Effectiveness of nail bed repair in children with or without replacing the fingernail: NINJA multicentre randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for nail bed injuries in children is common. One of the key surgical decisions is whether to replace the nail plate following nail bed repair. The aim of this RCT was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nail bed repair with fingernail replacement/substitution compared with repair without fingernail replacement. METHODS: A two-arm 1 : 1 parallel-group open multicentre superiority RCT was performed across 20 secondary-care hospitals in the UK. The co-primary outcomes were surgical-site infection at around 7 days after surgery and cosmetic appearance summary score at a minimum of 4 months. RESULTS: Some 451 children presenting with a suspected nail bed injury were recruited between July 2018 and July 2019; 224 were allocated to the nail-discarded arm, and 227 to the nail-replaced arm. There was no difference in the number of surgical-site infections at around 7 days between the two interventions or in cosmetic appearance. The mean total healthcare cost over the 4 months after surgery was €84 (95 per cent c.i. 34 to 140) lower for the nail-discarded arm than the nail-replaced arm (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: After nail bed repair, discarding the fingernail was associated with similar rates of infection and cosmesis ratings as replacement of the finger nail, but was cost saving. Registration number: ISRCTN44551796 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Relative motion orthoses for early active motion after finger extensor and flexor tendon repairs: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The relative motion (RM) orthosis was introduced over 40 years ago for extensor tendon rehabilitation and more recently applied to flexor tendon repairs. PURPOSE: We systematically reviewed the evidence for RM orthoses following surgical repair of finger extensor and flexor tendon injuries including indications for use, configuration and schedule of orthosis wear, and clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review searched eight databases and five trial registries, from database inception to January 7, 2022. The protocol was registered prospectively (CRD42020211579). We identified studies describing patients undergoing rehabilitation using RM orthoses after surgical repair of acute tendon injuries of the finger and hand. RESULTS: For extensor tendon repairs, ten studies, one trial registry and five conference abstracts met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes of 521 patients with injuries in zones IV-VII. Miller's criteria were predominantly used to report range of motion; with 89.6% and 86.9% reporting good or excellent outcomes for extension lag and flexion deficit, respectively. For flexor tendon repairs, one retrospective case series was included reporting outcomes in eight patients following zones I-II repairs. Mean total active motion was 86%. No tendon ruptures were reported due to the orthosis not protecting the repair for either the RME or RMF approaches. DISCUSSION: Variation was seen in use of RME plus or only, use of night orthoses and orthotic wear schedules, which may be the result of evolution of the RM approach. Since Hirth et al's 2016 scoping review, there are five additional studies, including two RCTs reporting the use of the RM orthosis in extensor tendon rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: There is now good evidence that the RM approach is safe in zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs. Limited evidence currently exists for zones IV and VII extensor and for flexor tendon repairs. Further high-quality clinical studies are needed to demonstrate its safety and efficacy.

Standardising the management of open extremity fractures: a scoping review of national guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Open extremity fractures can be life-changing events. Clinical guidelines on the management of these injuries aim to standardise the care of patients by presenting evidence-based recommendations. We performed a scoping systematic review to identify all national clinical practice guidelines published to date. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant scoping systematic review was designed to identify all national or federal guidelines for the management of open fractures, with no limitations for language or publication date. EMBASE and MEDLINE database were searched. Article screening and full-text review was performed in a blinded fashion in parallel by two authors. RESULTS: Following elimination of duplicates, 376 individual publications were identified and reviewed. In total, 12 clinical guidelines were identified, authored by groups in the UK, USA, the Netherlands, Finland, and Malawi. Two of these focused exclusively on antibiotic prophylaxis and one on combat-related injuries, with the remaining nine presented wide-scope recommendations with significant content overlap. DISCUSSION: Clinical practice guidelines serve clinicians in providing evidence-based and cost-effective care. We only identified one open fractures guideline developed in a low- or middle-income country, from Malawi. Even though the development of these guidelines can be time and resource intensive, the benefits may outweigh the costs by standardising the care offered to patients in different healthcare settings. International collaboration may be an alternative for adapting guidelines to match local resources and healthcare systems for use across national borders.

Hydrosurgical debridement versus conventional surgical debridement for acute partial-thickness burns.

