The Ottawa resident observation form for nurses (O-RON): evaluation of an assessment tool's psychometric properties in different specialties.

BACKGROUND: Workplace-based assessment (WBA) used in post-graduate medical education relies on physician supervisors' feedback. However, in a training environment where supervisors are unavailable to assess certain aspects of a resident's performance, nurses are well-positioned to do so. The Ottawa Resident Observation Form for Nurses (O-RON) was developed to capture nurses' assessment of trainee performance and results have demonstrated strong evidence for validity in Orthopedic Surgery. However, different clinical settings may impact a tool's performance. This project studied the use of the O-RON in three different specialties at the University of Ottawa. METHODS: O-RON forms were distributed on Internal Medicine, General Surgery, and Obstetrical wards at the University of Ottawa over nine months. Validity evidence related to quantitative data was collected. Exit interviews with nurse managers were performed and content was thematically analyzed. RESULTS: 179 O-RONs were completed on 30 residents. With four forms per resident, the ORON's reliability was 0.82. Global judgement response and frequency of concerns was correlated (r = 0.627, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the original study, the findings demonstrated strong evidence for validity. However, the number of forms collected was less than expected. Exit interviews identified factors impacting form completion, which included clinical workloads and interprofessional dynamics.

Prevalence of anemia and association with outcome in joint arthroplasty - is there a difference between primary and revision cases?

PURPOSE: Anemia has been shown to be a modifiable pre-operative, patient factor associated with outcome following arthroplasty. The aims of this retrospective study were to (1) ascertain the prevalence of preoperative anemia in patients undergoing primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty at a tertiary referral center and (2) to test the association with outcome and whether it differs between primary and revision cases. METHODS: All hip and knee primary and revision arthroplasties performed at a Canadian academic, tertiary-care, arthroplasty center between 2012 and 2017 were included in this study. The study group consisted of 5944 patients, of which 5251 were primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasties or Hip Resurfacings and 693 were revision arthroplasties (65% hip revisions/35% knee revisions). Anemia was classified as per WHO definition (hemoglobin < 130 g/L for men and < 120 g/L for women). All anemic patients were grouped into mild, moderate or severe anemia. Length-of-stay, perioperative transfusion-rate, 90-day readmission, overall complication rate and reoperation rates were recorded. The effect of preoperative anemia and the effect of severity of the anemia was evaluated through multivariable regression analysis controlling for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Preoperatively, 15% (786/5251) of the primary patients and 47% (322/693) of the revision arthroplasty patients were anemic preoperatively. Anemic revision patients were 3.1 times more likely (95% CI: 1.47-6.33) to obtain blood transfusions during the hospital stay, compared to a 4.9 times higher risk in primary patients. The odds ratio to sustain any postoperative complication if anemic was 1.5 times higher (95% CI: 0.73-3.16) in revision patients and 1.7 in primary cases. In addition, the 90-day readmission rate among both groups was 1.6 times higher in anemic patients. Furthermore, anemic revision patients had a 5.3 days longer length of stay (95% CI: 2.63-7.91), compared to only 1 additional day in anemic primary patients (95% CI: 0.69-1.34). CONCLUSION: In this study cohort, the prevalence of anemia in patients awaiting revision arthroplasty was 3 times higher (46.6%) than in primary arthroplasty patients (18.7%). Preoperative anemia was associated with similarly, inferior outcomes in both groups. To reduce postoperative complications and the "burden" associated with anemia, these findings strongly recommend optimizing the preoperative hemoglobin in all arthroplasty patients. However, revision patients are affected more frequently, and particular attention must therefore be taken to this growing group in the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

The SLIM Study: Economic, Energy, and Waste Savings Through Lowering of Instrumentation Mass in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 700,000 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are annually performed in North America, costing the healthcare system >$15 billion and creating over 5 million tons of waste. This study aims to (1) assess satisfaction of current THA setup; (2) determine economic cost, energy cost, and waste cost of current setup and apply lean methodology to improve efficiency; and (3) design and test "Savings through Lowering of Instrumentation Mass (SLIM) setup" based on lean principles and its ability to be safely implemented into practice. METHODS: A Needs Assessment Survey was performed. After review and surgeon input, the "SLIM" set was designed, significantly reducing redundancy. Eighty patients were randomized to either Standard or SLIM setup. Operating room time, blood loss, perioperative adverse events and complications, cost/case, instrument weight (kg/case), total waste (kg/case), case setup time, and number of times and number of extra trays required were compared between groups. RESULTS: The SLIM setup was associated with the following savings: Cost = -$408.19/case; Energy = -7.16 kWh/case; Waste = -1.61 kg/case; Trays = -6 (758 kg/case). No differences in operating room time, blood loss, and complication rate were detected (P > .05) between groups. Setup time was significantly shorter with SLIM (P < .05) and extra instrumentation was opened in <5% of cases. CONCLUSION: A more "minimalist approach" to THA can be safely implemented. The SLIM setup is efficient and has been openly accepted by our allied staff. Such setup can lead to 1,610 kg reduction in waste, 7,160 kWh, and $408,190 in savings per 1,000 THAs performed.

