Burr-hole drainage with or without irrigation for chronic subdural haematoma (FINISH): a Finnish, nationwide, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic subdural haematoma is a common surgically treated intracranial emergency. Burr-hole drainage surgery, to evacuate chronic subdural haematoma, involves three elements: creation of a burr hole for access, irrigation of the subdural space, and insertion of a subdural drain. Although the subdural drain has been established as beneficial, the therapeutic effect of subdural irrigation has not been addressed. METHODS: The FINISH trial was an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, multicentre, nationwide, randomised, controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial in five neurosurgical units in Finland that enrolled adults aged 18 years or older with a chronic subdural haematoma requiring burr-hole drainage. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer-generated block randomisation with block sizes of four, six, or eight, stratified by site, to burr-hole drainage either with or without subdural irrigation. All patients and staff were masked to treatment assignment apart from the neurosurgeon and operating room staff. A burr hole was drilled at the site of maximum haematoma thickness in both groups, and the subdural space was either irrigated or not irrigated before inserting a subdural drain, which remained in place for 48 h. Reoperations, functional outcome, mortality, and adverse events were recorded for 6 months after surgery. The primary outcome was the reoperation rate within 6 months. The non-inferiority margin was set at 7·5%. Key secondary outcomes that were also required to conclude non-inferiority were the proportion of participants with unfavourable functional outcomes (ie, modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, where 0 indicates no symptoms and 6 indicates death) and mortality rate at 6 months. The primary and key secondary analyses were done in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04203550) and is completed. FINDINGS: From Jan 1, 2020, to Aug 17, 2022, we assessed 1644 patients for eligibility and 589 (36%) patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group and treated (294 assigned to drainage with irrigation and 295 assigned to drainage without irrigation; 165 [28%] women and 424 [72%] men). The 6-month follow-up period extended until Feb 14, 2023. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 54 (18·3%) of 295 participants required reoperation in the group assigned to receive no irrigation versus 37 (12·6%) of 294 in the group assigned to receive irrigation (difference of 6·0 percentage points, 95% CI 0·2-11·7; p=0·30; adjusted for study site). There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of people with modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6 (37 [13·1%] of 283 in the no-irrigation group vs 36 [12·6%] of 285 in the irrigation group; p=0·89) or mortality rate (18 [6·1%] of 295 in the no-irrigation group vs 21 [7·1%] of 294 in the irrigation group; p=0·58). The findings of the primary intention-to-treat analysis were not materially altered in the per-protocol analysis. There were no significant between-group differences in the number of adverse events, and the most frequent severe adverse events were systemic infections (26 [8·8%] of 295 participants who did not receive irrigation vs 22 [7·5%] of 294 participants who received irrigation), intracranial haemorrhage (13 [4·4%] vs seven [2·4%]), and epileptic seizures (five [1·7%] vs nine [3·1%]). INTERPRETATION: We could not conclude non-inferiority of burr-hole drainage without irrigation. The reoperation rate was 6·0 percentage points higher after burr-hole drainage without subdural irrigation than with subdural irrigation. Considering that there were no differences in functional outcome or mortality between the groups, the trial favours the use of subdural irrigation. FUNDING: State Fund for University Level Health Research (Helsinki University Hospital), Finska Läkaresällskapet, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, and Svenska Kulturfonden.

Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy for a Degenerative Meniscus Tear Is Not Cost Effective Compared With Placebo Surgery: An Economic Evaluation Based on the FIDELITY Trial Data.