BACKGROUND: Burn injuries are the fourth most common traumatic injury, causing an estimated 180,000 deaths annually worldwide. Superficial burns can be managed with dressings alone, but deeper burns or those that fail to heal promptly are usually treated surgically. Acute burns surgery aims to debride burnt skin until healthy tissue is reached, at which point skin grafts or temporising dressings are applied. Conventional debridement is performed with an angled blade, tangentially shaving burned tissue until healthy tissue is encountered. Hydrosurgery, an alternative to conventional blade debridement, simultaneously debrides, irrigates, and removes tissue with the aim of minimising damage to uninjured tissue. Despite the increasing use of hydrosurgery, its efficacy and the risk of adverse events following surgery for burns is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of hydrosurgical debridement and skin grafting versus conventional surgical debridement and skin grafting for the treatment of acute partial-thickness burns. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people of any age with acute partial-thickness burn injury and assessed the use of hydrosurgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT met the inclusion criteria of this review. The study sample size was 61 paediatric participants with acute partial-thickness burns of 3% to 4% total burn surface area. Participants were randomised to hydrosurgery or conventional debridement. There may be little or no difference in mean time to complete healing (mean difference (MD) 0.00 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.25 to 6.25) or postoperative infection risk (risk ratio 1.33, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.11). These results are based on very low-certainty evidence, which was downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. There may be little or no difference in operative time between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement (MD 0.2 minutes, 95% CI -12.2 to 12.6); again, the certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. There may be little or no difference in scar outcomes at six months. Health-related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse outcomes were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review contains one randomised trial of hydrosurgery versus conventional debridement in a paediatric population with low percentage of total body surface area burn injuries. Based on the available trial data, there may be little or no difference between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement in terms of time to complete healing, postoperative infection, operative time, and scar outcomes at six months. These results are based on very low-certainty evidence. Further research evaluating these outcomes as well as health-related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse event outcomes is required.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Use of biological or synthetic mesh might improve outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-breast reconstruction with implants or expanders at the time of mastectomy-but there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the safety or effectiveness of the technique. We aimed to establish the short-term safety of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction performed with and without mesh, to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future randomised clinical trial comparing different breast reconstruction techniques. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we consecutively recruited women aged 16 years or older who had any type of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction for malignancy or risk reduction, with any technique, at 81 participating breast and plastic surgical units in the UK. Data about patient demographics and operative, oncological, and complication details were collected before and after surgery. Outcomes of interest were implant loss (defined as unplanned removal of the expander or implant), infection requiring treatment with antibiotics or surgery, unplanned return to theatre, and unplanned re-admission to hospital for complications of reconstructive surgery, up to 3 months after reconstruction and assessed by clinical review or patient self-report. Follow-up is complete. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN37664281. FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, 2108 patients had 2655 mastectomies with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction at 81 units across the UK. 1650 (78%) patients had planned single-stage reconstructions (including 12 patients who had a different technique per breast). 1376 (65%) patients had reconstruction with biological (1133 [54%]) or synthetic (243 [12%]) mesh, 181 (9%) had non-mesh submuscular or subfascial implants, 440 (21%) had dermal sling implants, 42 (2%) had pre-pectoral implants, and 79 (4%) had other or a combination of implants. 3-month outcome data were available for 2081 (99%) patients. Of these patients, 182 (9%, 95% CI 8-10) experienced implant loss, 372 (18%, 16-20) required re-admission to hospital, and 370 (18%, 16-20) required return to theatre for complications within 3 months of their initial surgery. 522 (25%, 95% CI 23-27) patients required treatment for an infection. The rates of all of these complications are higher than those in the National Quality Standards (<5% for re-operation, re-admission, and implant loss, and <10% for infection). INTERPRETATION: Complications after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction are higher than recommended by national standards. A randomised clinical trial is needed to establish the optimal approach to immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Association of Breast Surgery, and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

Cost-effectiveness of replacing versus discarding the nail in children with nail bed injury.

Every year in the UK, around 10 000 children need to have operations to mend injuries to the bed of their fingernails. Currently, most children have their fingernail placed back on the injured nail bed after the operation. The NINJA trial found that children were slightly less likely to have an infection if the nail was thrown away rather than being put back, but the difference between groups was small and could have be due to chance. This study looked at whether replacing the nail is cost-effective compared with throwing it away. Using data from the NINJA trial, we compared costs, healthcare use, and quality of life and assessed the cost-effectiveness of replacing the nail. It was found that throwing the nail away after surgery would save the National Health Service (NHS) £75 (€85) per operation compared with placing the nail back on the nail bed. Changing clinical practice could save the NHS in England £720 000 (€819 000) per year.