Can We Predict Fracture When Using a Short Cementless Femoral Stem in the Anterior Approach?

BACKGROUND: Short cementless femoral stems may allow for easier insertion with less dissection. The use of short stems with the anterior approach (AA) may be associated with a considerable perioperative fracture risk. Our aim was to evaluate whether patient-specific femoral and pelvic morphology and surgical technique, influence the perioperative fracture risk. Furthermore, we sought to describe important anatomical thresholds alerting surgeons. METHODS: A single-center, multi-surgeon retrospective, case-control matched study was performed. Thirty nine periprosthetic fractures (3.4%) in 1,145 primary AA THAs using short cementless stems were identified. These were matched with 78 THA nonfracture controls for factors known to increase the fracture risk. A radiographic analysis using validated software measured femoral (canal flare index [CFI], morphological cortical index [MCI], and calcar-calcar ratio [CCR]) and pelvic (Ilium-ischial ratio [IIR], ilium overhang, and anterior superior iliac spine [ASIS] to greater trochanter distance) morphologies and surgical techniques (% canal fill). A multivariate and Receiver-Operator Curve (ROC) analysis was used to identify fracture predictors. RESULTS: CFI (3.7 ± 0.6 vs 2.9 ± 0.4, P < .001) and CCR (0.5 ± 0.1 vs 0.4 ± 0.1, P = .006) differed. The mean IIR was higher in fracture cases (3.3 ± 0.6 vs 3.0 ± 0.5, P < .001). Percent canal fill was reduced in fracture cases (82.8 ± 7.6 vs 86.7 ± 6.8, P = .007). Multivariate and ROC analyses revealed a threshold CFI of 3.17 which was predictive of fracture (sensitivity: 84.6%/specificity: 75.6%). The fracture risk was 29 times higher when patients had CFI >3.17 and II ratio >3 (OR: 29.2 95% CI: 9.5-89.9, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patient-specific anatomical parameters are important predictors of a fracture-risk. A careful radiographic analysis would help identify those at a risk of early fracture using short stems, and alternative stem options should be considered.

Spinal pathology and outcome post-THA: does segment of arthrodesis matter?

INTRODUCTION: The presence of lumbar spine arthrodesis (SA) is associated with abnormal spinopelvic characteristics and inferior outcome post total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, whether patients with upper segment SA are also at increased risk of complications is unknown. This study aims to (1) determine if upper segment SA is associated with inferior THA outcomes; (2) assess spino-pelvic characteristics; and (3) test whether static or dynamic spinopelvic characteristics correlate with outcome post-THA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective, case-matched, cohort study from a tertiary referral centre, 40 patients (59 hips) that had undergone both THA and any level of spinal arthrodesis (49 THA-Lumb and 10 THA-Cerv) were compared with 41 patients (59 hips) who had THA-only without known spinal pathology. Spino-pelvic characteristics [including severity of Degenerative-Disc-Disease (DDD); spinal balance and stiffness] and outcome, including patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), at minimum of 1-year post-THA were assessed. RESULTS: THA-Lumb and THA-Cerv groups had greater number of complications and inferior hip and spinal PROMs compared to THA-Only (p < 0.001). Similar spinopelvic characteristics were seen between the THA-Cerv and THA-Lumb, which were significantly different to the THA-only group. The presence of DDD and unbalanced or stiff spine was associated with increased dislocation and inferior PROMs in the whole cohort. CONCLUSIONS: THA in the presence of SA, regardless of level, is associated with inferior outcomes and an increased risk for dislocation. The presence of a SA is associated with increased risk of adverse spinopelvic characteristics. Such characteristics were strongly associated with increased dislocation-risk and inferior PROMs. It is likely that these adverse characteristics are the most important adverse predictor, rather than segment of SA per se.

