Are Commonly Used Geographically Based Social Determinant of Health Indices in Orthopaedic Surgery Research Correlated With Each Other and With PROMIS Global-10 Physical and Mental Health Scores?

BACKGROUND: Geographically based social determinants of health (SDoH) measures are useful in research and policy aimed at addressing health disparities. In the United States, the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), Neighborhood Stress Score (NSS), and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) are frequently used, but often without a clear reason as to why one is chosen over another. There is limited evidence about how strongly correlated these geographically based SDoH measures are with one another. Further, there is a paucity of research examining their relationship with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in orthopaedic patients. Such insights are important in order to determine whether comparisons of policies and care programs using different geographically based SDoH indices to address health disparities in orthopaedic surgery are appropriate. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among new patients seeking care at an orthopaedic surgery clinic, (1) what is the correlation of the NSS, ADI, and SVI with one another? (2) What is the correlation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-10 physical and mental health scores and the NSS, ADI, and SVI? (3) Which geographically based SDoH index or indices are associated with presenting PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores when accounting for common patient-level sociodemographic factors? METHODS: New adult orthopaedic patient encounters at clinic sites affiliated with a tertiary referral academic medical center between 2016 and 2021 were identified, and the ADI, NSS, and SVI were determined. Patients also completed the PROMIS Global-10 questionnaire as part of routine care. Overall, a total of 75,335 new patient visits were noted. Of these, 62% (46,966 of 75,335) of new patient visits were excluded because of missing PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores. An additional 2.2% of patients (1685 of 75,335) were excluded because they were missing at least one SDoH index at the time of their visit (for example, if a patient only had a Post Office box listed, the SDoH index could not be determined). This left 35% of the eligible new patient visits (26,684 of 75,335) in our final sample. Though only 35% of possible new patient visits were included, the diversity of these individuals across numerous characteristics and the wide range of sociodemographic status-as measured by the SDoH indices-among included patients supports the generalizability of our sample. The mean age of patients in our sample was 55 ± 18 years and a slight majority were women (54% [14,366 of 26,684]). Among the sample, 16% (4381of 26,684) of patients were of non-White race. The mean PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores were 43.4 ± 9.4 and 49.7 ± 10.1, respectively. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated among the three SDoH indices and between each SDoH index and PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores. In addition, regression analysis was used to assess the association of each SDoH index with presenting functional and mental health, accounting for key patient characteristics. The strength of the association between each SDoH index and PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores was determined using partial r-squared values. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: There was a poor correlation between the ADI and the NSS (ρ = 0.34; p < 0.001). There were good correlations between the ADI and SVI (ρ = 0.43; p < 0.001) and between the NSS and SVI (ρ = 0.59; p < 0.001). There was a poor correlation between the PROMIS Global-10 physical health and NSS (ρ = -0.14; p < 0.001), ADI (ρ = -0.24; p < 0.001), and SVI (ρ = -0.17; p < 0.001). There was a poor correlation between PROMIS Global-10 mental health and NSS (ρ = -0.13; p < 0.001), ADI (ρ = -0.22; p < 0.001), and SVI (ρ = -0.17; p < 0.001). When accounting for key sociodemographic factors, the ADI demonstrated the largest association with presenting physical health (regression coefficient: -0.13 [95% CI -0.14 to -0.12]; p < 0.001) and mental health (regression coefficient: -0.13 [95% CI -0.14 to -0.12]; p < 0.001), as confirmed by the partial r-squared values for each SDoH index (physical health: ADI 0.04 versus SVI 0.02 versus NSS 0.01; mental health: ADI 0.04 versus SVI 0.02 versus NSS 0.01). This finding means that as social deprivation increases, physical and mental health scores decrease, representing poorer health. For further context, an increase in ADI score by approximately 36 and 39 suggests a clinically meaningful (determined using distribution-based minimum clinically important difference estimates of one-half SD of each PROMIS score) worsening of physical and mental health, respectively. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic surgeons, policy makers, and other stakeholders looking to address SDoH factors to help alleviate disparities in musculoskeletal care should try to avoid interchanging the ADI, SVI, and NSS. Because the ADI has the largest association between any of the geographically based SDoH indices and presenting physical and mental health, it may allow for easier clinical and policy application. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We suggest using the ADI as the geographically based SDoH index in orthopaedic surgery in the United States. Further, we caution against comparing findings in one study that use one geographically based SDoH index to another study's findings that incorporates another geographically based SDoH index. Although the general findings may be the same, the strength of association and clinical relevance could differ and have policy ramifications that are not otherwise appreciated; however, the degree to which this may be true is an area for future inquiry.

