Magnetic resonance imaging, knee arthroscopy, and clinical decision making: a descriptive study of five surgeons.

OBJECTIVES: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed magnetic resonance imaging for patients waiting for knee arthroscopy did not reduce the number of arthroscopies. Our study aimed to identify decisions made by orthopedic surgeons about whether patients on a waiting list should proceed to arthroscopy, and to describe surgeons' decisions. METHODS: Five surgeons were asked to Think Aloud (TA) as they made their decisions for twelve patients from the original RCT. Audiotapes of the decision making were transcribed for analysis. RESULTS: For five patients, surgeons agreed about proceeding with arthroscopy, although reasoning differed. In no cases did surgeons agree about not proceeding to arthroscopy. Agreement was more likely in patients with clinically diagnosed meniscal abnormality, and less likely in patients with osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons' decisions were influenced by patient wishes. For some patients, the decision to proceed with arthroscopy was based solely on clinical diagnosis; MRI may not be advantageous in these instances. Surgeons disagreed more often than they agreed about the decision to proceed with arthroscopy, particularly when OA was diagnosed. This has implications for decision making in the current NHS patient choice environment. Patients may choose a treatment provider from a list of available providers at time of original clinical assessment and diagnosis. The treating surgeon does not necessarily re-examine the patient until the day of surgery. Given the variation between surgeons about the merits of proceeding with arthroscopy, surgeons may end up in the invidious position of providing surgery to patients whom they do not believe will benefit from arthroscopy.

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is not always caught on the orthopaedic ward.

We report the prevalence and incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation during the patient journey for patients admitted to orthopaedic and trauma wards. Patients were swabbed for MRSA colonisation on admission, transfer, and discharge from hospital. Elective patients undergoing major joint surgery were also swabbed at a pre-operative assessment clinic. Of the 559 patients admitted, 323 (101 elective, 192 trauma and 30 non-orthopaedic) were included in the study. Of these, 27 elective (27%), 41 trauma (21%), and seven non-orthopaedic (23%) patients were colonised with MRSA at any time during the audit period. There is a high prevalence of MRSA colonisation in patients admitted to the orthopaedic and trauma wards in our setting. A policy of pre-admission screening, though able to identify MRSA carriage, does not guarantee that patients are not colonised in the period between screening and admission. We suggest to screen for MRSA all patients admitted to an orthopaedic ward.

WITHDRAWN: Interventions for treating calcaneal fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fracture of the calcaneus (os calcis or heel bone) comprises one to two per cent of all fractures. OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate randomised trials of treatments for calcaneal fractures. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group Trials Register were searched. We checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted trialists and experts in the field. Date of the most recent search: October 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing interventions for treating patients with calcaneal fractures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality, using a 12 item scale, and extracted data. Wherever appropriate and possible, results were pooled. MAIN RESULTS: Of the six relevant randomised trials identified, four were included, one excluded and one is ongoing.All four included trials had methodological flaws.Three trials, involving 134 patients, compared open reduction and internal fixation with non-operative management of displaced intra-articular fractures. Pooled results showed no apparent difference in residual pain (24/40 versus 24/42; Peto odds ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 2.36), but a lower proportion of the operative group was unable to return to the same work (11/45 versus 23/45; Peto odds ratio 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.71), and was unable to wear the same shoes as before (12/52 versus 24/54; Peto odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.84).One trial, involving 23 patients, evaluated impulse compression therapy. At one year there was a mean difference of 1.40 pain units on a visual analogue score (scale 0-10) (95% confidence interval 0.02 to 2.82) in favour of the treated group. The impulse compression group had greater subtalar movement (mean difference 14.0 degrees, 95% confidence interval 3.2 to 24.6) at three months. On average, patients in the impulse compression group returned to work three months earlier than those in the control group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomised trials of management of calcaneal fractures are few, small and generally of poor quality.Even where there is some evidence of benefit of operative compared with non-operative treatment, it remains unclear whether the possible advantages of surgery are worth its risks. Given this it seems best to wait for the results of one large ongoing trial on open reduction and internal fixation against conservative treatment.One very small trial suggests that impulse compression therapy for intra-articular calcaneal fractures may be beneficial.More large-scale, high quality randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm these results, and to test other interventions in the treatment of calcaneal fractures.