Smartphone applications for triaging adults with skin lesions that are suspicious for melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma accounts for a small proportion of all skin cancer cases but is responsible for most skin cancer-related deaths. Early detection and treatment can improve survival. Smartphone applications are readily accessible and potentially offer an instant risk assessment of the likelihood of malignancy so that the right people seek further medical attention from a clinician for more detailed assessment of the lesion. There is, however, a risk that melanomas will be missed and treatment delayed if the application reassures the user that their lesion is low risk. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone applications to rule out cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults with concerns about suspicious skin lesions. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies of any design evaluating smartphone applications intended for use by individuals in a community setting who have lesions that might be suspicious for melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants versus a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up and expert opinion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). Due to scarcity of data and poor quality of studies, we did not perform a meta-analysis for this review. For illustrative purposes, we plotted estimates of sensitivity and specificity on coupled forest plots for each application under consideration. MAIN RESULTS: This review reports on two cohorts of lesions published in two studies. Both studies were at high risk of bias from selective participant recruitment and high rates of non-evaluable images. Concerns about applicability of findings were high due to inclusion only of lesions already selected for excision in a dermatology clinic setting, and image acquisition by clinicians rather than by smartphone app users.We report data for five mobile phone applications and 332 suspicious skin lesions with 86 melanomas across the two studies. Across the four artificial intelligence-based applications that classified lesion images (photographs) as melanomas (one application) or as high risk or 'problematic' lesions (three applications) using a pre-programmed algorithm, sensitivities ranged from 7% (95% CI 2% to 16%) to 73% (95% CI 52% to 88%) and specificities from 37% (95% CI 29% to 46%) to 94% (95% CI 87% to 97%). The single application using store-and-forward review of lesion images by a dermatologist had a sensitivity of 98% (95% CI 90% to 100%) and specificity of 30% (95% CI 22% to 40%).The number of test failures (lesion images analysed by the applications but classed as 'unevaluable' and excluded by the study authors) ranged from 3 to 31 (or 2% to 18% of lesions analysed). The store-and-forward application had one of the highest rates of test failure (15%). At least one melanoma was classed as unevaluable in three of the four application evaluations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone applications using artificial intelligence-based analysis have not yet demonstrated sufficient promise in terms of accuracy, and they are associated with a high likelihood of missing melanomas. Applications based on store-and-forward images could have a potential role in the timely presentation of people with potentially malignant lesions by facilitating active self-management health practices and early engagement of those with suspicious skin lesions; however, they may incur a significant increase in resource and workload. Given the paucity of evidence and low methodological quality of existing studies, it is not possible to draw any implications for practice. Nevertheless, this is a rapidly advancing field, and new and better applications with robust reporting of studies could change these conclusions substantially.

The Efficacy and Safety of Tranexamic Acid in Cranio-Maxillofacial and Plastic Surgery.

The antifibrinolytic drug tranexamic acid (TXA) is effective in reducing blood loss and transfusion requirements in other fields of elective surgery and its use is emerging in a number of plastic surgical subspecialties. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of TXA in craniomaxillofacial, head and neck, breast, aesthetic, burns, and reconstructive microsurgery. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials of TXA in plastic surgery. Studies were analyzed using standard methodology. A total of 7965 records were screened, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria. Seven were suitable for meta-analysis. In craniofacial surgery, TXA was associated with a mean reduction in blood loss of 18.2 mL/kg (P = 0.00001) and a mean reduction in blood transfusion of 8.7 mL/kg (P = 0.0001). In orthognathic surgery, TXA was associated with a mean reduction in blood loss of 156 mL (P = 0.001). Tranexamic acid may also have a role in reducing drainage output volumes in oncological breast excision and lymph node dissection of the neck. Level-1 evidence for efficacy in aesthetic surgery, burns, and reconstructive microsurgery is lacking. Although no reported complications were attributable to TXA, there remain no phase IV trials published. Level-1 evidence supports the use of TXA in craniofacial and orthognathic surgery. There exists an unmet need for studies in areas, including burns, aesthetic surgery, and reconstructive microsurgery. Phase IV trials in areas of proven efficacy are also required.