BACKGROUND: In patients with a degenerative tear of the medial meniscus, recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown no treatment benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) over conservative treatment or placebo surgery. Yet, advocates of APM still argue that APM is cost effective. Giving advocates of APM their due, we note that there is evidence from the treatment of other musculoskeletal complaints to suggest that a treatment may prove cost effective even in the absence of improvements in efficacy outcomes, as it may lead to other benefits, such as diminished productivity loss and reduced costs, and so the question of cost effectiveness needs to be answered for APM. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does APM result in lower postoperative costs compared with placebo surgery? (2) Is APM cost-effective compared with placebo surgery? METHODS: One hundred forty-six adults aged 35 to 65 years with knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis according to the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria were randomized to APM (n = 70) or placebo surgery (n = 76). In the APM and placebo surgery groups, mean age was 52 ± 7 years and 52 ± 7 years, and 60% (42 of 70) and 62% (47 of 76) of participants were men, respectively. There were no between-group differences in baseline characteristics. In both groups, a standard diagnostic arthroscopy was first performed. Thereafter, in the APM group, the torn meniscus was trimmed to solid meniscus tissue, whereas in the placebo surgery group, APM was carefully mimicked but no resection of meniscal tissue was performed; as such, surgical costs were the same in both arms and were not included in the analyses. All patients received identical postoperative care including a graduated home-based exercise program. At the 2-year follow-up, two patients were lost to follow-up, both in the placebo surgery group. Cost effectiveness over the 2-year trial period was computed as incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for improvements in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), using both the societal (primary) and healthcare system (secondary) perspectives. To be able to consider APM cost effective, the CEA analysis should yield a positive INMB value. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to assess uncertainty. Several one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: APM did not deliver lower postoperative costs, nor did it convincingly improve quality of life scores when compared with placebo surgery. From a societal perspective, APM was associated with € 971 (95% CI -2013 to 4017) higher costs and 0.015 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.041) improved QALYs over 2-year follow-up compared with placebo surgery. Both differences were statistically inconclusive (a wide 95% CI that crossed the line of no difference). Using the conventional willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of € 35,000 per QALY, APM resulted in a negative INMB of € -460 (95% CI -3757 to 2698). In our analysis, APM would result in a positive INMB only when the WTP threshold rises to about € 65,000 per QALY. The wide 95% CIs suggests uncertain cost effectiveness irrespective of chosen WTP threshold. CONCLUSION: The results of this study lend further support to clinical practice guidelines recommending against the use of APM in patients with a degenerative meniscus tear. Given the robustness of existing evidence demonstrating no benefit or cost effectiveness of APM over nonsurgical treatment or placebo surgery, future research is unlikely to alter this conclusion.Level of Evidence Level III, economic analysis.

Responsiveness of different pain measures and recall periods in people undergoing surgery after a period of splinting for basal thumb joint osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Basal thumb joint osteoarthritis (OA) is a common painful condition of the hand often treated surgically if non-operative care does not provide sufficient pain relief. Many instruments are available to measure pain for this condition including single item and multidimensional measures. To inform our choice of instrument for the purpose of evaluating the value of surgery for people with thumb OA, the aim of this study was to compare the longitudinal validity and signal to noise ratio of a single item numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain and the Patient-rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) pain subscale, and to assess if recall period affects longitudinal validity of the NRS pain and reported pain levels. METHODS: We invited 52 patients referred for surgical treatment of basal thumb joint OA to participate in this study. All wore a splint for six weeks followed by surgery. Pain during the past day, week, and month and the PRWHE were collected at baseline, operation day, and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. Responsiveness was assessed with two methods: 1) using participant-reported global improvement and PRWHE function subscale as external anchors (longitudinal validity) and 2) comparing Standardized Response Means (SRM). RESULTS: The Spearman's ρ between PRWHE pain and participant-reported global improvement was better (0.71) compared with NRS past day (0.55), past week (0.62), or past month (0.59). Similar findings were found with PRWHE function as anchor (Pearson's r for PRWHE pain 0.78; NRS past day 0.68; past week 0.73; past month 0.69). The SRM of PRWHE pain subscale (2.8) and NRS past week (2.9) outperformed pain past day (2.3) and month (2.4). Mean pain was 0.3 points (on a 0 to 10 scale) worse during past week when compared with past day and 0.3 worse during past month than during past week. CONCLUSIONS: All studied pain measures captured the change in pain over time. For clinical trials, we recommend PRWHE pain subscale or NRS past week due to their better signal noise ratio. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered.

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain and the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) for patients with osteoarthritis at the base of thumb.