Aspirin or Rivaroxaban for VTE Prophylaxis after Hip or Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials and meta-analyses have suggested that aspirin may be effective for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) after total hip or total knee arthroplasty, but comparisons with direct oral anticoagulants are lacking for prophylaxis beyond hospital discharge. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial involving patients who were undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty. All the patients received once-daily oral rivaroxaban (10 mg) until postoperative day 5 and then were randomly assigned to continue rivaroxaban or switch to aspirin (81 mg daily) for an additional 9 days after total knee arthroplasty or for 30 days after total hip arthroplasty. Patients were followed for 90 days for symptomatic venous thromboembolism (the primary effectiveness outcome) and bleeding complications, including major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (the primary safety outcome). RESULTS: A total of 3424 patients (1804 undergoing total hip arthroplasty and 1620 undergoing total knee arthroplasty) were enrolled in the trial. Venous thromboembolism occurred in 11 of 1707 patients (0.64%) in the aspirin group and in 12 of 1717 patients (0.70%) in the rivaroxaban group (difference, 0.06 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.55 to 0.66; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P=0.84 for superiority). Major bleeding complications occurred in 8 patients (0.47%) in the aspirin group and in 5 (0.29%) in the rivaroxaban group (difference, 0.18 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.65 to 0.29; P=0.42). Clinically important bleeding occurred in 22 patients (1.29%) in the aspirin group and in 17 (0.99%) in the rivaroxaban group (difference, 0.30 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.07 to 0.47; P=0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who received 5 days of rivaroxaban prophylaxis after total hip or total knee arthroplasty, extended prophylaxis with aspirin was not significantly different from rivaroxaban in the prevention of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01720108 .).

Clarifying essential terminology in entrustment.

With the rapid uptake of entrustable professional activties and entrustment decision-making as an approach in undergraduate and graduate education in medicine and other health professions, there is a risk of confusion in the use of new terminologies. The authors seek to clarify the use of many words related to the concept of entrustment, based on existing literature, with the aim to establish logical consistency in their use. The list of proposed definitions includes independence, autonomy, supervision, unsupervised practice, oversight, general and task-specific trustworthiness, trust, entrust(ment), entrustable professional activity, entrustment decision, entrustability, entrustment-supervision scale, retrospective and prospective entrustment-supervision scales, and entrustment-based discussion. The authors conclude that a shared understanding of the language around entrustment is critical to strengthen bridges among stages of training and practice, such as undergraduate medical education, graduate medical education, and continuing professional development. Shared language and understanding provide the foundation for consistency in interpretation and implementation across the educational continuum.

Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty After Acetabular Open Reduction and Internal Fixation in the Elderly-Acute vs Delayed Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Optimum management for the elderly acetabular fracture remains undefined. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in this population does not allow early weight-bearing and has an increased risk of failure. This study aimed to define outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the setting of an acetabular fracture and compared delayed THA after acetabular ORIF (ORIF delayed THA) and acute fixation and THA (ORIF acute THA). METHODS: All acetabular fractures in patients older than 60 years who underwent ORIF between 2007 and 2018 were reviewed (n = 85). Of those, 14 underwent ORIF only initially and required subsequent THA (ORIF delayed THA). Twelve underwent an acute THA at the time of the ORIF (ORIF acute THA). The ORIF acute THA group was older (81 ± 7 vs 76 ± 8; P < .01) but had no other demographic- or injury-related differences compared with the ORIF delayed THA group. Outcome measures included operative time, length of stay, complications, radiographic assessments (component orientation, leg-length discrepancy, heterotopic ossification), and functional outcomes using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS). RESULTS: Operative time (P = .1) and length of stay (P = .5) for the initial surgical procedure (ORIF only or ORIF THA) were not different between groups. Four patients had a complication and required further surgeries; no difference was seen between groups. Radiographic assessments were similar between groups. The ORIF acute THA group had a significantly better OHS (40.1 ± 3.9) than the ORIF delayed THA group (33.6 ± 8.5) (P = .03). CONCLUSION: In elderly acetabulum fractures, ORIF acute THA compared favorably (a better OHS, single operation/hospital visit, equivalent complications) with ORIF delayed THA. We would thus recommend that in patients with risk factors for failure requiring delayed THA (eg, dome or roof impaction) that ORIF acute THA be strongly considered.

Ten-Year Experience With the Anterior Approach to Total Hip Arthroplasty at a Tertiary Care Center.

