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.

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.

Concordance of shoulder symptoms and imaging findings: a protocol for the Finnish Imaging of Shoulder (FIMAGE) study.

INTRODUCTION: Shoulder pain is a substantial medical and socioeconomic problem in most societies, affecting the ability to work or carry out leisure time activities as well as subsequently influencing physical and psychological well-being. According to a nationwide survey in Finland, 27% of the population reported shoulder pain within the last 30 days. In clinical practice, imaging findings of structural abnormalities are typically thought to explain symptoms, even though such findings are also prevalent in asymptomatic individuals, particularly with increasing age. Overall, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence on the prevalence, clinical relevance and prognosis of 'abnormal' imaging findings of the shoulder.The aim of the Finnish Imaging of Shoulder (FIMAGE) study is fourfold: to assess (1) the prevalence of shoulder symptoms and the most common anatomical variants and imaging abnormalities of the shoulder; (2) the concordance between shoulder symptoms, function and imaging abnormalities; (3) the most important determinants of symptoms, function and imaging abnormalities; and (4) the course of shoulder complaints over 5 years. METHODS: The FIMAGE target population of 600 participants, aged 40-75 years, will be randomly selected from a nationally representative general population sample of 9922 individuals originally recruited for the Finnish Health 2000 Survey. On giving informed consent, the participants will be invited to a clinical visit that includes assessment of general health, shoulder symptoms, bilateral shoulder examination and imaging of both shoulders with plain radiography and MRI. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District. The findings will be published according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05641415.

Outcomes at a Mean of 13 Years After Proximal Humeral Fracture During Adolescence.

BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of a proximal humeral fracture during adolescence are not well known. We investigated the course of primary treatment for these injuries and the long-term outcomes in adulthood, comparing the outcomes with those from age-matched controls. We also compared outcomes after operative and nonoperative treatment via propensity score matching. METHODS: We included children who sustained a proximal humeral fracture between the ages of 10.0 and 16.0 years and underwent treatment between 1995 and 2005. Data from primary treatment episodes were extracted from patient files. The patients were invited to a follow-up visit with outcome assessment and radiographs or to a telephone interview if unable to attend. The primary outcome was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. The secondary outcomes were the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), pain at rest and with strenuous use, shoulder range of motion, strength measurements, health-related quality of life (15D), and harms. Participant results were compared with the normal values of an age-matched population. The effect of operative treatment was assessed using propensity score matching and the average treatment effect was calculated. RESULTS: This study included 209 patients (210 fractures). The mean follow-up (and standard deviation) was 13.1 ± 3.2 years. Outcome data were obtained from 152 participants (153 fractures); 78 participants attended the follow-up visit. The primary treatment episodes were uneventful. The mean scores were 2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8 to 3.3 [range, 0 to 13]) for the DASH and 11.7 (95% CI, 11.5 to 11.8 [range, 8 to 12]) for the SST. Other outcomes were similarly good. There were no differences in function compared with the normal population values. Propensity matching showed no treatment effect for operative treatment compared with nonoperative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal humeral fractures of adolescents heal well and rarely result in impairments whether treated operatively or nonoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

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 .

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.

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).

Overstay and Readmission in Ear, Nose, and Throat Day Surgery-Factors Affecting Postanesthesia Course.

AIMS: Many procedures in ear, nose, and throat (ENT) day surgery are carried out under local anesthesia in Finland, whereas many other countries use general anesthesia. We investigated overstay and readmission rates in local and general anesthesia at Helsinki University Hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on ENT (n = 1011) day surgery patients within a 3-month period using the hospital's surgery database to collect data pertaining to anesthesia, overstays, readmissions, and contacts within 30 days of surgery. OBJECTIVES: We examined the effect of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, age, sex, type of procedure, and anesthesia type on overstay, contact, and readmission rates. RESULTS: A multivariable logistic regression model included ASA class, age, sex, type of procedure, and anesthesia (local vs general). Sex, age, and type of procedure had an effect on the outcomes of overstay, readmission, or contact. With general anesthesia, 3.2% (n = 23) had an overstay or readmission compared to 1.4% (n = 4) after local anesthesia. This was mainly explained by the number of study outcomes in tonsillar surgery that was performed only in general anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Day surgery could be done safely using local anesthesia, as the number of study outcomes was no greater than in general anesthesia. Sex, type of procedure, and age affected the rate of study outcomes, but ASA class and anesthesia form did not. Our overstay, contact, and readmission rates are on the same level, or lower, than in international studies.