Posterolateral or direct lateral approach for cemented hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fracture (APOLLO): protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation and natural experiment alongside.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The posterolateral and direct lateral surgical approach are the 2 most common surgical approaches for performing a hemiarthroplasty in patients with a hip fracture. It is unknown which surgical approach is preferable in terms of (cost-)effectiveness and quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We designed a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an economic evaluation and a natural experiment (NE) alongside. We will include 555 patients ≥ 18 years with an acute femoral neck fracture. The primary outcome is patient-reported health-related quality of life assessed with the EQ-5D-5L. Secondary outcomes include healthcare costs, complications, mortality, and balance (including fear of falling, actual falls, and injuries due to falling). An economic evaluation will be performed for quality adjusted life years (QALYs). We will use variable block randomization stratified for hospital. For continuous outcomes, we will use linear mixed-model analysis. Dichotomous secondary outcome measures will be analyzed using chi-square statistics and logistic regression models. Primary analyses are based on the intention-to-treat principle. Additional as treated analyses will be performed to evaluate the effect of protocol deviations. Study summary: (i) Largest RCT addressing the health-related patient outcome of the main surgical approaches of hemiarthroplasty. (ii) Focus on outcomes that are important for the patient. (iii) Pragmatic and inclusive RCT with few exclusion criteria, e.g., patients with dementia can participate. (iv) Natural experiment alongside to amplify the generalizability. (v) The first study conducting a costutility analysis comparing both surgical approaches.

Is There An Association Between Bundled Payments and "Cherry Picking" and "Lemon Dropping" in Orthopaedic Surgery? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The goal of bundled payments-lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event-is to provide a reimbursement structure that incentivizes improved value for patients. There is concern that such a payment mechanism may lead to patient screening and denying or providing orthopaedic care to patients based on the number and severity of comorbid conditions present associated with complications after surgery. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about whether such an association exists. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (2) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the comorbidities and/or case-complexity characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (3) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the recent use of healthcare resources characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? METHODS: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection (CRD42020189416). Our systematic review included scientific manuscripts published in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Econlit, Policyfile, and Google Scholar through March 2020. Of the 30 studies undergoing full-text review, 20 were excluded because they did not evaluate the outcome of interest (patient selection) (n = 8); were editorial, commentary, or review articles (n = 5); did not evaluate the appropriate intervention (introduction of a bundled payment program) (n = 4); or assessed the wrong patient population (not orthopaedic surgery patients) (n = 3). This led to 10 studies included in this systematic review. For each study, patient factors analyzed in the included studies were grouped into the following three categories: sociodemographics, comorbidities and/or case complexity, or recent use of healthcare resources characteristics. Next, each patient factor falling into one of these three categories was examined to evaluate for changes from before to after implementation of a bundled payment initiative. In most cases, studies utilized a difference-in-difference (DID) statistical technique to assess for changes. Determination of whether the bundled payment initiative required mandatory participation or not was also noted. Scientific quality using the Adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale had a median (range) score of 8 (7 to 8; highest possible score: 9), and the quality of the total body of evidence for each patient characteristic group was found to be low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We could not assess the likelihood of publication using funnel plots because of the variation of patient factors analyzed in each study and the heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the nine included studies that reported on the sociodemographic characteristics of patients selected for care, seven showed no change with the implementation of bundled payments, and two demonstrated a difference. Most notably, the studies identified a decrease in the percentage of patients undergoing an orthopaedic operative intervention who were dual-eligible (range DID estimate -0.4% [95% CI -0.75% to -0.1%]; p < 0.05 to DID estimate -1.0% [95% CI -1.7% to -0.2%]; p = 0.01), which means they qualified for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance coverage. Of the 10 included studies that reported on comorbidities and case-complexity characteristics, six reported no change in such characteristics with the implementation of bundled payments, and four studies noted differences. Most notably, one study showed a decrease in the number of treated patients with disabilities (DID estimate -0.6% [95% CI -0.97% to -0.18%]; p < 0.05) compared with before bundled payment implementation, while another demonstrated a lower number of Elixhauser comorbidities for those treated as part of a bundled payment program (before: score of 0-1 in 63.6%, 2-3 in 27.9%, > 3 in 8.5% versus after: score of 0-1 in 50.1%, 2-3 in 38.7%, > 3 in 11.2%; p = 0.033). Of the three included studies that reported on the recent use of healthcare resources of patients, one study found no difference in the use of healthcare resources with the implementation of bundled payments, and two studies did find differences. Both studies found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at a skilled nursing facility (range DID estimate -0.50% [95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%]; p = 0.04 to DID estimate: -0.53% [95% CI -0.96% to -0.10%]; p = 0.01), while one of the studies also found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at an acute care hospital (DID estimate -0.8% [95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%]; p = 0.03) or as part of home healthcare (DID estimate -1.3% [95% CI -2.0% to -0.6%]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In six of 10 studies in which differences in patient characteristics were detected among those undergoing operative orthopaedic intervention once a bundled payment program was initiated, the effect was found to be minimal (approximately 1% or less). However, our findings still suggest some level of adverse patient selection, potentially worsening health inequities when considered on a large scale. It is also possible that our findings reflect better care, whereby the financial incentives lead to fewer patients with a high risk of complications undergoing surgical intervention and vice versa for patients with a low risk of complications postoperatively. However, this is a fine line, and it may also be that patients with a high risk of complications postoperatively are not being offered surgery enough, while patients at low risk of complications postoperatively are being offered surgery too frequently. Evaluation of the longer-term effect of these preliminary bundled payment programs on patient selection is warranted to determine whether adverse patient selection changes over time as health systems and orthopaedic surgeons become accustomed to such reimbursement models.