BACKGROUND: The anterior approach (AA) to total hip arthroplasty (THA) has advantages for patients and healthcare providers. However, some studies have reported high rates of adverse events when introducing AA-THA. This was not consistent with our center's experience, where 4 senior surgeons safely introduced AA-THA into practice. The purpose of this study is to define the adverse event rates associated with the introduction of AA-THA by a group of experienced surgeons at a single tertiary care center and define experiential factors that may modify adverse event rates. METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data for an observational cohort of all patients undergoing a THA between 2006 and 2017 was conducted. Four senior surgeons at a single institution operated on 1087 primary elective hips using AA-THA. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2016, AA-THA rose from 1.5% to 53.2% of annual THA. Adverse events included intraoperative events, early postoperative periprosthetic fractures, dislocation, implant failure, early infection, and wound complications. We observed an overall 90-day adverse event rate of 6.4% (of 1087 hips). The adverse event rate was 41.6% (of 12 hips) in the first 12 months of the study period and 3.6% (of 166 hips) in the final 12 months of the study period reviewed. Sixty hips (5.5%) required a reoperation with or without revision of components, 1 (8.3%) in the first 12 months of the study period and 1 (0.6%) in the final 12 months of the study period. Infection and wound complications were the most common causes of reoperation at 1.8% for all cases (20 hips). Higher rates of adverse events are associated with early procedures (n ≤ 15) for all surgeons but showed no statistically significant impact on 5-year survival rate. CONCLUSION: Our experience demonstrates that AA-THA can be introduced into practice with an acceptable adverse event rate when compared with other approaches to THA. As expected the incidence of adverse events is higher in the early part of the learning curve. Surgeon mentoring in the first 20 cases should be considered to minimize risk of adverse events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.

Does surgical approach influence mid- to long-term patient-reported outcomes after primary total hip replacement? A comparison of the 3 main surgical approaches.

Background: The most effective surgical approach to total hip replacement (THR) remains controversial. Most studies that have compared approaches have reported only short-term outcome data. It is therefore unclear in the literature if a particular surgical approach offers long-term advantages. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of the 3 main surgical approaches to THR on patient-reported outcomes 5 years after surgery. Methods: All patients who underwent a THR for osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis between 2008 and 2012 by an anterior, posterior or lateral approach at The Ottawa Hospital in Ontario, Canada, were included in the study. All preoperative and postoperative scores for the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaires were recorded. Analysis of covariance was used to study the relationship between the amount of change in scores on the HOOS and WOMAC subscales (dependent variables) and the surgical approach. The confounding factors of age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, Charnley classification and body mass index were included in the analysis. Results: There were 138 patients (37.6%) in the posterior approach group, 104 (28.3%) in the lateral approach group and 125 (34.1%) in the anterior approach group. There were no significant differences among the 3 groups in terms of Charnley classification, body mass index, sex, ASA class, surgical side and preoperative functional scores. We did not observe any significant differences in the amount of change in the scores for HOOS and WOMAC subscales among the 3 groups. There were also no differences in the final postoperative scores. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the choice of surgical approach in primary THR surgery without revision has no influence on functional outcomes and quality of life after 5 years. Further studies are needed to assess how patient age and sex may influence the functional outcome of individual surgical approaches.

Contexte: L'approche chirurgicale la plus efficace pour l'arthroplastie totale de la hanche (ATH) n'a pas été déterminée. La plupart des études qui ont comparé les différentes approches n'ont fait état que de données à court terme. Donc, la littérature nous renseigne peu sur leurs bienfaits à long terme. Le but de cette étude est de vérifier l'effet des 3 principales approches chirurgicales pour l'ATH sur les paramètres rapportés par les patients 5 ans après la chirurgie. Méthodes: Tous les patients soumis à une ATH pour arthrose ou ostéonécrose entre 2008 et 2012 par approche antérieure, postérieure ou latérale à l'Hôpital d'Ottawa, en Ontario, au Canada, ont été inclus dans l'étude; et tous les scores préopératoires et postopératoires des questionnaires HOOS (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) et WOMAC (Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) ont été enregistrés. L'analyse de covariance a servi à étudier le lien entre l'ampleur des changements aux scores des sous-échelles HOOS et WOMAC (variables dépendantes) et l'approche chirurgicale. L'analyse a aussi tenu compte de facteurs de confusion tels que l'âge, le sexe, la classe ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists), classification de Charnley et indice de masse corporell. Résultats: Le groupe soumis à l'approche postérieure comptait 138 patients (37,6 %), à l'approche latérale 104 (28,3 %) et à l'approche antérieure 125 (34,1 %). Il n'y avait pas de différences significatives entre les 3 groupes aux plans de la classification de Charnley, de l'indice de masse corporelle, du sexe, de la classe ASA, du côté où la chirurgie a été effectuée et des paramètres fonctionnels préopératoires. Nous n'avons observé aucune différence significative quant à l'ampleur du changement aux scores des sous-échelles HOOS et WOMAC entre les 3 groupes; il en est allé de même pour les scores postopératoires finaux. Conclusion: Selon nos observations, le choix de l'approche chirurgicale pour l'ATH primaire sans révision n'exerce aucune influence sur les paramètres fonctionnels et la qualité de vie après 5 ans. Il faudra procéder à d'autres études pour évaluer l'influence potentielle de l'âge et du sexe sur les paramètres fonctionnels des différentes approches.