Subacromial decompression versus diagnostic arthroscopy for shoulder impingement: a 5-year follow-up of a randomised, placebo surgery controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term efficacy of arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) by comparing it with diagnostic arthroscopy (primary comparison), a placebo surgical intervention, and with a non-operative alternative, exercise therapy (secondary comparison). METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, three group, randomised, controlled superiority trial. We included 210 patients aged 35-65 years, who had symptoms consistent with shoulder impingement syndrome for more than 3 months. 175 participants (83%) completed the 5 years follow-up. Patient enrolment began on 1 February 2005 and the 5-year follow-up was completed by 10 October 2018. The two primary outcomes were shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity measured with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Minimally important difference (MID) was set at 15. We used a mixed-model repeated measurements analysis of variance with participant as a random factor, the baseline value as a covariate and assuming a covariance structure with compound symmetry. RESULTS: In the primary intention to treat analysis (ASD vs diagnostic arthroscopy), there were no between-group differences that exceeded the MID for the primary outcomes at 5 years: the mean difference between groups (ASD minus diagnostic arthroscopy) in pain VAS were -2.0 (95% CI -8.5 to 4.6; p=0.56) at rest and -8.0 (-17.3 to 1.3; p=0.093) on arm activity. There were no between-group differences in the secondary outcomes or adverse events that exceeded the MID. In our secondary comparison (ASD vs exercise therapy), the mean differences between groups (ASD minus exercise therapy) in pain VAS were 1.0 (-5.6 to 7.6; p=0.77) at rest and -3.9 (-12.8 to 5.1; p=0.40) on arm activity. There were no significant between-group differences for the secondary outcomes or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: ASD provided no benefit over diagnostic arthroscopy (or exercise therapy) at 5 years for patients with shoulder impingement syndrome.

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis: an overview of etiology and diagnostics.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the world's most common joint disease and there is currently no cure. Glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) accounts for an estimated 5%-17% of patients with shoulder complaints. The etiology of GHOA is multifactorial, and we review the various non-specific and specific risk factors and further sub-classify them into local and systemic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for this review article were identified by searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and references from relevant articles using search terms such as "glenohumeral," "osteoarthritis," "epidemiology," "etiology," "imaging," and "pathophysiology." Only articles published in English, German, and Finnish between 1957 and 2017 were included. RESULTS: The prevalence of radiological shoulder OA has been estimated to be as high as 16%-20% in the middle-aged and elderly population, but the concordance between structural findings and symptoms seems to be weak, as many of these individuals are asymptomatic. The vast majority of GHOA is related to non-specific factors, namely advancing age, while specific risk factors are commonly found in young patients. Diagnosis of GHOA is made when typical clinical features and defined radiological findings overlap in an individual. CONCLUSION: Conclusion: Ultimately the determinants of shoulder pain in GHOA remain incompletely understood. Improved understanding of the etiology and diagnosis of GHOA will enable clinicians to better determine which patients will benefit from different treatment modalities, as well as provide new avenues to potential treatments.

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).

Root causes of extended length of stay and unplanned readmissions after orthopedic surgery and hand surgery: a retrospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: While previous studies have evaluated the effect of some patient characteristics (e.g. gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and comorbidity) on outcome in orthopedic and hand day surgery, more detailed information on anesthesia related factors has previously been lacking. Our goal was to investigate the perioperative factors that affect overstay, readmission and contact after day surgery in order to find certain patient profiles more prone to problemed outcomes after day surgery. METHODS: We examined orthopedic and hand day surgery at an orthopedic day surgery unit of Helsinki University Hospital. Patient data of all adult orthopedic and hand day surgery patients (n = 542) over a 3-month period (January 1 - March 31, 2015) operated on at the unit were collected retrospectively using the hospital's surgery database. These data comprised anesthesia and patient records with a follow-up period of 30 days post-operation. Patients under the age of 16 and patients not eligible for day surgery were excluded. Patient records were searched for an outcome of overstay, readmission or contact with the emergency room or policlinic. Pearson chi-square test, Fischer's exact test and multivariable logistic regression were used to analyze the effect of various perioperative factors on postoperative outcome. RESULTS: Various patient and anesthesia related factors were examined for their significance in the outcomes of overstay, readmission or contact. Female gender (p = 0.043), total amount of fentanyl (p = 0.00), use of remifentanil (p = 0.036), other pain medication during procedure (p = 0.005) and administration of antiemetic medication (p = 0.048) emerged as statistically significant on outcome after day surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Overstay and readmission in orthopedic and hand day surgery were clearly connected with female patients undergoing general anesthesia and needing larger amounts of intraoperative opioids. By favoring local and regional anesthesia, side effects of general anesthesia, as well as recovery time, will decrease.

