Search

Background: The posterolateral approach (PLA) and direct lateral approach (DLA) are the most commonly used approaches for inserting a hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. A recent review concluded that the routine use of PLA should be questioned, but this conclusion itself can be questioned. The aim of this study is to provide an updated overview and critical appraisal of the available evidence, focussing on outcomes most relevant for patients. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of literature in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and Cochrane Library. Studies (till June 2018) to identify hip fracture clinical trials/comparative studies comparing alternative surgical approaches (PLA and DLA). We explored sources of heterogeneity and conducted pooled analyses when appropriate. Results: 264 potentially eligible studies were identified of which 1 RCT, 3 prospective, 3 registry data and 5 retrospective studies were included. The RCT consisted performance and attrition bias. The mean MINORS score of the prospective/register studies was 17.3 (SD 3.5) and 13.8 (SD 1.9) of the 5 retrospective studies. The GRADE score for all the outcomes was very low. Due to the high and various types of biases across the included studies, we did not pool the data. None of studies assessed the activities of daily living functionality. 6 studies reported significantly more dislocations or reoperations due to dislocation in the PLA group, 6 other studies found no differences. DLA patients were more likely to develop abductor insufficiency leading to limping and more need for walking aids. The PLA patients tended to have better quality of life, less pain and more satisfaction compared to the DLA patients. Conclusion: Based on low-quality studies, PLA may be associated with more dislocations, but patients had less walking problems and a lower tendency to abductor insufficiency compared with DLA. Further clinical trials with methodology rigor are needed to determine which approach is more effective in terms of outcomes relevant to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used increasingly, but for young patients with hip complaints, traditional scoring systems have a ceiling effect that limits their usability. We developed and validated the Super Simple Hip (SUSHI) score, a PROM specifically targeted at younger patients with hip complaints. Although the SUSHI measured hip problems adequately, the responsiveness of its activity rating component was considered inadequate. Consequently, we replaced the activity rating component by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale. The aim of this study was to validate the resulting new 10-item SUSHI-UCLA score. Methods: A prospective multicentre observational cohort study was performed. Patients between 18 and 59 years, who visited the Orthopaedic Department with hip complaints, completed the SUSHI-UCLA and hip osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) twice before their 1st appointment, and once 16 months after. Results: 142 patients were included (mean age 49 years; SD 8.8). The SUSHI-UCLA score correlated well with the HOOS, both before and after treatment (Spearman's rho = 0.739 and 0.847, respectively, both p < 0.001). The responsiveness of both the SUSHI-UCLA score and the UCLA activity scale was high (standardised response mean = 2.51 and 1.35 respectively). The reproducibility was good (interclass correlation coefficient for agreement = 0.962). The minimal important change was 21.2. No significant floor or ceiling effect was observed. Conclusion: The SUSHI-UCLA score is an adequate PROM to measure hip complaints in younger patients and includes a validated activity rating. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. * BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are widely used to evaluate functional limitations. Considering PROMs for shoulder instability, information is lacking with regard to what constitutes a relevant change from baseline scores. * OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the responsiveness of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS) and estimate their minimal important change (MIC). * METHODS: One hundred five consecutive patients with shoulder instability completed 5 PROMs at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. The PROMs included the WOSI and OSIS, the Simple Shoulder Test, the Oxford Shoulder Score, and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand assessment. Patients also rated their functional change on an anchor question at follow-up. Responsiveness was evaluated by testing 9 hypotheses regarding pre-defined correlations between the changes in PROM scores, by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and by calculating the standardized response mean and effect size statistics. The MIC was determined by identifying the optimal cutoff on the receiver operating characteristic curve. * RESULTS: Seven out of 9 hypotheses (78%) were confirmed; as expected, a high correlation (0.77) was found between change scores of the WOSI and OSIS, whereas the correlations of the change scores of the WOSI and OSIS with those of general shoulder PROMs were slightly lower (0,61-0.75). The area under the curve was 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.75,0.91) for the OSIS and 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.74,0.90) for the WOSI. The MIC was about 6 points for the OSIS and about 14 points for the WOSI. * CONCLUSION: Both the WOSI and OSIS are able to measure change in shoulder function in patients with shoulder instability. The estimated MIC is 6 points for the OSIS (on a scale from 0 to 48) and 14 points for the WOSI (on a scale from 0 to 100). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dislocation is one of the leading causes for early revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). To address this problem, the dual mobility (DM) cup was developed in the 1970s by the French. Despite the increased and, in some countries, broad use of DM cups, high quality evidence of their effectiveness compared to traditional unipolar (UP) cups is lacking. There are a few well-conducted literature reviews, but the level of evidence of the included studies was moderate to low and the rates of revision were not specifically investigated. Therefore, we did a systematic review to investigate whether there is a difference in the rate of dislocations and revisions after primary THA with a DM cup or a UP cup., Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases in July 2019. The articles were selected based upon their quality, relevance and measurement of the predictive factor. We used the MINORS criteria to determine the methodological quality of all studies., Results: The initial search resulted in 702 citations. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, eight articles met our eligibility criteria and were graded. Included studies were of medium to low methodological quality with a mean score of 14/24 (11-16) points following the MINORS criteria. In the case-control studies, a total of 549 DM cups and 649 UP cups were included. In the registry studies, a total of 5.935 DM cups and 217.362 UP cups were included. In the case-control studies, one (0.2%) dislocation was reported for the DM cups and 46 (7.1%) for the UP cup (p=0.009, IQR=0.00-7.00). Nine (1.6%) revisions, of which zero due to dislocation, were reported for the DM cup and 39 (6.0%), of which 30 due to dislocation, for the UP cup (p=0.046, CI=-16.93-5.73). In the registry studies 161 (2.7%) revisions were reported for the DM cup, of which 14 (8.7%) due to dislocation. For the UP cup, 3.332 (1.5%) revisions were reported (p=0.275, IQR=41.00-866.25), of which 1.093 (32.8%) due to dislocation (p=0.050, IQR=3.50-293.25)., Conclusion: This review suggests lower rates of dislocation and lower rates of revision for dislocation in favor of the DM cups. Concluding, DM cups might be an effective solution to reduce dislocation in primary THA. To evaluate the efficacy of DM cups compared to UP cups, an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial is needed focusing on patient important endpoints., Level of Evidence: III, systematic review of level III studies., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to evaluate the outcome of total hip arthroplasty (THA). We determined the effect of surgical approach on PROMs after primary THA., Methods: All primary THAs, with registered preoperative and 3 months postoperative PROMs were selected from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Based on surgical approach, 4 groups were discerned: (direct) anterior, anterolateral, direct lateral, and posterolateral approaches. The following PROMs were recorded: Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical function Short form (HOOS-PS); Oxford Hip Score; EQ-5D index score; EQ-5D thermometer; and Numeric Rating Scale measuring pain, both active and in rest. The difference between preoperative and postoperative scores was calculated (delta-PROM) and used as primary outcome measure. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed for comparisons. Cohen's d was calculated as measure of effect size., Results: All examined 4 approaches resulted in a significant increase of PROMs after primary THA in the Netherlands (n = 12,274). The anterior and posterolateral approaches were associated with significantly more improvement in HOOS-PS scores compared with the anterolateral and direct lateral approaches. Furthermore, the posterolateral and anterior approaches showed greater improvement on Numeric Rating Scale pain scores compared with the anterolateral approach. No relevant differences in delta-PROM were seen between the anterior and posterolateral surgical approaches., Conclusion: Anterior and posterolateral surgical approaches showed more improvement in self-reported physical functioning (HOOS-PS) compared with anterolateral and direct lateral approaches in patients receiving a primary THA. However, clinical differences were only small., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Simple Shoulder Test (SST) is an internationally used patient-reported outcome for clinical practice and research purposes. It was developed for measuring functional limitations of the affected shoulder in patients with shoulder dysfunction and contains 12 questions (yes/no). The purpose of this study was to create a Dutch translation of the SST and to assess the reliability and validity., Materials and Methods: The SST was translated into Dutch using forward and backward translations. A consecutive cohort of patients with shoulder problems visiting an orthopedic clinic completed the Dutch version of the SST twice within 28 days. In addition, the Dutch validated versions of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Oxford Shoulder Score, and Constant-Murley shoulder assessment were completed for assessing construct validity., Results: One hundred ten patients with a mean age of 39 years (SD, 14 years), 72% male, completed the questionnaires. The internal consistency was high (Cronbach α, 0.78). The test-retest reliability was very good (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.92) (n = 55). The measurement error expressed in the standard error of measurement was 1.18, and the smallest detectable change was 3.3 on a scale from 0 to 12. The construct validity was supported by expected high correlations between the Dutch version of the SST and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (r = -0.74) and between the SST and the Oxford Shoulder Score (r = -0.74) and an expected moderate correlation between the SST and the Constant-Murley shoulder assessment (r = 0.59)., Conclusion: The Dutch version of the SST seems to be a reliable and valid instrument for evaluating functional limitations in patients with shoulder complaints., (Copyright © 2012 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)