Patient and healthcare professional perspectives on the Practical Guide to Implementing PROMs in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC): analysis of open-ended responses from patients and healthcare professionals.

IMPORTANCE: Several international calls have been made for evidence-based patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation for gender-affirming care. The Practical Guide to Implementing PROMs in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC) is a resource which can help guide PROM implementation efforts, developed using a three-phase participatory research approach with transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) patients and gender-affirming healthcare professionals. However, thoughts and perspectives from TGD patients and gender-affirming healthcare professionals on the PG-PROM-GAC need to be investigated. OBJECTIVE: Investigate patient and healthcare professional perspectives on the PG-PROM-GAC through analysis of open-ended survey results. DESIGN: Qualitative study analysing open-ended responses from TGD patients and gender-affirming healthcare professionals. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a UK National Health System (NHS) gender clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patients receiving care at an NHS gender clinic and healthcare professionals working at an NHS gender clinic were eligible for participation. Eligible participants were invited to participate in this study via email. INTERVENTION: Participants were sent an open-ended survey to collect responses on the PG-PROM-GAC. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data were thematically analysed by two independent researchers and interpreted following guidance from established methods in implementation science. RESULTS: A total of 64 TGD patients and 9 gender-affirming healthcare professionals responded to the open-ended survey (mean (SD) age: 35 (16) and 48 (8), respectively). Four main themes emerged from the data: overall opinions and support for the PG-PROM-GAC, presentation of the PG-PROM-GAC, impact of gender clinic resources on PROM implementation and impact of PROM selection on implementation. Data were used to iterate the PG-PROM-GAC in response to participant feedback. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The PG-PROM-GAC is an acceptable and feasible resource that can be used by clinicians, researchers and policymakers to guide PROM implementation for gender-affirming care settings, helping to align gender-affirming care with patient needs.

Implementing strategies to improve uptake of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in gender-affirming care: a mixed-methods implementation study.

IMPORTANCE: The Practical Guide to Implementing PROMs in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC) is an evidence-based resource, which was developed in response to international calls for improved patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation in gender-affirming care. The PG-PROM-GAC has the potential to improve PROM implementation; however, its real-world effectiveness has not yet been investigated. OBJECTIVE: Investigate effectiveness and fidelity of three implementation strategies from the PG-PROM-GAC in a real-world gender clinic setting. DESIGN: Interrupted time series mixed-methods study investigating response rates to a PROM deployed alongside implementation strategies from the PG-PROM-GAC; and open-ended feedback on the fidelity and effectiveness of implementation strategies. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a National Health Service (NHS) gender clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were being seen at an NHS gender clinic for an appointment during the study period, and were invited to participate in this study via email. INTERVENTION: Three implementation strategies from the PG-PROM-GAC deployed alongside a PROM. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Response rates were calculated at 2-week intervals, in line with the deployment of each implementation strategy. Open-ended responses were thematically analysed by two researchers following guidance from implementation science and interpretation from Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: A total of 28 participants were included in this study with a mean (SD) age of 39 (17) years. In general, participants rated education material for PROMs as the most important for PROM implementation, and accessibility options for PROMs as the second most important. Response rates to PROM completion dropped as the study progressed, as the burden of reviewing implementation strategies increased. Results were used to construct recommendations for future PROM implementation efforts. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The PG-PROM-GAC and implementation strategy materials developed from this study (ie, educational video on PROMs co-developed with key stakeholders) can be used by clinicians, researchers and policymakers to lead PROM implementation efforts in gender-affirming care.

Developing feasible and acceptable strategies for integrating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in gender-affirming care: An implementation study.