Effect of Surgery vs Functional Bracing on Functional Outcome Among Patients With Closed Displaced Humeral Shaft Fractures: The FISH Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Humeral shaft fractures traditionally have been treated nonsurgically, but there has been a steady increase in the rate of surgery over the past 2 decades without high-quality evidence to justify the trend. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of surgical treatment with open reduction and internal plate fixation to nonsurgical treatment with functional bracing in the treatment of closed humeral shaft fractures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 university hospital trauma centers in Finland, enrollment between November 2012 and January 2018 with a final follow-up of January 2019. A total of 82 adult patients with closed, unilateral, displaced humeral shaft fracture met criteria for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they had cognitive disabilities preventing them from following the protocol or had multimorbidity or multiple trauma. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to surgical treatment with open reduction and internal plate fixation (n = 38) or to nonsurgical treatment with functional bracing (n = 44). Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 12 months (range, 0 to 100 points, 0 denotes no disability and 100 extreme disability; minimal clinically important difference, 10 points). Results: Among 82 patients who were randomized (mean age, 48.9 years; 38 women [46%]; 44 men [54%]), 78 (95%) completed the trial. Thirteen (30%) of the patients assigned to functional bracing underwent surgery during the 12-month follow-up period to promote healing of the fracture. At 12 months, the mean DASH score was 8.9 (95% CI, 4.2 to 13.6) in the surgery group and 12.0 (95% CI, 7.7 to 16.4) in the bracing group (between-group difference, -3.1 points; 95% CI, -9.6 to 3.3; P = .34). Eleven patients (25%) allocated to functional bracing developed fracture nonunion. Three patients (8%) allocated to surgery developed a temporary radial nerve palsy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with closed humeral shaft fracture, internal fixation surgery, compared with nonoperative functional bracing, did not significantly improve functional outcomes at 12 months. However, the substantial amount of treatment crossover from nonoperative to surgical treatment should be considered when interpreting the trial results. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01719887.

Subacromial decompression versus diagnostic arthroscopy for shoulder impingement: randomised, placebo surgery controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) by comparing it with diagnostic arthroscopy, a placebo surgical intervention, and with a non-operative alternative, exercise therapy, in a more pragmatic setting. DESIGN: Multicentre, three group, randomised, double blind, sham controlled trial. SETTING: Orthopaedic departments at three public hospitals in Finland. PARTICIPANTS: 210 patients with symptoms consistent with shoulder impingement syndrome, enrolled from 1 February 2005 with two year follow-up completed by 25 June 2015. INTERVENTIONS: ASD, diagnostic arthroscopy (placebo control), and exercise therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity (visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100, with 0 denoting no pain), at 24 months. The threshold for minimal clinically important difference was set at 15. RESULTS: In the primary intention to treat analysis (ASD versus diagnostic arthroscopy), no clinically relevant between group differences were seen in the two primary outcomes at 24 months (mean change for ASD 36.0 at rest and 55.4 on activity; for diagnostic arthroscopy 31.4 at rest and 47.5 on activity). The observed mean difference between groups (ASD minus diagnostic arthroscopy) in pain VAS were -4.6 (95% confidence interval -11.3 to 2.1) points (P=0.18) at rest and -9.0 (-18.1 to 0.2) points (P=0.054) on arm activity. No between group differences were seen between the ASD and diagnostic arthroscopy groups in the secondary outcomes or adverse events. In the secondary comparison (ASD versus exercise therapy), statistically significant differences were found in favour of ASD in the two primary outcomes at 24 months in both VAS at rest (-7.5, -14.0 to -1.0, points; P=0.023) and VAS on arm activity (-12.0, -20.9 to -3.2, points; P=0.008), but the mean differences between groups did not exceed the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference. Of note, this ASD versus exercise therapy comparison is not only confounded by lack of blinding but also likely to be biased in favour of ASD owing to the selective removal of patients with likely poor outcome from the ASD group, without comparable exclusions from the exercise therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In this controlled trial involving patients with a shoulder impingement syndrome, arthroscopic subacromial decompression provided no benefit over diagnostic arthroscopy at 24 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00428870.

Treatment after traumatic shoulder dislocation: a systematic review with a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To review and compare treatments (1) after primary traumatic shoulder dislocation aimed at minimising the risk of chronic shoulder instability and (2) for chronic post-traumatic shoulder instability. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with random effects network meta-analysis and direct comparison meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, Web of Science) and reference lists were searched from inception to 15 January 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials comparing any interventions either after a first-time, traumatic shoulder dislocation or chronic post-traumatic shoulder instability, with a shoulder instability, function or quality of life outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-two randomised controlled trials were included. There was moderate quality evidence suggesting that labrum repair reduced the risk of future shoulder dislocation (relative risk 0.15; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.8, p=0.026), and that with non-surgical management 47% of patients did not experience shoulder redislocation. Very low to low-quality evidence suggested no benefit of immobilisation in external rotation versus internal rotation. There was low-quality evidence that an open procedure was superior to arthroscopic surgery for preventing shoulder redislocations. CONCLUSIONS: There was moderate-quality evidence that half of the patients managed with physiotherapy after a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation did not experience recurrent shoulder dislocations. If chronic instability develops, surgery could be considered. There was no evidence regarding the effectiveness of surgical management for post-traumatic chronic shoulder instability.