BACKGROUND: The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Patient-rated wrist/hand evaluation (PRWHE) are patient-reported outcomes frequently used for evaluating pain and function of the wrist and hand. The aim of this study was to determine thresholds for minimal important difference (MID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for NRS pain and PRWHE instruments in patients with base of thumb osteoarthritis. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with symptomatic base of thumb osteoarthritis wore a splint for six weeks before undergoing trapeziectomy. NRS pain (0 to 10) and PRWHE (0 to 100) were collected at the time of recruitment (baseline), after splint immobilization prior to surgery, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. Four anchor-based methods were used to determine MID for NRS pain and PRWHE: the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve, the mean difference of change (MDC), the mean change (MC) and the predictive modelling methods. Two approaches were used to determine PASS for NRS pain and PRWHE: the 75th percentile and the ROC curve methods. The anchor question for MID was the change perceived by the patient compared with baseline; the anchor question for PASS was whether the patient would be satisfied if the condition were to stay similar. The correlation between the transition anchor at baseline and the outcome at all time points combined was calculated using the Spearman's rho analysis. RESULTS: The MID for NRS pain was 2.5 using the ROC curve method, 2.0 using the MDC method, 2.8 using the MC method, and 2.5 using the predictive modelling method. The corresponding MIDs for PRWHE were 22, 24, 10, and 20. The PASS values for NRS pain and PRWHE were 2.5 and 30 using the ROC curve method, and 2.0 and 22 using the 75th percentile method, respectively. The area under curve (AUC) analyses showed excellent discrimination for all measures. CONCLUSION: We found credible MID estimates for NRS and PRWHE (including its subscales), although the MID estimates varied depending on the method used. The estimates were 20-30% of the range of scores of the instruments. The cut-offs for MID and PASS showed good or excellent discrimination, lending support for their use in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinimetrics study was approved by the Helsinki University ethical review board (HUS1525/2017).

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for common outcome instruments in patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture - analysis of the FISH randomised clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND: Two common ways of assessing the clinical relevance of treatment outcomes are the minimal important difference (MID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). The former represents the smallest change in the given outcome that makes people feel better, while the latter is the symptom level at which patients feel well. METHODS: We recruited 124 patients with a humeral shaft fracture to a randomised controlled trial comparing surgery to nonsurgical care. Outcome instruments included the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, the Constant-Murley score, and two numerical rating scales (NRS) for pain (at rest and on activities). A reduction in DASH and pain scores, and increase in the Constant-Murley score represents improvement. We used four methods (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve, the mean difference of change, the mean change, and predictive modelling methods) to determine the MID, and two methods (the ROC and 75th percentile) for the PASS. As an anchor for the analyses, we assessed patients' satisfaction regarding the injured arm using a 7-item Likert-scale. RESULTS: The change in the anchor question was strongly correlated with the change in DASH, moderately correlated with the change of the Constant-Murley score and pain on activities, and poorly correlated with the change in pain at rest (Spearman's rho 0.51, -0.40, 0.36, and 0.15, respectively). Depending on the method, the MID estimates for DASH ranged from -6.7 to -11.2, pain on activities from -0.5 to -1.3, and the Constant-Murley score from 6.3 to 13.5. The ROC method provided reliable estimates for DASH (-6.7 points, Area Under Curve [AUC] 0.77), the Constant-Murley Score (7.6 points, AUC 0.71), and pain on activities (-0.5 points, AUC 0.68). The PASS estimates were 14 and 10 for DASH, 2.5 and 2 for pain on activities, and 68 and 74 for the Constant-Murley score with the ROC and 75th percentile methods, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study provides credible estimates for the MID and PASS values of DASH, pain on activities and the Constant-Murley score, but not for pain at rest. The suggested cut-offs can be used in future studies and for assessing treatment success in patients with humeral shaft fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01719887, first registration 01/11/2012.

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for pain, Constant-Murley score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The results of clinical trials should be assessed for both statistical significance and importance of observed effects to patients. Minimal important difference (MID) is a threshold denoting a difference that is important to patients. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a threshold above which patients feel well. OBJECTIVE: To determine MID and PASS for common outcome instruments in patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS). METHODS: We used data from the FIMPACT trial, a randomised controlled trial of treatment for SAPS that included 193 patients. The outcomes were shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity, both measured with the 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS), the Constant-Murley score (CS), and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). The transition question was a five-point global rating of change. We used three anchor-based methods to determine the MID for improvement: the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the mean difference of change and the mean change methods. For the PASS, we used the ROC and 75th percentile methods and calculated estimates using two different anchor question thresholds. RESULTS: Different MID methods yielded different estimates. The ROC method yielded the smallest estimates for MID: 20 mm for shoulder pain on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST, with good to excellent discrimination (areas under curve (AUCs) from 0.86 to 0.94). We could not establish a reliable MID for pain at rest. The PASS estimates were consistent between methods. The ROC method PASS thresholds using a conservative anchor question threshold were 2 mm for pain at rest, 9 mm for pain on activity, 80 points for CS and 11 points for SST, with AUCs from 0.74 to 0.83. CONCLUSION: We recommend the smallest estimate from different methods as the MID, because it is very unlikely that changes smaller than the smallest MID estimate are important to patients: 20 mm for pain VAS on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST. We recommend PASS estimates of 9 mm for pain on arm activity, 80 points for CS, and 11 points for SST. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00428870 (first registered January 29, 2007).

