Why all newborn hip screening programs have same results-a mini review.

All newborns are screened for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), but countries have varying screening practices. The aim of this narrative mini review is to discuss the controversies of the screening and why it seems that all screening programs are likely to have same outcome. Different screening strategies are discussed alongside with other factors influencing DDH in this review. Universal ultrasound (US) has been praised as it finds more immature hips than clinical examination, but it has not been proven to reduce the rates of late-detected DDH or surgical management. Universal US screening increases initial treatment rates, while selective US and clinical screening have similar outcomes regarding late detection rates than universal US. This can be explained by the extrinsic factor affecting the development of the hip joint after birth and thus initial screening during the early weeks cannot find these cases.  Conclusion: It seems that DDH screening strategies have strengths and limitations without notable differences in the most severe outcomes (late-detected cases requiring operative treatment). Thus, it is important to acknowledge that the used screening policy is a combination of values and available resources rather than a decision based on clear evidence.

Randomized controlled trials reporting patient-reported outcomes with no significant differences between study groups are potentially susceptible to unjustified conclusions-a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Ceiling effect may lead to misleading conclusions when using patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores as an outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential source of ceiling effect-related errors in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting no differences in PROM scores between study groups. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of RCTs published in the top 10 orthopedic journals according to their impact factors was conducted, focusing on studies that reported no significant differences in outcomes between two study groups. All studies published during 2012-2022 that reported no differences in PROM outcomes and used parametric statistical approach were included. The aim was to investigate the potential source of ceiling effect-related errors-that is, when the ceiling effect suppresses the possible difference between the groups. The proportions of patients exceeding the PROM scales were simulated using the observed dispersion parameters based on the assumed normal distribution, and the differences in the proportions between the study groups were subsequently analyzed. RESULTS: After an initial screening of 2343 studies, 190 studies were included. The central 95% theoretical distribution of the scores exceeded the PROM scales in 140 (74%) of these studies. In 33 (17%) studies, the simulated patient proportions exceeding the scales indicated potential differences between the compared groups. CONCLUSION: It is common to have a mismatch between the chosen PROM instrument and the population being studied increasing the risk of an unjustified "no difference" conclusion due to a ceiling effect. Thus, a considerable ceiling effect should be considered a potential source of error.

Speed and Nighttime Usage Restrictions and the Incidence of Shared Electric Scooter Injuries.

Importance: Electric scooter (e-scooter) crashes have become a serious health issue worldwide. The need for effective e-scooter regulations has been established in numerous instances. Objective: To investigate the association of restrictions on top speed and nighttime usage on the incidence of e-scooter-related injuries. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective comparative cohort study of all patients with an injury related to shared e-scooter riding sustained in Helsinki, Finland. Data were collected from the electric patient database from 3 trauma hospitals representing all public hospitals treating patients with acute trauma in Helsinki. Shared e-scooter injuries from 2 periods were compared: an unrestricted period (January 1 to August 31, 2021) and a restricted period (January 1 to August 31, 2022). Data were analyzed from September 2022 to September 2023. Exposures: The restrictions established for shared e-scooters during the restricted period were: (1) the daytime top speed of 20 km/h, as opposed to the previous top speed of 25 km/h, (2) the use of shared e-scooters was prohibited on Friday and Saturday nights between 12 am and 5 am, and (3) the nighttime top speed was decreased to 15 km/h from Sunday to Thursday between 12 am and 5 am, as opposed to 25 km/h. Main outcome: The incidence of e-scooter injuries compared with the total trips made by e-scooters. Results: There were 528 e-scooter injuries requiring hospital care during the unrestricted period and 318 injuries during the restricted period of similar length. The median (IQR) age of the patients in the study periods was 25 (21-32) and 28 (22-37), respectively; 308 (58%) and 191 (60%) were male, respectively. The incidence of e-scooter injuries was 19 (95% CI, 17-20) for every 100 000 rides during the unrestricted period and 9 (95% CI, 8-10) per 100 000 rides during the restricted period. In the risk analysis, the odds ratio for shared e-scooter injuries was 0.5 (95% CI, 0.4-0.6) for the restricted period when adjusted for hourly temperature, rain amount, wind speed, and visibility. After introducing the restrictions, the number of e-scooter injuries decreased significantly between 11 pm and 5 am. Conclusion and Relevance: The number of injuries decreased after implementing restrictions on the top speed and nighttime usage of e-scooters. Similar restrictions in cities with shared e-scooter services should be explored.

