2-Year Radiostereometric Analysis Evaluation of a Short, Proximally Coated, Triple-Taper Blade Femoral Stem Versus a Quadrangular-Taper Stem With Reinforced Proximal Body: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cementless stem designs with proximal metaphyseal fixation aim to achieve better load distribution, reduce stress shielding, and improve primary stability. The purpose of this prospective, randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the 2-year migration and clinical outcomes of two cementless femoral stems. METHODS: A total of 60 participants undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty for any cause were randomly allocated to receiving either a proximally coated, short blade stem or a quadrangular-taper stem with a reinforced proximal body. Radiostereometric analysis radiographs were performed postoperatively and at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. The Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score and the EuroQol five-dimension were also collected. RESULTS: At two years, the median subsidence of the short-blade stem was 0.097 millimeters (mm) [Interquartile range (IQR) -0.67 to 0.08)] versus 0.086 mm(IQR, -0.29 to 0.005, P = .683); medial translation 0.023 mm (IQR 0.08 to 0.12) versus 0.029 mm(IQR -0.07 to 0.10, P = .907); anterior translation 0.035 mm (IQR -0.23 to 0.33) versus 0.07 mm (IQR -0.13 to 0.08, P = .268). At 24 months postoperatively, there were no stem revisions and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Both cementless stems exhibited a predictable migration pattern and achieved initial stability. There was no difference in migration across the three Cartesian axes at any time point. Clinical outcomes and PROMs were also comparable. Biological fixation of both implants evidenced by the radiostereometric analysis and excellent PROMs are likely to translate to longer-term stability, which would need to be corroborated by longer-term outcome studies.

Follow-up after arthroplasty surgery : a changing landscape.

We aim to explore the potential technologies for monitoring and assessment of patients undergoing arthroplasty by examining selected literature focusing on the technology currently available and reflecting on possible future development and application. The reviewed literature indicates a large variety of different hardware and software, widely available and used in a limited manner, to assess patients' performance. There are extensive opportunities to enhance and integrate the systems which are already in existence to develop patient-specific pathways for rehabilitation.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1104-1109.

A Covid -19 Virtual Ward Model: A Preliminary Retrospective Clinical Evaluation From a UK District General Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the safety, utilization, ability to reduce length of hospitalization and overall outcomes of a COVID-19 virtual ward providing ongoing treatment at home. METHOD: A retrospective single-center study of patients discharged to the COVID-19 virtual "step down" ward between January 27th 2021 and March 2nd 2021. The referral process, length of hospitalization, length of stay on the virtual ward, readmissions, and ongoing treatment requirements including supplemental oxygen, antibiotics, and/or steroids were all noted. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were referred to the virtual ward. 43 referrals were accepted, 39 of which were from the respiratory ward. Four patients were readmitted, all due to hypoxia. All readmissions occurred within 5 days of discharge. 72% (n = 31) were discharged home with an ongoing oxygen requirement. 14.3% of patients were discharged with antibiotics only, 9.5% with steroids only and 23.8% with both antibiotics and steroids. The mean length of hospital stay for patients discharged to the virtual ward was 10.3 ± 9.7 days and 11.9 ± 11.6 days for all covid positive patients during this time. On average, patients spent 13.7 ± 7.3 days on the virtual ward. The average number of days spent on oxygen on the virtual ward was 11.6 ± 6.0 days. CONCLUSION: The virtual ward model exemplifies the potential benefits of collaborative working between primary and secondary care services, relieving pressure on hospitals whilst providing ongoing treatments at home such as supplemental oxygen. It also facilitates an early supported discharge of clinically stable patients with an improving clinical trajectory by managing them in the community.

Adherence in leading medical journals to the CONSORT 2010 statement for reporting of binary outcomes in randomised controlled trials: cross-sectional analysis.

Clinicians and lay people tend to overestimate the effectiveness of a treatment when only the relative effect is presented, particularly if the relative effect is large, but the absolute effect is small. In recognition of this problem, item 17b of The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement stipulates authors present both absolute and relative effects for binary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Adherence to item 17b and the effect of differing levels of CONSORT endorsement by journals on adherence is not well known. We assessed the extent to which item 17b is adhered to in 258 RCTs published in five leading medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine) between January and December 2019 that all endorsed the CONSORT statement to varying degrees. Only 53 of 258 (20.5%; 95% CI 15.8% to 26.0%) included studies adhered fully to item 17b. Proportional adherence was higher in journals that endorsed the statement more strictly (BMJ and JAMA, 47.4% [34.0% to 61.0%]) compared with journals less strict in their endorsement (NEJM and Ann Intern Med, 12.2% [7.0% to 19.3%]; The Lancet, 14.1% [7.3% to 23.8%]). Journals that only recommend author adherence to CONSORT had a greater proportion of studies reporting only relative effects in the main results section (62.6%) and abstract (64.2%) compared with journals that require authors to submit a completed checklist (24.6% and 29.8%, respectively). The majority of RCTs (79.5%) with binary primary outcomes published in five leading medical journals during 2019 do not report both absolute and relative effect estimates as per item 17b of the CONSORT guideline despite its universal endorsement. Differences in adherence were observed between journals that endorsed the CONSORT statement to differing extents.