Return to work after subacromial decompression, diagnostic arthroscopy, or exercise therapy for shoulder impingement: a randomised, placebo-surgery controlled FIMPACT clinical trial with five-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic subacromial decompression is one of the most commonly performed shoulder surgeries in the world. It is performed to treat patients with suspected shoulder impingement syndrome, i.e., subacromial pain syndrome. Only few studies have specifically assessed return-to-work rates after subacromial decompression surgery. All existing evidence comes from open, unblinded study designs and this lack of blinding introduces the potential for bias. We assessed return to work and its predictors in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome in a secondary analysis of a placebo-surgery controlled trial. METHODS: One hundred eighty-four patients in a randomised trial had undergone arthroscopic subacromial decompression (n = 57), diagnostic arthroscopy, a placebo surgical intervention, (n = 59), or exercise therapy (n = 68). We assessed return to work, defined as having returned to work for at least two follow-up visits by the primary 24-month time point, work status at 24 and 60 months, and trajectories of return to work per follow-up time point. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to the assignment regarding the arthroscopic subacromial decompression vs. diagnostic arthroscopy comparison. We assessed the treatment effect on the full analysis set as the difference between the groups in return-to-work rates and work status at 24 months and at 60 months using Chi-square test and the predictors of return to work with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: There was no difference in the trajectories of return to work between the study groups. By 24 months, 50 of 57 patients (88%) had returned to work in the arthroscopic subacromial decompression group, while the respective figures were 52 of 59 (88%) in the diagnostic arthroscopy group and 61 of 68 (90%) in the exercise therapy group. No clinically relevant predictors of return to work were found. The proportion of patients at work was 80% (147/184) at 24 months and 73% (124/184) at 60 months, with no difference between the treatment groups (p-values 0.842 and 0.943, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic subacromial decompression provided no benefit over diagnostic arthroscopy or exercise therapy on return to work in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. We did not find clinically relevant predictors of return to work either. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00428870 .

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 5 year follow-up of the placebo-surgery controlled FIDELITY (Finnish Degenerative Meniscus Lesion Study) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) on the development of radiographic knee osteoarthritis, and on knee symptoms and function, at 5 years follow-up. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, participant- and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled trial. SETTING: Orthopaedic departments in five public hospitals in Finland. PARTICIPANTS: 146 adults, mean age 52 years (range 35-65 years), with knee symptoms consistent with degenerative medial meniscus tear verified by MRI scan and arthroscopically, and no clinical signs of knee osteoarthritis were randomised. INTERVENTIONS: APM or placebo surgery (diagnostic knee arthroscopy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used two indices of radiographic knee osteoarthritis (increase in Kellgren and Lawrence grade ≥1, and increase in Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) atlas radiographic joint space narrowing and osteophyte sum score, respectively), and three validated patient-relevant measures of knee symptoms and function (Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET), Lysholm, and knee pain after exercise using a numerical rating scale). RESULTS: There was a consistent, slightly greater risk for progression of radiographic knee osteoarthritis in the APM group as compared with the placebo surgery group (adjusted absolute risk difference in increase in Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥1 of 13%, 95% CI -2% to 28%; adjusted absolute mean difference in OARSI sum score 0.7, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.3). There were no relevant between-group differences in the three patient-reported outcomes: adjusted absolute mean differences (APM vs placebo surgery), -1.7 (95% CI -7.7 to 4.3) in WOMET, -2.1 (95% CI -6.8 to 2.6) in Lysholm knee score, and -0.04 (95% CI -0.81 to 0.72) in knee pain after exercise, respectively. The corresponding adjusted absolute risk difference in the presence of mechanical symptoms was 18% (95% CI 5% to 31%); there were more symptoms reported in the APM group. All other secondary outcomes comparisons were similar. CONCLUSIONS: APM was associated with a slightly increased risk of developing radiographic knee osteoarthritis and no concomitant benefit in patient-relevant outcomes, at 5 years after surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01052233 and NCT00549172).

