23% (47 of 206) in revision arthroplasty, 20% (113 of 558) in unicondylar knee arthroplasty, and 16% (28 of 173) in shoulder arthroplasty. Patients with severe BCIS were more likely (hazard ratio 3.46 [95% confidence interval 2.07 to 5.77]; p < 0.001) to die within 30 days of the index procedure than were patients with less severe or no BCIS. Factors independently associated with the development of severe BCIS were age older than 75 years (odds ratio 1.57 [95% CI 1.09 to 2.27]; p = 0.02), American Society of Anesthesiologists Class III or IV (OR 1.58 [95% CI 1.09 to 2.30]; p = 0.02), and renal impairment (OR 3.32 [95% CI 1.45 to 7.46]; p = 0.004).Conclusion: BCIS is common during cemented arthroplasty; severe BCIS is uncommon, but it is associated with an increased risk of death within 30 days of surgery. Medically complex patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty may be at particular risk. Patients at high risk for severe BCIS (renal impairment, ASA III/IV, and age older than 75 years) should be identified and preventive measures such as medullary lavage before cementation, femoral venting, and avoidance of excessive pressurization of implants should be taken to reduce the likelihood and consequences of BCIS. Because of the increased risk of periprosthetic fractures in uncemented hip stems, factors associated with the development of BCIS should be weighed against the risk factors for sustaining periprosthetic fractures (poor bone quality, female sex) to balance the risks of fixation method against those of BCIS for each patient.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The Levels of Evidence Rating System is widely believed to categorize studies by quality, with Level I studies representing the highest quality evidence. We aimed to determine the reporting quality of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) published in the most frequently cited general orthopaedic journals. Methods Two assessors identified orthopaedic journals that reported a level of evidence rating in their abstracts from January 2003 to December 2004 by searching the instructions for authors of the highest impact general orthopaedic journals. Based upon a priori eligibility criteria, two assessors hand searched all issues of the eligible journal from 2003–2004 for RCTs. The assessors extracted the demographic information and the evidence rating from each included RCT and scored the quality of reporting using the reporting quality assessment tool, which was developed by the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. Scores were conducted in duplicate, and we reached a consensus for any disagreements. We examined the correlation between the level of evidence rating and the Cochrane reporting quality score. Results We found that only the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery – American Volume (JBJS-A) used a level of evidence rating from 2003 to 2004. We identified 938 publications in the JBJS-A from January 2003 to December 2004. Of these publications, 32 (3.4%) were RCTs that fit the inclusion criteria. The 32 RCTs included a total of 3543 patients, with sample sizes ranging from 17 to 514 patients. Despite being labelled as the highest level of evidence (Level 1 and Level II evidence), these studies had low Cochrane reporting quality scores among individual methodological safeguards. The Cochrane reporting quality scores did not differ significantly between Level I and Level II studies. Correlations varied from 0.0 to 0.2 across the 12 items of the Cochrane reporting quality assessment tool (p > 0.05). Among items closely corresponding to the Levels of Evidence Rating System criteria assessors achieved substantial agreement (ICC = 0.80, 95%CI:0.60 to 0.90). Conclusion Our findings suggest that readers should not assume that 1) studies labelled as Level I have high reporting quality and 2) Level I studies have better reporting quality than Level II studies. One should address methodological safeguards individually.