2018 Frank Stinchfield Award: Spinopelvic Hypermobility Is Associated With an Inferior Outcome After THA: Examining the Effect of Spinal Arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients undergo both THA and spinal arthrodesis, and those patients may not fare as well as those who undergo one procedure but not the other. The mechanisms of how spinal arthrodesis affects patient function after THA remain unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aims of our study were to (1) determine how patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Oxford hip score as well as dislocations and complications compare after THA between patients with and without spinal arthrodesis; (2) characterize sagittal pelvic changes in these patients that occur when moving between different functional positions and test for differences between patients with and without spinal arthrodesis; and (3) assess whether differences in sagittal pelvic dynamics are associated with PROMs, complications, and dislocations after THA. METHODS: In this case-control study, we identified 42 patients (60 hips) who had undergone both THA and spinal arthrodesis between 2002 and 2016 and who were available for followup at a minimum of 12 months (mean, 6 ± 5 years) after the later of the two procedures. These cases were case-control-matched for age, gender, and body mass index with 42 patients (60 hips) who underwent only THA and had no known spinal pathology. All patients completed PROMs, including the Oxford hip score, and underwent four radiographs of the pelvis and spinopelvic complex in three positions (supine, standing, and deep-seated). Cup orientation and various spinopelvic parameters, including pelvic tilt and pelvic-femoral angle, were measured. The difference in pelvic tilt between standing and seated allowed for patient classification based on spinopelvic mobility into normal (± 10°-30°), stiff (< ± 10°) or hypermobile (> ± 30°) groups. RESULTS: Compared with the THA-only group, the THA-spinal arthrodesis group had inferior PROMs (Oxford hip score, 33 ± 10 versus 43 ± 6; p < 0.001) and more surgery-related complications (such as dislocation, loosening, periprosthetic fracture or infection, psoas irritation) (12 versus 3; p = 0.013), especially dislocation (5 versus 0; p = 0.023). We detected no difference in change of pelvic tilt between supine and standing positions between the groups. When standing, patients undergoing THA-spinal arthrodesis had greater pelvic tilt (25° ± 11° versus 17° ± 8°; p < 0.001) and the hip was more extended (193° ± 22° versus 185° ± 30°; p = 0.012). We found that patients undergoing THA-spinal arthrodesis were more likely to have spinopelvic hypermobility (12 of 42 versus three of 42; odds ratio, 5.2; p = 0.02) with anterior tilting of the pelvis. Of all biomechanical parameters, only spinopelvic hypermobility was associated with inferior PROMs (Oxford hip score, 35 ± 9 versus 40 ± 7 in normal mobility; p = 0.049) and was also present in dislocating hips that underwent revision despite acceptable cup orientation. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with spinal arthrodesis who have undergone THA, spinopelvic hypermobility is associated with inferior outcomes, including hip instability. Spinopelvic hypermobility should be routinely assessed because these patients may have a narrow zone of optimum cup orientation that would require new technology to define and assist the surgeon in obtaining it.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Comparison of the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE) to a Single-Item Performance Score.