Five-Year Follow-Up of Surgery vs Functional Bracing for Closed Displaced Humeral Shaft Fractures.

This study compares outcomes of surgery and functional bracing for closed humeral shaft fractures after 5 years of follow-up.

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus placebo surgery for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 2-year follow-up of the randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is superior to placebo surgery in the treatment of patients with degenerative tear of the medial meniscus. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, participant-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled trial, 146 adults, aged 35-65 years, with knee symptoms consistent with degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis were randomised to APM or placebo surgery. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) and Lysholm knee scores and knee pain after exercise at 24 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of unblinding of the treatment-group allocation, participants' satisfaction, impression of change, return to normal activities, the incidence of serious adverse events and the presence of meniscal symptoms in clinical examination. Two subgroup analyses, assessing the outcome on those with mechanical symptoms and those with unstable meniscus tears, were also carried out. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the mean changes from baseline to 24 months in WOMET score: 27.3 in the APM group as compared with 31.6 in the placebo-surgery group (between-group difference, -4.3; 95% CI, -11.3 to 2.6); Lysholm knee score: 23.1 and 26.3, respectively (-3.2; -8.9 to 2.4) or knee pain after exercise, 3.5 and 3.9, respectively (-0.4; -1.3 to 0.5). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes or within the analysed subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this 2-year follow-up of patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after APM were no better than those after placebo surgery. No evidence could be found to support the prevailing ideas that patients with presence of mechanical symptoms or certain meniscus tear characteristics or those who have failed initial conservative treatment are more likely to benefit from APM.

Mechanical Symptoms and Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy in Patients With Degenerative Meniscus Tear: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence shows that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) offers no benefit over conservative treatment of patients with a degenerative meniscus tear. However, patients who report mechanical symptoms (sensations of knee catching or locking) may benefit from APM. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether APM improves mechanical symptoms better than sham surgery. DESIGN: Randomized, patient- and outcome assessor-blinded, sham surgery-controlled, multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00549172). SETTING: 5 orthopedic clinics in Finland. PATIENTS: Adults (aged 35 to 65 years) with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis. INTERVENTION: APM or sham surgery. MEASUREMENTS: Patients' self-report of mechanical symptoms before surgery and at 2, 6, and 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: 70 patients were randomly assigned to APM, and 76 were assigned to sham surgery. Thirty-two patients (46%) in the APM group and 37 (49%) in the sham surgery group reported catching or locking before surgery; the corresponding numbers at any follow-up were 34 (49%) and 33 (43%), with a risk difference of 0.03 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.12). In the subgroup of 69 patients with preoperative catching or locking, the risk difference was 0.07 (CI, -0.08 to 0.22). LIMITATION: Analyses were post hoc, and the results are only generalizable to knee catching and occasional locking because few patients reported other types of mechanical symptoms. CONCLUSION: Resection of a torn meniscus has no added benefit over sham surgery to relieve knee catching or occasional locking. These findings question whether mechanical symptoms are caused by a degenerative meniscus tear and prompt caution in using patients' self-report of these symptoms as an indication for APM. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Academy of Finland.

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is one of the most common orthopedic procedures, yet rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in 146 patients 35 to 65 years of age who had knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly assigned to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or sham surgery. The primary outcomes were changes in the Lysholm and Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) scores (each ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating more severe symptoms) and in knee pain after exercise (rated on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 denoting no pain) at 12 months after the procedure. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months in any primary outcome. The mean changes (improvements) in the primary outcome measures were as follows: Lysholm score, 21.7 points in the partial-meniscectomy group as compared with 23.3 points in the sham-surgery group (between-group difference, -1.6 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.2 to 4.0); WOMET score, 24.6 and 27.1 points, respectively (between-group difference, -2.5 points; 95% CI, -9.2 to 4.1); and score for knee pain after exercise, 3.1 and 3.3 points, respectively (between-group difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.7). There were no significant differences between groups in the number of patients who required subsequent knee surgery (two in the partial-meniscectomy group and five in the sham-surgery group) or serious adverse events (one and zero, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy were no better than those after a sham surgical procedure. (Funded by the Sigrid Juselius Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00549172.).