The effect of magnetic resonance imaging scans on knee arthroscopy: randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients waiting for knee arthroscopy could reduce arthroscopy rates and improve patient outcome. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in a teaching hospital setting. All participating patients had knee MRI before arthroscopy. In the intervention group the MRI report was seen by surgeons, and in the control group it was not. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who did not have an arthroscopy. Secondary outcome measures included the Short Form 36, EuroQol EQ-5D, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score, and Knee Society Score. RESULTS: Surgeons changed both their diagnosis and management plan in 47% of patients in the intervention group compared with 1% in the control group, with no difference between groups in the proportion of patients who underwent an arthroscopy. In the intervention group 7 of 125 patients (5.6%) did not have an arthroscopy compared with 8 of 127 patients (6.3%) in the control group. In one instance a surgeon decided against arthroscopy based on the MRI report. There was no significant difference between groups in other outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: We found no effect of MRI on the decision to perform arthroscopy or patient outcome. Performing MRI in patients already on the waiting list for arthroscopy may not be effective in reducing utilization of surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic randomized controlled trial with no statistically significant difference but with narrow confidence intervals.

Magnetic resonance imaging versus arthroscopy in the diagnosis of knee pathology, concentrating on meniscal lesions and ACL tears: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is of great aid in the diagnosis of knee lesions. Most diagnostic studies comparing MRI and arthroscopy have shown good diagnostic performance in detecting lesions of the menisci and cruciate ligaments. Nevertheless, arthroscopy has remained the reference standard for the diagnosis of internal derangements of the knee, against which alternative diagnostic modalities should be compared. METHODS: We took arthroscopy to be the 'gold standard', and we undertook a systematic review of MRI and arthroscopy in the diagnosis of internal derangements of the knee. We used Coleman scoring methodology to identify scientifically sound articles in a reproducible format. RESULTS: MRI is highly accurate in diagnosing meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. It is the most appropriate screening tool before therapeutic arthroscopy. It is preferable to diagnostic arthroscopy in most patients because it avoids the surgical risks of arthroscopy. The results of MRI differ for medial and lateral meniscus and ACL, with only 85% accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Study design characteristics should also be taken into account whenever a study on MRI assessing its diagnostic performance is designed or reviewed.

Total knee arthroplasty: good agreement of clinical severity scores between patients and consultants.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 20,000 patients per year in the UK receive total knee arthroplasty (TKA). One of the problems faced by the health services of many developed countries is the length of time patients spend waiting for elective treatment. We therefore report the results of a study in which the Salisbury Priority Scoring System (SPSS) was used by both the surgeon and their patients to ascertain whether there were differences between the surgeon generated and patient generated Salisbury Priority Scores. METHODS: The Salisbury Priority Scoring System (SPSS) was used to assign relative priority to patients with knee osteoarthritis as part of a randomised controlled trial comparing the standard medial parapatellar approach versus the sub-vastus approach in TKA. The operating surgeons and each patient completed the SPSS at the same pre-assessment clinic. The SPSS assesses four criteria, namely progression of disease, pain or distress, disability or dependence on others, and loss of usual occupation. Crosstabs and agreement measures (Cohen's kappa) were performed. RESULTS: Overall, the four SPSS criteria showed a kappa value of 0.526, 0.796, 0.813, and 0.820, respectively, showing moderate to very good agreement between the patient and the operating consultant. Male patients showed better agreement than female patients. CONCLUSION: The Salisbury Priority Scoring System is a good means of assessing patients' needs in relation to elective surgery, with high agreement between the patient and the operating surgeon.