Construct: We compared a single-item performance score with the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE) for their ability in assessing surgical competency. BACKGROUND: Surgical programs are adopting competency-based frameworks. The adoption of these frameworks for assessment requires tools that produce accurate and valid assessments of knowledge and technical performance. An assessment tool that is quick to complete could improve feasibility, reduce delays, and result in a higher volume of assessments of learners. Previous work demonstrated that the 9-item O-SCORE can produce valid results; the goal of this study was to determine if a single-item performance rating (Is candidate competent to independently complete procedure: yes or no) completed at a separate viewing would correlate to the O-SCORE, thus increasing feasibility of procedural competence assessment. APPROACH: Nineteen residents and 2 staff orthopedic surgeons from the University of Ottawa volunteered for a 2-part OSCE-style station including a written questionnaire and videotaped simulated open reduction and internal fixation midshaft radius fracture. Each performance was rated independently by 3 orthopedic surgeons using a single-item performance score (Time 1). The performances were assessed again 6 weeks later by the 3 raters using the O-SCORE (Time 2). Correlation between the single-item performance score and the O-SCORE were evaluated. RESULTS: Three orthopedic surgeons completed 21 ratings each resulting in 63 orthopedic ratings. There was a high level of correlation and agreement between the single-item performance score at Time 1 and Time 2 (κ correlation =0.72-1.00; p < .001; percentage agreement =90%-100%). The reliability of the O-SCORE at Time 2 with three raters was 0.83 and the internal consistency was 0.89. There was a tendency for each rater to assign more yes responses to the more senior trainees. CONCLUSIONS: A single-item performance score correlated highly with the O-SCORE in an orthopedic setting. A single-item score could be used to supplement a multi-item score with similar results in orthopedics. There is still benefit in completing multi-item scores such as the O-SCORE evaluations to guide specific areas of improvement and direct feedback.

Open reduction internal fixation vs non-operative management in proximal humerus fractures: a prospective, randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fractures are the third most common fracture in the elderly population and are expected to increase due to the aging population. Surgical fixation with locking plate technology has increased over the last decade despite a lack of proven superiority in the literature. Three previous randomized controlled trials have not shown a difference in patient-centered outcomes when comparing non-operative treatment with open reduction and internal fixation. Low patient enrollment and other methodological concerns however limit the generalizability of these conclusions and as a result, management of these fractures remains a controversy. By comparing the functional outcomes of locked plate surgical fixation versus non-operative treatment of displaced three and four-part proximal humerus fractures in the elderly population with a large scale, prospective, multi-centered randomized controlled trial, the optimal management strategy for this common injury may be determined. METHODS: We will conduct a prospective, single blind randomized controlled parallel arm trial to compare non-operative management of proximal humerus fractures with open reduction and internal fixation using locked plating technology. One-hundred and sixty patients > age 60 with acute 3- or 4- part proximal humerus fractures will be randomized to either open reduction and internal fixation with locked plating technology or non-operative management treatment arms. The primary outcome measure is the Constant Score at 24 months post-operative. Secondary outcome measures include the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon's Score (ASES), EuroQol EQ-5D-5 L Health Questionnaire Score, short form PROMIS upper extremity score and IPAQ for the elderly score. Further outcome measures include assessment of the initial classification, displacement and angulation and the quality of surgical reduction via a standard computed tomography (CT) scan; rates of non-union, malunion, arthrosis, osteopenia or other complications including infection, nerve injury, intra-articular screw penetration, reoperation rates and hospital re-admission rates. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial will provide Level 1 evidence to guide decision-making in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures in the elderly population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02362100 . Registered 5 Feb 2015.

Avoid reinventing the wheel: implementation of the Ottawa Clinic Assessment Tool (OCAT) in Internal Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Workplace based assessment (WBA) is crucial to competency-based education. The majority of healthcare is delivered in the ambulatory setting making the ability to run an entire clinic a crucial core competency for Internal Medicine (IM) trainees. Current WBA tools used in IM do not allow a thorough assessment of this skill. Further, most tools are not aligned with the way clinical assessors conceptualize performances. To address this, many tools aligned with entrustment decisions have recently been published. The Ottawa Clinic Assessment Tool (OCAT) is an entrustment-aligned tool that allows for such an assessment but was developed in the surgical setting and it is not known if it can perform well in an entirely different context. The aim of this study was to implement the OCAT in an IM program and collect psychometric data in this different setting. Using one tool across multiple contexts may reduce the need for tool development and ensure that tools used have proper psychometric data to support them. METHODS: Psychometrics characteristics were determined. Descriptive statistics and effect sizes were calculated. Scores were compared between levels of training (juniors (PGY1), seniors (PGY2s and PGY3s) & fellows (PGY4s and PGY5s)) using a one-way ANOVA. Safety for independent practice was analyzed with a dichotomous score. Variance components were generated and used to estimate the reliability of the OCAT. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety OCATs were completed over 52 weeks by 86 physicians assessing 44 residents. The range of ratings varied from 2 (I had to talk them through) to 5 (I did not need to be there) for most items. Mean scores differed significantly by training level (p < .001) with juniors having lower ratings (M = 3.80 (out of 5), SD = 0.49) than seniors (M = 4.22, SD = - 0.47) who had lower ratings than fellows (4.70, SD = 0.36). Trainees deemed safe to run the clinic independently had significantly higher mean scores than those deemed not safe (p < .001). The generalizability coefficient that corresponds to internal consistency is 0.92. CONCLUSIONS: This study's psychometric data demonstrates that we can reliably use the OCAT in IM. We support assessing existing tools within different contexts rather than continuous developing discipline-specific instruments.