Study protocol: Effectiveness of dual-mobility cups compared with uni-polar cups for preventing dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients - design of a randomized controlled trial nested in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry.

Background and purpose - Dislocation is the leading reason for early revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The dual-mobility (DM) cup was developed to provide more stability and mechanically reduce the risk of dislocation. Despite the increased use of DM cups, high-quality evidence of their (cost-)effectiveness is lacking. The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate whether there is a difference in the number of hip dislocations following primary THA, using the posterolateral approach, with a DM cup compared with a unipolar (UP) cup in elderly patients 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include the number of revision surgeries, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and cost-effectiveness.Methods and analysis - This is a prospective multicenter nationwide, single-blinded RCT nested in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry. Patients ≥ 70 years old, undergoing elective primary THA using the posterolateral approach, will be eligible. After written informed consent, 1,100 participants will be randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. The intervention group receives a THA with a DM cup and the control group a THA with a UP cup. PROMs are collected preoperatively, and 3 months, 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Primary outcome is the difference in number of dislocations between the UP and DM cup within 1 year, reported in the registry (revisions), or by the patients (closed or open reduction). Data will be analyzed using multilevel models as appropriate for each outcome (linear/logistic/survival). An economic evaluation will be performed from the healthcare and societal perspective, for dislocation and quality adjusted life years (QALYs).Trial registration - This RCT is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov with identification number NCT04031820.

