Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.
  • ACL and meniscal injuries increase the risk of primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis: a matched case-control study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

    3 July 2018

    OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate whether ACL injury (ACLi) or meniscal injury increases the risk of end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) resulting in total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: A matched case-control study of all TKRs performed in the UK between January 1990 and July 2011 and recorded in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) was undertaken. The CPRD contains longitudinal data on approximately 3.6 million patients. Two controls were selected for each case of TKR, matched on age, sex and general practitioner location as a proxy for socioeconomic status. Individuals with inflammatory arthritis were excluded. The odds of having TKR for individuals with a CPRD-recorded ACLi were compared with those without ACLi using conditional logistic regression, after adjustment for body mass index, previous knee fracture and meniscal injury. The adjusted odds of TKR in individuals with a recorded meniscal injury compared with those without were calculated. RESULTS: After exclusion of individuals with inflammatory arthritis, there were 49 723 in the case group and 104 353 controls. 153 (0.31%) cases had a history of ACLi compared with 41 (0.04%) controls. The adjusted OR of TKR after ACLi was 6.96 (95% CI 4.73 to 10.31). 4217 (8.48%) individuals in the TKR group had a recorded meniscal injury compared with 669 (0.64%) controls. The adjusted OR of TKR after meniscal injury was 15.24 (95% CI 13.88 to 16.69). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that ACLi is associated with a sevenfold increased odds of TKR resulting from OA. Meniscal injury is associated with a 15-fold increase odds of TKR for OA.

  • Prior Generic Arthroscopic Volume Correlates with Hip Arthroscopic Proficiency: A Simulator Study.

    3 July 2018

    BACKGROUND: Changing trends in surgical education and patient expectation are leading to proficiency models of progression and the use of simulators. Hip arthroscopy is increasingly performed and has a steep learning curve mainly addressed during fellowship training. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of previous generic arthroscopic experience on performance at a simulated hip arthroscopy task to both estimate the minimum case numbers that correlate with expert proficiency levels and help to guide selection for hip arthroscopy fellowships. METHODS: Fifty-two participants were recruited to a cross-sectional study. Four consultants (expert hip arthroscopists), 28 trainees (residents and fellows), and 20 novices (interns and medical students) performed a standardized bench-top simulated hip arthroscopy task. A validated global rating scale (GRS) score and motion analysis were used to assess surgical performance. Prior arthroscopic experience was recorded from surgical electronic logbooks. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted to identify optimum cut-points for task proficiency at both expert and competent GRS levels. RESULTS: There were significant differences (p < 0.05) between the arthroscopic ability of all experience groups based on GRS assessment and for all motion analysis metrics. There was a significant positive correlation between logbook numbers and GRS scores (p < 0.0001). ROC curve analysis demonstrated that a minimum of 610 prior arthroscopic procedures were necessary to achieve an expert GRS score, and 78 prior arthroscopic procedures were necessary for a competent score. CONCLUSIONS: Performing a basic hip arthroscopy task competently requires substantial previous generic arthroscopic experience. The numbers identified in this study provide targets for residents. Program directors appointing to hip arthroscopy fellowship training posts may find these results useful as a guide during the selection process.

  • Physical activity during adolescence and the development of cam morphology: a cross-sectional cohort study of 210 individuals.

    3 July 2018

    INTRODUCTION: Cam morphology is a strong risk factor for the development of hip pain and osteoarthritis. It is increasingly thought to develop in association with intense physical activity during youth; however, the aetiology remains uncertain. The study aim was to characterise the effect of physical activity on morphological hip development during adolescence. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of individuals aged 9-18 years recruited from Southampton Football Club Academy (103 male) with an age-matched control population (52 males and 55 females). Assessments included questionnaires and 3 Tesla MRI of both hips. Alpha angle, epiphyseal extension and epiphyseal tilt were measured on radial images. RESULTS: Alpha angle and epiphyseal extension increased most rapidly between ages 12 and 14 years. Soft-tissue hypertrophy at the femoral head-neck junction preceded osseous cam morphology and was first evident at age 10 years. The greatest increase and highest absolute values of alpha angle and epiphyseal extension were colocalised at 1 o'clock. Maximum alpha angles were 6.7 degrees greater in males than females (p=0.005). Compared with individuals who play no regular sport, alpha angles were 4.0 degrees higher in individuals who play sport for a school or club (p=0.041) and 7.7 degrees higher in individuals competing at a national or international level (p=0.035). There was no association with leg dominance . CONCLUSIONS: Sporting activity during adolescence is strongly associated with the development of cam morphology secondary to epiphyseal hypertrophy and extension with a dose-response relationship. Males participating in competitive sport are at particularly elevated risk of developing cam morphology and secondary hip pathology.

  • Which factors influence the rate of failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris? an analysis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.

    3 July 2018

    AIMS: To determine the outcomes following revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHA) performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify factors predictive of re-revision. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data on 2535 MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014. The outcomes studied following revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using competing-risk regression modelling. RESULTS: Intra-operative complications occurred in 40 revisions (1.6%). The cumulative five-year patient survival rate was 95.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 92.3 to 97.8). Re-revision surgery was performed in 192 hips (7.6%). The cumulative five-year implant survival rate was 89.5% (95% CI 87.3 to 91.3). Predictors of re-revision were high body mass index at revision (subhazard ratio (SHR) 1.06 per kg/m2 increase, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09), modular component only revisions (head and liner with or without taper adapter; SHR 2.01, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.38), ceramic-on-ceramic revision bearings (SHR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.80), and acetabular bone grafting (SHR 2.10, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.07). These four factors remained predictive of re-revision when the missing data were imputed. CONCLUSION: The short-term risk of re-revision following MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD was comparable with that reported in the NJR following all-cause non-MoMHA revision surgery. However, the factors predictive of re-revision included those which could be modified by the surgeon, suggesting that rates of failure following ARMD revision may be reduced further. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1020-7.

  • Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations.

    3 July 2018

    BACKGROUND: The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]). METHODS AND FINDINGS: An international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1-9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process. CONCLUSIONS: The COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods.

  • Support for reporting guidelines in surgical journals needs improvement: A systematic review.

    2 July 2018

    INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based medicine works best if the evidence is reported well. Past studies have shown reporting quality to be lacking in the field of surgery. Reporting guidelines are an important tool for authors to optimize the reporting of their research. The objective of this study was to analyse the frequency and strength of recommendation for such reporting guidelines within surgical journals. METHODS: A systematic review of the 198 journals within the Journal Citation Report 2014 (surgery category) published by Thomson Reuters was undertaken. The online guide for authors for each journal was screened by two independent groups and results compared. Data regarding the presence and strength of recommendation to use reporting guidelines was extracted. RESULTS: 193 journals were included (as five appeared twice having changed their name). These had a median impact factor of 1.526 (range 0.047-8.327), with a median of 145 articles published per journal (range 29-659), with 34,036 articles published in total over the two-year window 2012-2013. The majority (62%) of surgical journals made no mention of reporting guidelines within their guidelines for authors. Of the 73 (38%) that did mention them, only 14% (10/73) required the use of all relevant reporting guidelines. The most frequently mentioned reporting guideline was CONSORT (46 journals). CONCLUSIONS: The mention of reporting guidelines within the guide for authors of surgical journals needs improvement. Authors, reviewers and editors should work to ensure that research is reported in line with the relevant reporting guidelines. Journals should consider hard-wiring adherence to them.