A Single-Center Experience With a Titanium Modular Neck Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Added modular junction has been associated with implant-related failures. We report our experience with a titanium-titanium modular neck-stem interface to assess complications, possible clinical factors influencing use of neck modularity, and whether modularity reduced the incidence of dislocation. METHODS: A total of 809 total hip arthroplasties completed between 2005 and 2012 from a prospectively collected database were reviewed. The mean follow-up interval was 5.7 years (3.3-10.3 years). Forty-five percent were male (360 of 809), and 55% were female (449 of 809). All stems were uncemented PROFEMUR TL (titanium, flat-tapered, wedge) or PROFEMUR Z (titanium, rectangular, dual-tapered) with a titanium neck. RESULTS: Increased modularity (anteverted/retroverted and anteverted/retroverted varus/valgus (anteverted/retroverted + anteverted/retroverted varus/valgus) was used in 39.4% (135 of 343) of cases using the posterior approach compared with 6.8% (20 of 293) of anterior and 23.7% (41 of 173) of lateral approaches. Four males sustained neck fractures at a mean of 95.5 months (69.3-115.6 months) after primary surgery. Overall dislocation rate was 1.1% (9 of 809). The posterior approach had both the highest utilization of increased modularity and the highest dislocation rate (2.3%), of which the most were recurrent. The anterior (0.3%) and lateral (0%) approaches had lower dislocation rates with no recurrences. CONCLUSION: At a mean 5.7 years, our experience demonstrates a low neck fracture (0.5%) and a low dislocation rate (1.1%). Use of increased modularity may not improve dislocation risk for the posterior approach. Continued surveillance of this group will be necessary to determine long term survivorship of this modular titanium implant.

Continued Validation of the O-SCORE (Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation): Use in the Simulated Environment.

UNLABELLED: CONSTRUCT: The Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE) is a 9-item surgical evaluation tool designed to assess technical competence in surgical trainees using behavioral anchors. BACKGROUND: The initial development of the O-SCORE produced evidence for valid results. Further work is required to determine if the use of a single surgeon or an unblinded rater introduces bias. In addition, the relationship of the O-SCORE to other currently used technical assessment tools should be explored to provide validity evidence related to the relationship to other measures. We have designed this project to provide continued validity evidence for the O-SCORE related to these two issues. APPROACH: Nineteen residents and 2 staff Orthopedic Surgeons from the University of Ottawa volunteered to participate in a 2-part OSCE style station. Participants completed a written questionnaire followed by a videotaped 10-minute simulated open reduction and internal fixation of a midshaft radius fracture. Videos were rated individually by 2 blinded staff orthopedic surgeons using an Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) global rating scale, an OSATS checklist, and the O-SCORE in random order. RESULTS: O-SCORE results appeared sensitive to surgical training level even when raters were blinded. In addition, strong agreement between two independent observers using the O-SCORE suggests that the measure captures a performance easily recognized by surgical observers. Ratings on the O-SCORE also were strongly associated with global ratings on the currently most validated technical evaluation tool (OSATS). Collectively, these results suggest that the O-SCORE generates accurate, reproducible, and meaningful results when used in a randomized and blinded fashion, providing continued validity evidence for using this tool to evaluate surgical trainee competence. CONCLUSIONS: The O-SCORE was able to differentiate surgical trainee level using blinded raters providing further evidence of validity for the O-SCORE. There was strong agreement between two independent observers using the O-SCORE. Ratings on the O-SCORE also demonstrated equivalence to scores on the most validated technical evaluation tool (OSATS). These results suggest that the O-SCORE demonstrates accurate and reproducible results when used in a randomized and blinded fashion providing continued validity evidence for this tool in the evaluation of surgical competence in the trainees.

Understanding and Taking Control of Surgical Learning Curves.