Can dual mobility cups prevent dislocation without increasing revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation is one of the leading causes for early revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). To address this problem, the dual mobility (DM) cup was developed in the 1970s by the French. Despite the increased and, in some countries, broad use of DM cups, high quality evidence of their effectiveness compared to traditional unipolar (UP) cups is lacking. There are a few well-conducted literature reviews, but the level of evidence of the included studies was moderate to low and the rates of revision were not specifically investigated. Therefore, we did a systematic review to investigate whether there is a difference in the rate of dislocations and revisions after primary THA with a DM cup or a UP cup. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases in July 2019. The articles were selected based upon their quality, relevance and measurement of the predictive factor. We used the MINORS criteria to determine the methodological quality of all studies. RESULTS: The initial search resulted in 702 citations. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, eight articles met our eligibility criteria and were graded. Included studies were of medium to low methodological quality with a mean score of 14/24 (11-16) points following the MINORS criteria. In the case-control studies, a total of 549 DM cups and 649 UP cups were included. In the registry studies, a total of 5.935 DM cups and 217.362 UP cups were included. In the case-control studies, one (0.2%) dislocation was reported for the DM cups and 46 (7.1%) for the UP cup (p=0.009, IQR=0.00-7.00). Nine (1.6%) revisions, of which zero due to dislocation, were reported for the DM cup and 39 (6.0%), of which 30 due to dislocation, for the UP cup (p=0.046, CI=-16.93-5.73). In the registry studies 161 (2.7%) revisions were reported for the DM cup, of which 14 (8.7%) due to dislocation. For the UP cup, 3.332 (1.5%) revisions were reported (p=0.275, IQR=41.00-866.25), of which 1.093 (32.8%) due to dislocation (p=0.050, IQR=3.50-293.25). CONCLUSION: This review suggests lower rates of dislocation and lower rates of revision for dislocation in favor of the DM cups. Concluding, DM cups might be an effective solution to reduce dislocation in primary THA. To evaluate the efficacy of DM cups compared to UP cups, an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial is needed focusing on patient important endpoints. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, systematic review of level III studies.

How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare? A trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether physical therapy (PT) is cost-effective compared with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in patients with a non-obstructive meniscal tear, we performed a full trial-based economic evaluation from a societal perspective. In a secondary analysis-this paper-we examined whether PT is non-inferior to APM. METHODS: We recruited patients aged 45-70 years with a non-obstructive meniscal tear in nine Dutch hospitals. Resource use was measured using web-based questionnaires. Measures of effectiveness included knee function using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Follow-up was 24 months. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping techniques. The non-inferiority margins for societal costs, the IKDC and QALYs, were €670, 8 points and 0.057 points, respectively. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 321 patients to PT (n=162) or APM (n=159). PT was associated with significantly lower costs after 24 months compared with APM (-€1803; 95% CI -€3008 to -€838). The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was 1.00 at a willingness to pay of €0/unit of effect for the IKDC (knee function) and QALYs (quality of life) and decreased with increasing values of willingness to pay. The probability that PT is non-inferior to APM was 0.97 for all non-inferiority margins for the IKDC and 0.89 for QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was relatively high at reasonable values of willingness to pay for the IKDC and QALYs. Also, PT had a relatively high probability of being non-inferior to APM for both outcomes. This warrants further deimplementation of APM in patients with non-obstructive meniscal tears. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01850719 and NTR3908.

Comparative Analysis of Impairment Ratings From the 5th to 6th Editions of the AMA Guides.

OBJECTIVE: The association of American Medical Association's (AMA) Guides edition with impairment ratings is uncertain. METHODS: We used data from a consecutive sample of 249 injured workers referred for an independent evaluation 10 months before and after assessors switched from the 5th to the 6th edition of the AMA Guides. RESULTS: The median whole person impairment rating was 7.0% (interquartile range [IQR]: 4 to 14) for 131 claimants assessed with the 5th edition of the Guides, and 4.0% (IQR: 2 to 8) for 118 claimants assessed with the 6th edition (P-value for difference: 0.002). Multivariable analysis showed a 36.4% relative reduction (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.2% to 57.3%) in impairment rating with the 6th edition of the Guides versus the 5th edition. CONCLUSIONS: The 6th edition of the AMA Guides provides systematically lower impairment ratings for injured workers than the 5th edition.

Cost-effectiveness of Early Surgery versus Conservative Treatment with Optional Delayed Meniscectomy for Patients over 45†years with non-obstructive meniscal tears (ESCAPE study): protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies show similar outcome between surgery and conservative treatment in patients with non-obstructive meniscal tears. However, surgery is still often preferred over conservative treatment. When conservative treatment is non-inferior to surgery, shifting the current standard treatment choice to conservative treatment alone could save over €30 millions of direct medical costs on an annual basis. Economic evaluation studies comparing surgery to conservative treatment are lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an economic evaluation alongside was performed to assess the (cost)-effectiveness of surgery and conservative treatment for meniscal tears. We will include 402 participants between 45 and 70 years with an MRI-confirmed symptomatic, non-obstructive meniscal tears to prove non-inferiority of conservative treatment. Block randomisation will be web-based. The primary outcome measure is a physical function, measured by the International Knee Documentation Committee 'Subjective Knee Form'. Furthermore, we will perform a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis from societal perspective and a budget impact analysis from a societal, government and insurer perspective. Secondary outcomes include general health, quality of life, activity level, knee pain, physical examination, progression of osteoarthritis and the occurrence of adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This RCT will be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the Ethics Committee (number NL44188.100.13). The results of this study will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences. We further aim to disseminate our results to guideline committees. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01850719.

Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging versus bone scintigraphy for clinically suspected scaphoid fractures in patients with negative plain radiographs.

BACKGROUND: In clinically suspected scaphoid fractures, early diagnosis reduces the risk of non-union and minimises loss in productivity resulting from unnecessary cast immobilisation. Since initial radiographs do not exclude the possibility of a fracture, additional imaging is needed. Computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone scintigraphy (BS) are widely used to establish a definitive diagnosis, but there is uncertainty about the most appropriate method. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study is to identify the most suitable diagnostic imaging strategy for identifying clinically suspected fractures of the scaphoid bone in patients with normal radiographs. Therefore we looked at the diagnostic performance characteristics of the most used imaging modalities for this purpose: computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and bone scintigraphy. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. In September 2012, we searched MEDION, ARIF, Current Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, conference proceedings and reference lists of all articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all prospective or retrospective studies involving a consecutive series of patients of all ages that evaluated the accuracy of BS, CT or MRI, or any combination of these, for diagnosing suspected scaphoid fractures. We considered the use of one or two index tests or six-week follow-up radiographs as adequate reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text reports of potentially eligible studies. The same authors extracted data from full-text reports and assessed methodological quality using the QUADAS checklist. For each index test, estimates of sensitivity and specificity from each study were plotted in ROC space; and forest plots were constructed for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. We performed meta-analyses using the HSROC model to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies that looked at diagnostic accuracy of one or two index tests: four studies (277 suspected fractures) looked at CT, five studies (221 suspected fractures) looked at MRI and six studies (543 suspected fractures) looked at BS. Four of the studies made direct comparisons: two studies compared CT and MRI, one study compared CT and BS, and one study compared MRI and BS. Overall, the studies were of moderate to good quality, but relevant clinical information during evaluation of CT, MRI or BS was mostly unclear or unavailable.As few studies made direct comparisons between tests with the same participants, our results are based on data from indirect comparisons, which means that these results are more susceptible to bias due to confounding. Nonetheless, the direct comparisons showed similar patterns of differences in sensitivity and specificity as for the pooled indirect comparisons.Summary sensitivity and specificity of CT were 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.92) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.00); for MRI, these were 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.97) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.00); for BS, these were 0.99 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.00) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.94). Indirect comparisons suggest that diagnostic accuracy of BS was significantly higher than CT and MRI; and CT and MRI have comparable diagnostic accuracy. The low prevalence of a true fracture among suspected fractures (median = 20%) means the lower specificity for BS is problematic. For example, in a cohort of 1000 patients, 112 will be over-treated when BS is used for diagnosis. If CT is used, only 8 will receive unnecessary treatment. In terms of missed fractures, BS will miss 2 fractures and CT will miss 56 fractures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although quality of the included studies is moderate to good, findings are based on only 11 studies and the confidence intervals for the summary estimates are wide for all three tests. Well-designed direct comparison studies including CT, MRI and BS could give valuable additional information.Bone scintigraphy is statistically the best diagnostic modality to establish a definitive diagnosis in clinically suspected fractures when radiographs appear normal. However, physicians must keep in mind that BS is more invasive than the other modalities, with safety issues due to level of radiation exposure, as well as diagnostic delay of at least 72 hours. The number of overtreated patients is substantially lower with CT and MRI.Prior to performing comparative studies, there is a need to raise the initially detected prevalence of true fractures in order to reduce the effect of the relatively low specificity in daily practice. This can be achieved by improving clinical evaluation and initial radiographical assessment.