OBJECTIVE: Use CFIR guidance to create comprehensive, evidence-based, feasible, and acceptable gender-affirming care PROM implementation strategies. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A 3-Phase participatory process was followed to design feasible and acceptable strategies for integrating PROMs in gender-affirming care. In Phase 1, barriers and enablers to PROM implementation for gender-affirming care were identified from a previous systematic review and our prior qualitative study. We used the CFIR-ERIC tool to match previously identified barriers and enablers with expert-endorsed implementation strategies. In Phase 2, implementation strategy outputs from CFIR-ERIC were organised according to cumulative percentage value. In Phase 3, gender-affirming care PROM implementation strategies underwent iterative refinement based on rounds of stakeholder feedback with seven patient and public partners and a gender-affirming healthcare professional. RESULTS: The systematic review and qualitative study identified barriers and enablers to PROM implementation spanning all five CFIR domains, and 30 CFIR constructs. The top healthcare professional-relevant strategies to PROM implementation from the CFIR-ERIC output include: identifying and preparing implementation champions, collecting feedback on PROM implementation, and capturing and sharing local knowledge between clinics on implementation. Top patient-relevant strategies include: having educational material on PROMs, ensuring adaptability of PROMs, and collaborating with key local organisations who may be able to support patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed evidence-based, feasible, and acceptable strategies for integrating PROMs in gender-affirming care, representing evidence from a systematic review of 286 international articles, a qualitative study of 24 gender-affirming care patients and healthcare professionals, and iteration from 7 patient and public partners and a gender-affirming healthcare professional. The finalised strategies include patient- and healthcare professional-relevant strategies for implementing PROMs in gender-affirming care. Clinicians and researchers can select and tailor implementation strategies best applying to their gender-affirming care setting.

Practical guide to implementing patient-reported outcome measures in gender-affirming care: evaluating acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility.

OBJECTIVE: Assess acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the Practical Guide to Implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC) from a sample of patients and healthcare professionals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study conducted August-October 2023. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a National Health Service (NHS) gender clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patient participants seeking care and healthcare professionals working at an NHS gender clinic were eligible for participation. The PG-PROM-GAC was sent to participants via email for review. OUTCOME MEASURES: Three validated tools to measure acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility were administered: the acceptability of intervention measure (AIM), intervention appropriateness measure (IAM) and feasibility of intervention measure (FIM). The percentage of participants indicating agreement or disagreement with items on the AIM, IAM and FIM was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 132 transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients (mean age, SD: 33, 14) and 13 gender-affirming healthcare professionals (mean age, SD: 43, 11) completed the AIM, IAM and FIM, representing a range of gender identities. The cumulative percentage of patients indicating agree or strongly agree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the patient-relevant strategies in the PG-PROM-GAC was over 50% for each item. The cumulative percentage of patients indicating disagree or strongly disagree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the PG-PROM-GAC was less than 20% for each item. The cumulative percentage of healthcare professionals indicating agree or strongly agree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the healthcare professional-relevant strategies in the PG-PROM-GAC was over 38% for each item. The cumulative percentage of healthcare professionals indicating disagree or strongly disagree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the PG-PROM-GAC was less than 15% for each item. CONCLUSIONS: Gender-affirming healthcare professionals and TGD patients find the PG-PROM-GAC acceptable, appropriate and feasible. The PG-PROM-GAC is ready-to-use for clinicians, policy-makers and researchers committed to service improvement for gender-affirming care.

Bizarre parosteal osteochondromatous proliferation (Nora's lesion) of the hand: management of a rare clinical entity.

Bizarre parosteal osteochondromatous proliferation, or Nora's lesion, is a rare benign tumour of the bone, most commonly described in the hands and feet. We present the case of a female patient in her 20s attending the hand clinic with a sudden onset, atraumatic swelling on the proximal phalanx of her right ring finger. The patient retains good hand function and remains asymptomatic 3 months after surgical excision. Our case highlights the importance of being aware of this diagnosis and differentiating it from other malignant, as well as benign tumours of the hand.