Psychosexual health 5 years after hysterectomy: population-based comparison with endometrial ablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

BACKGROUND: We report a population-based comparison of psychosexual health 5 years after contrasting amounts of surgical treatments for heavy periods [dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB)]. Women's fears about sexual function after hysterectomy might not be unfounded. The psychosexual problems may return and/or develop with time. The removal of ovaries at the time of hysterectomy is associated with greater deterioration of self-reported sexual function. Surgical menopause significantly impairs sexual wellbeing. We failed to observe uniform beneficial effects of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on reported psychosexual health. OBJECTIVE: To compare self-reported bothersome sexual function; loss of interest in sex, difficulty in becoming sexually excited and vaginal dryness 5 years after surgical management of DUB [transcervical endometrial resection/ablation (TCRE) or subtotal and total hysterectomy, with and without prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy (BO)]. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study up to 5 years post-surgery for DUB, TCRE or hysterectomy, with or without BO. SETTING: Over 400 NHS and private hospitals in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. COHORT: Of 11,325 women who responded to the 5-year questionnaire, over 9500 (84%) were valid cases, and over 8900 (94%) did complete the questions relating to psychosexual function. Most were between the ages of 39 and 45 years, married or cohabiting. MAIN OUTCOMES: Self-reported experience of bother, recorded as 'some', 'severe' and 'extreme', to questions on (1) libido loss, (2) difficulty with sexual arousal, and (3) vaginal dryness during the past 4 weeks, 5 years after surgery. RESULTS: Five years after surgery for DUB, the crude and adjusted prevalence of psychosexual problems was higher after hysterectomy than after TCRE. Amongst the women with concurrent BO, the age- and HRT-adjusted odds ratios for extreme psychosexual problems were increased by 80% (libido loss), 82% (difficult sex arousal) and 69% (vaginal dryness) compared with TCRE. CONCLUSIONS: Five years after hysterectomy more women reported having bothersome psychosexual function than did the women who had a less invasive operation. Hormone therapy, although related to surgical method, did not reduce this long-term detrimental effect. The odds were particularly high amongst women with concurrent BO. Women should be advised that they might be at higher risk of psychosexual problems following hysterectomy, compared with a less invasive procedure.

The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in the abdominal trial, and laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy in the vaginal trial. DESIGN: Two parallel, multicentre, randomised trials. SETTING: 28 UK centres and two South African centres. PARTICIPANTS: 1380 women were recruited; 1346 had surgery; 937 were followed up at one year. Primary outcome Rate of major complications. RESULTS: In the abdominal trial laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy (11.1% v 6.2%, P = 0.02; difference 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0.9% to 9.1%) and the number needed to treat to harm was 20. Laparoscopic hysterectomy also took longer to perform (84 minutes v 50 minutes) but was less painful (visual analogue scale 3.51 v 3.88, P = 0.01) and resulted in a shorter stay in hospital after the operation (3 days v 4 days). Six weeks after the operation, laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with less pain and better quality of life than abdominal hysterectomy (SF-12, body image scale, and sexual activity questionnaires). In the vaginal trial we found no evidence of a difference in major complication rates between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy (9.8% v 9.5%, P = 0.92; difference 0.3%, -5.2% to 5.8%), and the number needed to treat to harm was 333. We found no evidence of other differences between laparoscopic hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy except that laparoscopic hysterectomy took longer to perform (72 minutes v 39 minutes) and was associated with a higher rate of detecting unexpected pathology (16.4% v 4.8%, P = < 0.01). However, this trial was underpowered. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a significantly higher rate of major complications than abdominal hysterectomy. It also took longer to perform but was associated with less pain, quicker recovery, and better short term quality of life. The trial comparing vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy was underpowered and is inconclusive on the rate of major complications; however, vaginal hysterectomy took less time.

Practical aspects of randomization and blinding in randomized clinical trials.

Randomization and blinding are important tools in determining the effectiveness of a new intervention and ensuring the validity of a clinical trial. However, randomness and haphazardness are not equivalent. Randomization cannot overcome poor experimental design or technique. Several types of randomization including historical controls and pseudorandomization are discussed, as well as methods of treatment allocation, stratification, and minimization techniques. The importance of decreasing bias and the advantages and disadvantages of blinding in randomized clinical trials are also covered.