HUMeral shaft fractures: measuring recovery after operative versus non-operative treatment (HUMMER): a multicenter comparative observational study.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the humeral shaft are associated with a profound temporary (and in the elderly sometimes even permanent) impairment of independence and quality of life. These fractures can be treated operatively or non-operatively, but the optimal tailored treatment is an unresolved problem. As no high-quality comparative randomized or observational studies are available, a recent Cochrane review concluded there is no evidence of sufficient scientific quality available to inform the decision to operate or not. Since randomized controlled trials for this injury have shown feasibility issues, this study is designed to provide the best achievable evidence to answer this unresolved problem. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate functional recovery after operative versus non-operative treatment in adult patients who sustained a humeral shaft fracture. Secondary aims include the effect of treatment on pain, complications, generic health-related quality of life, time to resumption of activities of daily living and work, and cost-effectiveness. The main hypothesis is that operative treatment will result in faster recovery. METHODS/DESIGN: The design of the study will be a multicenter prospective observational study of 400 patients who have sustained a humeral shaft fracture, AO type 12A or 12B. Treatment decision (i.e., operative or non-operative) will be left to the discretion of the treating surgeon. Critical elements of treatment will be registered and outcome will be monitored at regular intervals over the subsequent 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. Secondary outcome measures are the Constant score, pain level at both sides, range of motion of the elbow and shoulder joint at both sides, radiographic healing, rate of complications and (secondary) interventions, health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36 and EuroQol-5D), time to resumption of ADL/work, and cost-effectiveness. Data will be analyzed using univariate and multivariable analyses (including mixed effects regression analysis). The cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective. DISCUSSION: Successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of operative versus non-operative treatment of patients with a humeral shaft fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR3617).

[Arthroscopic meniscectomy: does it make sense in patients older than 45?]. / Artroscopische meniscectomie: zinvol boven de 45 jaar?

Meniscus surgery is the most commonly performed surgical procedure in orthopaedics. Almost two-thirds of the patients are over 45 years old. It is not known, however, whether a torn meniscus in older patients is the primary cause of knee pain, or whether the pain is caused by an ongoing degenerative process. Until 2013, there were hardly any studies comparing the efficacy of meniscus surgery with that of a non-surgical approach in this group of patients. This has recently changed with the publication of two randomized controlled studies comparing arthroscopic meniscectomy with conservative therapy. The studies showed that meniscectomy had no added value to physical therapy. This commentary briefly discusses these studies and discloses the lack of current knowledge on the aspect of cost-effectiveness of these treatments.

Time-action analysis (TAA) of the surgical technique implanting the collum femoris preserving (CFP) hip arthroplasty. TAASTIC trial identifying pitfalls during the learning curve of surgeons participating in a subsequent randomized controlled trial (an observational study).

BACKGROUND: Two types of methods are used to assess learning curves: outcome assessment and process assessment. Outcome measures are usually dichotomous rare events like complication rates and survival or require an extensive follow-up and are therefore often inadequate to monitor individual learning curves. Time-action analysis (TAA) is a tool to objectively determine the level of efficiency of individual steps of a surgical procedure. METHODS/DESIGN: We are currently using TAA to determine the number of cases needed for surgeons to reach proficiency with a new innovative hip implant prior to initiating a multicentre RCT. By analysing the unedited video recordings of the first 20 procedures of each surgeon the number and duration of the actions needed for a surgeon to achieve his goal and the efficiency of these actions is measured. We constructed a taxonomy or list of actions which together describe the complete surgical procedure. In the taxonomy we categorised the procedure in 5 different Goal Oriented Phases (GOP): 1. the incision phase. 2. the femoral phase. 3. the acetabulum phase. 4. the stem phase. 5. the closure pase. Each GOP was subdivided in Goal Oriented Actions (GOA) and each GOA is subdivided in Separate Actions (SA) thereby defining all the necessary actions to complete the procedure. We grouped the SAs into GOAs since it would not be feasible to measure each SA. Using the video recordings, the duration of each GOA was recorded as well as the amount of delay. Delay consists of repetitions, waiting and additional actions. The nett GOA time is the total GOA time - delay and is a representation of the level of difficulty of each procedure. Efficiency is the percentage of nett GOA time during each procedure. DISCUSSION: This allows the construction of individual learning curves, assessment of the final skill level for each surgeon and comparison of different surgeons prior to participation in an RCT. We believe an objective and comparable assessment of skill level by process assessment can improve the value of a surgical RCT in situations where a learning curve is expected.