Incidence of football injuries sustained on artificial turf compared to grass and other playing surfaces: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Prior reviews have not conducted statistical synthesis of injury incidence on artificial turf in football. To analyse and compare the incidence of injuries sustained playing football (soccer) on artificial turf compared to grass and other playing surfaces. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases in October 2022 without filters. All observational studies (prospective or retrospective) that analysed injuries sustained playing football on artificial turf and which included a control group that played on grass or other surface were included. Studies were included if they reported the number of injuries and the exposure time for the playing surfaces. Risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals. Protocol was registered with PROSPERO on October 30th, 2022. Registration number: CRD42022371414. Findings: We screened 1447 studies, and evaluated 67 full reports, and finally included 22 studies. Risk of bias was a notable issue, as only 5 of the 22 studies adjusted their analysis for potential confounders. Men (11 studies: IRR 0.82, CI 0.72-0.94) and women (5 studies: IRR 0.83, CI 0.76-0.91) had lower injury incidence on artificial turf. Professional players had a lower incidence of injury (8 studies: IRR 0.79, CI 0.70-0.90) on artificial turf, whereas there was no evidence of differences in the incidence of injury in amateur players (8 studies: IRR 0.91, CI 0.77-1.09). The incidence of pelvis/thigh (10 studies: IRR 0.72, CI 0.57-0.90), and knee injuries (14 studies: IRR 0.77, CI 0.64-0.92) were lower on artificial turf. Interpretation: The overall incidence of football injuries is lower on artificial turf than on grass. Based on these findings, the risk of injury can't be used as an argument against artificial turf when considering the optimal playing surface for football. Funding: No specific funding was received for this study.

Quality of surgical patient-reported outcome measure validation studies is often deficient: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the methodological basis behind the conclusions of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) validation studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review was performed on surgical studies evaluating the measurement properties of a PROM between June 1 and December 31, 2021. The quality of the validity subfield evaluation in the studies was assessed according to the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments checklist. Nine validity subfields were assessed. RESULTS: The median sample size of the 87 included studies was 125 (interquartile range: 99-226), and 22 of the studies (25%) had an insufficient sample size according to the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments checklist. For the nine validity subfields, the mean number of correctly assessed subfields was 3.6 (standard deviation: 1.5). In 68 of the studies (78%), the conclusion determined the PROM to be valid. In these studies, the mean number of evaluated validity subfields was 3.8 (standard deviation: 1.4). None of the studies reported that the PROM was not valid. CONCLUSION: The empirical basis of the conclusions drawn in studies investigating the measurement properties of a PROM is often deficient. PROM studies were often performed with insufficient sample sizes and focused on only a few validity subfields, calling into question the deterministic conclusions that a PROM is valid.

A comparison of different selective ultrasound screening strategies for developmental dysplasia of the hip.

To analyze whether the addition of risk-based criteria to clinical examination-based selective ultrasound screening would increase the rates of early detected cases of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and decrease the rate of late detected cases. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. The initial search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases in November 2021. The following search terms were used: (hip) AND (ultrasound) AND (luxation or dysplasia) AND (newborn or neonate or congenital). A total of 25 studies were included. In 19 studies, newborns were selected for ultrasound based on both risk factors and clinical examination. In six studies, newborns were selected for ultrasound based on only clinical examination. We did not find evidence indicating that there are differences in the incidence of early- and late-detected DDH, or in the incidence of nonoperatively treated DDH between the risk-based and clinical examination-based groups. The pooled incidence of operatively treated DDH was slightly lower in the risk-based group (0.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3 to 0.7)) compared with the clinical examination group (0.9 per 1,000 newborns, (95% CI 0.7 to 1.0)). The use of risk factors in conjunction with clinical examination in the selective ultrasound screening of DDH might lead to fewer operatively treated cases of DDH. However, more studies are needed before stronger conclusions can be drawn.

Prediction model for an early revision for dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty.

Dislocation is one of the most common complications after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Several patient-related risk factors for dislocation have been reported in the previous literature, but only few prediction models for dislocation have been made. Our aim was to build a prediction model for an early (within the first 2 years) revision for dislocation after primary THA using two different statistical methods. The study data constituted of 37 pre- or perioperative variables and postoperative follow-up data of 16 454 primary THAs performed at our institution in 2008-2021. Model I was a traditional logistic regression model and Model II was based on the elastic net method that utilizes machine learning. The models' overall performance was measured using the pseudo R2 values. The discrimination of the models was measured using C-index in Model I and Area Under the Curve (AUC) in Model II. Calibration curves were made for both models. At 2 years postoperatively, 95 hips (0.6% prevalence) had been revised for dislocation. The pseudo R2 values were 0.04 in Model I and 0.02 in Model II indicating low predictive capability in both models. The C-index in Model I was 0.67 and the AUC in Model II was 0.73 indicating modest discrimination. The prediction of an early revision for dislocation after primary THA is difficult even in a large cohort of patients with detailed data available because of the reasonably low prevalence and multifactorial nature of dislocation. Therefore, the risk of dislocation should be kept in mind in every primary THA, whether the patient has predisposing factors for dislocation or not. Further, when conducting a prediction model, sophisticated methods that utilize machine learning may not necessarily offer significant advantage over traditional statistical methods in clinical setup.