The effects of immobilization on vascular canal orientation in rat cortical bone.

It is well established that bone is capable of adapting to changes in loading; however, little is known regarding how loading specifically affects the internal 3D microarchitecture of cortical bone. The aim of this study was to experimentally test the hypothesis that loading is a determinant of the 3D orientation of primary vascular canals in the rat tibial diaphysis. Left tibiae from 10 rats (30 weeks old) that had been immobilized (sciatic neurectomy) for 27 weeks, right SHAM-operated tibiae from these same rats (internal control) and right tibiae from 10 normal age-matched rats (external control) were scanned by micro-CT. Mean canal orientation (for the whole bone segment and by region), percent porosity, canal diameter and canal separation were quantitatively assessed in 3D. Canal orientation in the immobilized tibiae was significantly (P < 0.001) more radial (by 9.9°) compared to the external controls but did not differ from the internal controls (P = 0.310). Comparing the external and internal controls, orientation was significantly (P < 0.05) more radial in the internal control group (by 6.8°). No differences were found for percent porosity and canal separation. Canal diameter was significantly greater in the immobilized vs. internal (P < 0.001) and external control (P < 0.001) tibiae. The differences in orientation relative to the external controls indicated that the organization of cortical bone in the rat is affected by loading. Although the predicted difference in canal orientation was not detected between immobilized and internal control groups, the distributions of individual canal orientations, from which the mean values were derived, revealed distinctive patterns for all three groups. The internal controls exhibited an intermediate position between the immobilized and external controls, suggesting that paralysis on the contralateral side resulted in altered loading relative to the normal state represented by the external control. This was also evident in a regional analysis by quadrant. The loaded bones had the same cross-sectional shape; however, their internal structure differed. These results provide novel insights into the impact of loading on the 3D organization of primary cortical bone and have implications for understanding the relation between cortical bone adaptation, disease and mechanical properties.

Outcomes With Surgery vs Functional Bracing for Patients With Closed, Displaced Humeral Shaft Fractures and the Need for Secondary Surgery: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the FISH Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Existing evidence indicates that surgery fails to provide superior functional outcome over nonoperative care in patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture. However, up to one-third of patients treated nonoperatively may require secondary surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare the 2-year outcomes of patients who required secondary surgery with the outcomes of patients with successful initial treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 2-year follow-up of the Finnish Shaft of the Humerus (FISH) randomized clinical trial comparing surgery with nonoperative treatment (functional brace) was completed in January 2020. Enrollment in the original trial was between November 2012 and January 2018 at 2 university hospital trauma centers in Finland. A total of 321 adult patients with closed, displaced humeral shaft fracture were assessed for eligibility. After excluding patients with cognitive disabilities, multimorbidity, or multiple trauma and those refusing randomization, 82 patients were randomized. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions were surgery with plate fixation (n = 38; initial surgery group) or functional bracing (n = 44); the latter group was divided into the successful fracture healing group (n = 30; bracing group) and the secondary surgery group (n = 14) with fracture healing problems. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 2 years (range, 0 to 100 points; 0 denotes no disability, 100 extreme disability; minimal clinically important difference, 10 points). RESULTS: Of 82 randomized patients, 38 (46%) were female. The mean (SD) age was 48.9 (17.1) years. A total of 74 patients (90%) completed the 2-year follow-up. At 2 years, the mean DASH score was 6.8 (95% CI, 2.3 to 11.4) in the initial surgery group, 6.0 (95% CI, 1.0 to 11.0) in the bracing group, and 17.5 (95% CI, 10.5 to 24.5) in the secondary surgery group. The between-group difference was -10.7 points (95% CI, -19.1 to -2.3; P = .01) between the initial and secondary surgery groups and -11.5 points (95% CI, -20.1 to -2.9; P = .009) between the bracing group and secondary surgery group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients contemplating treatment for closed humeral shaft fracture should be informed that two-thirds of patients treated with functional bracing may heal successfully while one-third may experience fracture healing problems that require secondary surgery and lead to inferior functional outcomes 2 years after the injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01719887.