As surgical techniques continue to evolve, surgeons will have to integrate new skills into their practice. A learning curve is associated with the integration of any new procedure; therefore, it is important for surgeons who are incorporating a new technique into their practice to understand what the reported learning curve might mean for them and their patients. A learning curve should not be perceived as negative because it can indicate progress; however, surgeons need to understand how to optimize the learning curve to ensure progress with minimal patient risk. It is essential for surgeons who are implementing new procedures or skills to define potential learning curves, examine how a reported learning curve may relate to an individual surgeon's in-practice learning and performance, and suggest methods in which an individual surgeon can modify his or her specific learning curve in order to optimize surgical outcomes and patient safety. A defined personal learning contract may be a practical method for surgeons to proactively manage their individual learning curve and provide evidence of their efforts to safely improve surgical practice.

What Do Reported Learning Curves Mean for Orthopaedic Surgeons?

Practicing orthopaedic surgeons must assess the effects of the learning curve on patient safety and surgical outcomes if a new implant, technique, or approach is being considered; however, it remains unclear how learning curves reported in the literature should be interpreted and to what extent their results can be generalized. Learning curve reports from other surgical specialties and from orthopaedic surgery can be analyzed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of learning curve reporting. Single-surgeon series and registry data can be analyzed to understand learning challenges and to develop a personalized learning plan. Learning curve reports from single-surgeon series have several limitations that result from the limited dataset reported and inconsistencies in the way data are reported. Conversely, learning curve reports from registry data are likely to have greater generalizability, but are largely beneficial retrospectively, after data from a sufficient number of surgeons are assessed. There is a pressing need for surgeons to develop improved and consistent standards for learning curve reporting. Although registry data may provide better prospective measures in the future, the implementation of such registries faces several challenges. Despite substantial limitations, single-surgeon series remain the most effective way for practicing surgeons to assess their learning challenge and develop an appropriate learning plan.

In-hospital cost comparison between the standard lateral and supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip surgical techniques for total hip replacement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the in-hospital costs associated with the tissue-sparing supercapsular percutaneously-assisted total hip (SuperPath) and traditional Lateral surgical techniques for total hip replacement (THR). METHODS: Between April 2013 and January 2014, in-hospital costs were reviewed for all THRs performed using the SuperPath technique by a single surgeon and all THRs performed using the Lateral technique by another surgeon at the same institution. RESULTS: Overall, costs were 28.4% higher in the Lateral group. This was largely attributable to increased costs associated with transfusion (+92.5%), patient rooms (+60.4%), patient food (+62.8%), narcotics (+42.5%), physical therapy (+52.5%), occupational therapy (+88.6%), and social work (+92.9%). The only costs noticeably increased for SuperPath were for imaging (+105.9%), and this was because the SuperPath surgeon performed intraoperative radiographs on all patients while the Lateral surgeon did not. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the SuperPath technique resulted in in-hospital cost reductions of over 28%, suggesting that this tissue-sparing surgical technique can be cost-effective primarily by facilitating early mobilisation and patient discharge even during a surgeon's initial experience with the approach.

Going Paperless? Issues in Converting a Surgical Assessment Tool to an Electronic Version.

UNLABELLED: CONSTRUCT: The competence of a trainee to perform a surgical procedure was assessed using an electronic tool. BACKGROUND: "Going paperless" in healthcare has received significant attention over the past decades given the numerous potential benefits of converting to electronic health records. Not surprisingly, medical educators have also considered the potential benefits of electronic assessments for their trainees. What literature exists on the transition from paper-based to electronic-based assessments suggests a positive outcome. In contrast, work done examining the transition to and implementation of electronic health records has noted that hospitals who have implemented these systems have not gone paperless despite the benefits of doing so. APPROACH: This study sought to transition a paper-based assessment tool, the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (which has strong evidence for validity) to an electronic version, in three surgical specialties (Orthopedic Surgery, Urology, General Surgery). However, as the project progressed, it became necessary to change the focus of the study to explore the issues of transitioning to a paperless assessment tool as we identified an extremely low participation rate. RESULTS: Over the first 3 months 440 assessment cases were logged. However, only a small portion of these cases were assessed using the electronic tool (Orthopedic Surgery = 16%, Urology = 5%, General Surgery = 0%). Participants identified several barriers in using the electronic assessment tool such as increased time compared to the paper version and technological issues related to the log-in procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Essentially, users want the tool to be as convenient as paper. This is consistent with research on electronic health records implementation but different from previous work in medical education. Thus, we believe our study highlights an important finding. Transitioning from a paper-based assessment tool to an electronic one is not necessarily a neutral process. Consideration of potential barriers and finding solutions to these barriers will be necessary in order to realize the many benefits of electronic assessments.