Implant survival of 662 dual-mobility cups and 727 constrained liners in primary THA: small femoral head size increases the cumulative incidence of revision.

Background and purpose - In total hip arthroplasty (THA), the risk for dislocation can be reduced using either dual-mobility cups (DMCs) or constrained liners (CLs). There are few studies comparing these concepts in primary THA. Therefore, we compared the cumulative incidence of revision in primary THA patients treated with DMC or CL with varying head sizes with conventional THA patients as reference group.Patients and methods - We performed a cohort study based on the Finnish arthroplasty register, comparing DMCs and CLs operated over the period 2000-2017. DMCs were divided into 2 groups based on the implant design: "DMC Trident" group (n = 399) and "DMC Others" group (n = 263). CLs were divided based on the femoral head size: "CL 36 mm" group (n = 425) and "CL < 36 mm" group (n = 302). All conventional primary THAs operated on in 2000-2017 with 28-36 mm femoral head were included as control group ("Conventional THA" group, n = 102,276). Implant survival was calculated by the corresponding cumulative incidence function with revision as the endpoint and death as competing event. Also, the prevalence of different reasons for revision was compared.Results - The 6-year cumulative incidence function estimates for the first revision were 6.9% (95% CI 4.0-9.7) for DMC Trident, 5.0% (CI 1.5-8.5) for DMC Others, 13% (CI 9.3-17) for CL < 36 mm, 6.3% (3.7-8.9) for CL 36 mm, and 4.7% (CI 4.5-4.8) for control group (conventional THA). The prevalence of dislocation revision was high (5.0%, CI 2.9-8.2) in the CL < 36 mm group compared with other groups.Interpretation - The DMC and CL 36 mm groups had promising mid-term survival rates, comparable to those of primary conventional THA group. The revision rate of CLs with < 36 mm head was high, mostly due to high prevalence of dislocation revisions. Therefore, CLs with 36 mm femoral head should be preferred over smaller ones.

Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Is a Leading Cause of Early Revision With Taper-Slip Stems in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 2765 Total Hip Arthroplasties From a High-Volume Hospital.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the CPT stem replaced the Exeter stem as the main cemented stem at our institution. We assessed the prevalence of revision for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) in patients operated on with either CPT or Exeter stem and compared the risk for revision between these stems. METHODS: Primary total hip arthroplasties either performed in 2012-2015 with Exeter stem (n = 1443) or in 2017-2018 with CPT stem (n = 1322) were included. The prevalence of revision for PFF was compared. The Kaplan-Meier estimated survivorships were calculated for the 2 stem designs. The risk for revision was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. RESULTS: At 2 years, PFF was the most common reason for revision in the study population (1.3% prevalence, comprising 35% of all revisions). Moreover, 1.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-2.4) of the CPT and 1.0% (95% CI 0.6-1.6) of the Exeter stems had been revised due to PFF. The 3-year Kaplan-Meier probability estimates for all-cause revision were 4.8% for the CPT (95% CI 3.6-6.0) and 3.3% for the Exeter stem (95% CI 2.3-4.3). The hazard ratio for revision due to any reason was 1.1 (95% CI 0.3-3.8) during the first 2 weeks, and 1.8 (95% CI 1.2-2.7, P = .006) from 2 weeks onwards for the CPT compared with the Exeter stem. CONCLUSION: The considerable number of PFF revisions with taper-slip stems, especially with CPT stems, is a matter of concern. Alternative cemented stems should be considered in patients at high risk for PFF.

Increased risk for dislocation after introduction of the Continuum cup system: lessons learnt from a cohort of 1,381 THRs after 1-year follow-up.

Background and purpose - The introduction of new total hip replacements (THRs) is known to be associated with an increased risk for complications. On completion of a competitive procurement process, a new uncemented cup system was introduced into general use at our institution in 2016. We launched this study after the introduction to assess (1) the incidence of early dislocations of the old (Pinnacle) and the new (Continuum) cup systems, and (2) whether the cup design would affect the risk for dislocation.Patients and methods - We assessed the incidence of dislocations after 1,381 primary THRs performed at our institution during 2016. Also, the effect of the cup system (Pinnacle, Continuum with neutral liner, Continuum with elevated rim liner) on dislocation rates was analyzed using a multivariable regression model.Results - 47 (3.4%) early dislocations were identified. The incidence of dislocations was 1.3% for the Pinnacle, 5.1% for the Continuum with neutral liner, and 1.2% for the Continuum with elevated rim liner. The Continuum with neutral liner was found to have an increased risk for dislocations compared with the Pinnacle (aOR 5, 95% CI 1.4-17). However, when an elevated rim liner was used with the Continuum, the risk for dislocation between the Continuum and the Pinnacle was similar.Interpretation - Our results emphasize the need for both careful consideration before the introduction of new implants and the systematic monitoring of early outcomes thereafter. The elevated rim liner should be preferred for use with the Continuum cup because of the poor coverage of the neutral liner that may result in dislocations.