Functional Outcomes of Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Versus Physical Therapy for Degenerative Meniscal Tears Using a Patient-Specific Score: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the treatment effects of partial meniscectomy and physical therapy differ when focusing on activities most valued by patients with degenerative meniscal tears. PURPOSE: To compare partial meniscectomy with physical therapy in patients with a degenerative meniscal tear, focusing on patients' most important functional limitations as the outcome. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: This study is part of the Cost-effectiveness of Early Surgery versus Conservative Treatment with Optional Delayed Meniscectomy for Patients over 45 years with non-obstructive meniscal tears (ESCAPE) trial, a multicenter noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted in 9 orthopaedic hospital departments in the Netherlands. The ESCAPE trial included 321 patients aged between 45 and 70 years with a symptomatic, magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed meniscal tear. Exclusion criteria were severe osteoarthritis, body mass index >35 kg/m2, locking of the knee, and prior knee surgery or knee instability due to an anterior or posterior cruciate ligament rupture. This study compared partial meniscectomy with physical therapy consisting of a supervised incremental exercise protocol of 16 sessions over 8 weeks. The main outcome measure was the Dutch-language equivalent of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), a secondary outcome measure of the ESCAPE trial. We used crude and adjusted linear mixed-model analyses to reveal the between-group differences over 24 months. We calculated the minimal important change for the PSFS using an anchor-based method. RESULTS: After 24 months, 286 patients completed the follow-up. The partial meniscectomy group (n = 139) improved on the PSFS by a mean of 4.8 ± 2.6 points (from 6.8 ± 1.9 to 2.0 ± 2.2), and the physical therapy group (n = 147) improved by a mean of 4.0 ± 3.1 points (from 6.7 ± 2.0 to 2.7 ± 2.5). The crude overall between-group difference showed a -0.6-point difference (95% CI, -1.0 to -0.2; P = .004) in favor of the partial meniscectomy group. This improvement was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful, as the calculated minimal important change was 2.5 points on an 11-point scale. CONCLUSION: Both interventions were associated with a clinically meaningful improvement regarding patients' most important functional limitations. Although partial meniscectomy was associated with a statistically larger improvement at some follow-up time points, the difference compared with physical therapy was small and clinically not meaningful at any follow-up time point. REGISTRATION: NCT01850719 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier) and NTR3908 (the Netherlands Trial Register).

Wound complications after total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomised controlled trial comparing staples with sutures.

OBJECTIVE: Does the use of staples or sutures for wound closure have a lower surgical site infection rate in patients receiving primary total hip arthroplasty (THA)? DESIGN: Prospective, randomised controlled multicentre trial. METHODS: 535 patients undergoing THA were included and randomised into 2 groups: 268 wounds were closed with staples, and 267 with sutures. Primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI). Secondary outcomes were prosthetic joint infection (PJI), other wound complications (dehiscence, necrosis and prolonged drainage) and duration of admittance. Follow-up occurred at 2, 6, and 12 weeks, and at 1 year. RESULTS: There were no significant demographic differences between the 2 groups. SSI occurred more frequently when wounds were closed with staples (4% compared to 1% with sutures; OR 2.8; CI, 0.885-0.952; p = 0.057). SSI was treated with oral antibiotics. The staples group showed significantly more wound complications (17% compared to 5%; OR 3.943, CI 2.073-7.498; p = 0.000). Wound discharge was significantly prolonged in the staples group (n = 40, compared to n = 12 in the sutures group; OR 3.728; CI, 1.909-7.281; p = 0.000). There was no significant difference in PJI (p = 0.364). CONCLUSIONS: In this large RCT comparing staples with sutures after THA, the use of staples is associated with a nearly 3 times greater risk of SSI (OR 2.8; p = 0.057). Staples significantly prolong wound discharge. The use of sutures for wound closure after THA is advised. Trial registration: Staples Or Sutures trial (S.O.S. trial) http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=3946 , NTR3946.

Validation of the Super Simple Hip score combined with the University of California, Los Angeles activity scale for younger patients.

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.

Similar Superior Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Anterior and Posterolateral Approaches After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Postoperative Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Improvement After 3 months in 12,774 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties Using the Anterior, Anterolateral, Straight Lateral, or Posterolateral Approach.

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.

Bacterial contamination in postmortem bone donors.

We analyzed factors influencing the contamination rate of allografts and blood samples obtained from postmortem bone donors. 5,710 allografts were harvested, from 550 donors of which 3,164 (55%) were swab culture negative. Blood cultures were positive in 140 donors (26%). The risk of graft contamination increased with each extra team member (Odds Ratio 1.9). It was also higher with organisms of greater virulence in donors with a positive blood culture (OR 3.5). The risk of blood contamination increased per hour postmortem (OR 1.1) and the same increase was seen with organisms of high virulence. In donors with multiple trauma, the risk of blood contamination with organisms of high virulence was greater (OR 8.2), but smaller in donors with preceding organ procurement (OR 0.1). To minimize the bacterial load, donors should be obtained in operating rooms, using aseptic techniques with only a few personnel for procurement. The postmortem time should be kept to a minimum. The procurement cultures from donors with multiple trauma should be carefully interpreted. Blood cultures should be taken into account, since these can help to find contamination not detected by swab cultures.