Patient and healthcare professional perspectives on implementing patient-reported outcome measures in gender-affirming care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Patient and healthcare professional perspectives are needed to develop a gender-affirming care patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation plan. We aimed to identify top considerations relevant to gender-affirming care PROM implementation from patient and healthcare professional perspectives. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study conducted in the UK between January and April 2023 includes focus groups with a patient sample diverse in age and gender identity, and a healthcare professional sample diverse in age and role. Established methods in implementation science and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were used to create interview guides, and analyse data. Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed by two independent researchers. Patient and healthcare professional focus groups were conducted separately. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient and healthcare professional perspectives on PROM implementation were explored through focus groups and until data saturation. RESULTS: A total of 7 virtual focus groups were conducted with 24 participants (14 patients, mean (SD) age, 43 (14.5); 10 healthcare professionals, mean (SD) age, 46 (11.3)). From patient perspectives, key barriers to PROM implementation were mistrust with PROMs, lack of accessibility, burden, and lack of communication on why PROMs are important and how they will help care. From healthcare professional perspectives, key barriers to PROM implementation were lack of accessibility, burden with PROM administration and scoring, costs of implementation (financial and time), and lack of communication on what PROMs are and how they benefit service provision. CONCLUSION: Gender-affirming care PROM implementation must address: patient mistrust with PROMs, accessibility, communication on what PROMs are and how they can be used, reducing burden, and hybridised implementation. These factors may also be applicable to other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Gender-Affirming Care Worldwide: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Gender-affirming care is a key clinical area that can benefit from implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Identifying barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation is needed to develop an evidence-based implementation strategy. Objective: To identify (1) PROMs previously implemented for gender-affirming care and constructs measured, (2) how patients completed PROMs and how results were reported and used, and (3) barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation. Evidence Review: In this systematic review, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 25, 2021, and updated on December 16, 2022. Gray literature was searched through gray literature database, online search engine, and targeted website searching. Inclusion criteria were (1) original articles of (2) a formally developed PROM or ad hoc instrument administered for gender-affirming care to (3) patients accessing gender-affirming care. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to evaluate quality of included studies. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021233080). Findings: In total, 286 studies were included, representing 85 395 transgender and nonbinary patients from more than 30 countries. A total of 205 different PROMs were used in gender-affirming care. No studies described using an implementation science theory, model, or framework to support PROM deployment. Key barriers to PROM implementation included issues with evidence strength and quality of the PROM, engaging participants, and PROM complexity. Key enablers of PROM implementation included using PROMs validated for gender-affirming care, implementing PROMs able to be deployed online or in person, implementing PROMs that are shorter and reduce patient burden, engaging key stakeholders and participants as part of developing an implementation plan, and organizational climate. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation in gender-affirming care, PROM implementation was inconsistent and did not follow evidence-based approaches in implementation science. There was also a lack of patient input in creating implementation strategies, suggesting a need for patient-centered approaches to PROM implementation. Frameworks created from these results can be used to develop evidence-based PROM implementation initiatives for gender-affirming care and have potential generalizability for other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.

Primary treatment of type B post-axial ulnar polydactyly: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Optimal management of pedunculated ulnar polydactyly is not defined. This systematic review summarises objective and patient-reported outcomes following primary treatment. Two authors screened articles for inclusion according to a PROSPERO published protocol. The meta-analysis of adverse events was performed, and a narrative synthesis of satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes was reported. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's ROBINS-I tool. Of 1650 articles identified, 15 were eligible, including 13 single-arm and 2 multi-arm studies. Complications were 6 times as likely with ligation procedures (22%), compared to surgical removal (1%) whether this was performed in the outpatient setting or operating theatre (OR 6.89 [95% CI 1.73, 27]). Parent-reported satisfaction was high for all treatments. Studies were at high risk of bias and low methodological quality. Outcome measurement and follow-up were heterogenous. Well-designed prospective observational and experimental studies are required to inform practice, incorporating clinician and parent-reported outcomes and economic analyses. Level of evidence: I.

Open tibia/fibula in the elderly: A retrospective cohort study.

The incidence of open tibia/fibula fractures in the elderly is increasing, but current national guidelines focus on the aggressive treatment of high-energy injuries in younger patients. There is conflicting evidence regarding whether older age affects treatment provision and outcomes in open fractures. The aim of this study was to determine if elderly patients are sustaining a different injury to younger patients and how their treatment and outcomes differ. This may have implications for future guidelines and verify their application in the elderly. In this retrospective single centre cohort study (December 2015-July 2018), we compared the injury characteristics, operative management and outcomes of elderly (≥65 years) and younger (18-65 years) patients with open tibia/fibula fractures. An extended cohort examined free flap reconstruction. In total, 157 patients were included. High-energy injuries were commoner in younger patients (88% vs 37%; p<0.001). Most were Gustilo-Anderson IIIb in both age groups. Elderly patients waited longer until debridement (21:19 vs 19:00 h) and had longer inpatient stays (23 vs 15 days). There was no difference in time to antibiotics, operative approach or post-operative complications. Despite the low-energy nature of elderly patients' injuries, the severity of soft tissue insult was equivalent to younger patients with high-energy injuries. Our data suggest that age and co-morbidities should not prohibit lower limb reconstruction. The current application of generic guidelines appears suitable in the elderly, particularly in the acute management. We suggest current management pathways and targets be reviewed to reflect the greater need for peri-operative optimisation and rehabilitation in elderly patients.