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.

Open reduction and internal fixation of humeral shaft fractures versus conservative treatment with a functional brace: a study protocol of a randomised controlled trial embedded in a cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Humeral shaft fractures represent 1%-3% of all fractures and 20% of humeral fractures in adults. The treatment of these fractures is mainly conservative and operative treatment is usually reserved for specific circumstances. To date, no randomised controlled trial (RCT) has compared operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures with conservative treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct an RCT to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical and conservative treatment of humeral shaft fractures. After providing informed consent, 80 patients from 18 years of age with humeral shaft fracture will be randomly assigned to open reduction and internal fixation with locking plate or conservative treatment with functional bracing. We will follow the patients for 10 years and compare the results at different time points. The primary outcome will be Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) at 12 months. The secondary outcomes will include Numerical Rating Scale for pain at rest and in activities, Constant Score and quality of life instrument 15D. Patients not willing to participate in the RCT will be asked to participate in a prospective cohort follow-up study, 'the declined cohort'. This cohort will be followed up at the same time points as the randomised patients to assess the potential effect of participation bias on RCT results and to enhance the external validity of the RCT. In one of the recruiting centres, all cooperative patients with humeral shaft fractures not eligible for randomisation will be asked to participate in a 'non-eligible cohort' study. We will use blinded data interpretation of the randomised cohort to avoid biased interpretation of outcomes. Our null hypothesis is that there is no clinically relevant difference in the primary outcome measure between the two treatment groups. We will consider a difference of a minimum of 10 points in DASH clinically relevant. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The institutional review board of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District has approved the protocol. We will disseminate the findings of this study through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01719887; pre-results.

Finnish Subacromial Impingement Arthroscopy Controlled Trial (FIMPACT): a protocol for a randomised trial comparing arthroscopic subacromial decompression and diagnostic arthroscopy (placebo control), with an exercise therapy control, in the treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) is the most commonly performed surgical intervention for shoulder pain, yet evidence on its efficacy is limited. The rationale for the surgery rests on the tenet that symptom relief is achieved through decompression of the rotator cuff tendon passage. The primary objective of this superiority trial is to compare the efficacy of ASD versus diagnostic arthroscopy (DA) in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS), where DA differs only by the lack of subacromial decompression. A third group of supervised progressive exercise therapy (ET) will allow for pragmatic assessment of the relative benefits of surgical versus non-operative treatment strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Finnish Subacromial Impingement Arthroscopy Controlled Trial is an ongoing multicentre, three-group randomised controlled study. We performed two-fold concealed allocation, first by randomising patients to surgical (ASD or DA) or conservative (ET) treatment in 2:1 ratio and then those allocated to surgery further to ASD or DA in 1:1 ratio. Our two primary outcomes are pain at rest and at arm activity, assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS). We will quantify the treatment effect as the difference between the groups in the change in the VAS scales with the associated 95% CI at 24 months. Our secondary outcomes are functional assessment (Constant score and Simple shoulder test), quality of life (15D and SF-36), patient satisfaction, proportions of responders and non-responders, reoperations/treatment conversions, all at 2 years post-randomisation, as well as adverse effects and complications. We recruited a total of 210 patients from three tertiary referral centres. We will conduct the primary analysis on the intention-to-treat basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Pirkanmaa Hospital District and duly registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The findings of this study will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00428870; Pre-results.

Mortality Caused by Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spine.

STUDY DESIGN: Register study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the safety of lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disorders and to assess the predictive factors for mortality and causes of death. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Growing numbers and relative indications of spine surgery emphasize the importance of patient safety. We assessed the incidence of mortality related to surgery, overall case fatality and factors predicting mortality in elective spinal surgery. METHODS: A national database was utilized to assess patient characteristics, surgical procedures, and outcomes of degenerative spinal surgery in Finland. Patients were classified into four diagnostic categories: disc herniation, spinal stenosis, degenerative disc disease, and spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. The mortality related to surgery and overall mortality in each diagnostic group was analyzed at 7 days, 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year after surgery. We categorized the deaths into medical errors, sequelae of surgery, surgery probably a contributing factor, and deaths not associated with surgery. Age, sex, comorbid conditions, and hospital characteristics were considered as potential risk factors for mortality. RESULTS: Out of 408 deaths (0.67% of total of 61,166 patients) deaths that occurred during the 1-year follow up, 49 deaths (12% of deaths, 0.08% of patients) were classified as having an association with surgery: two deaths by medical errors, 28 deaths by complications after surgery and 19 deaths related to the surgery. The surgery-related 1-year mortality was 0.08%. Age >75 years, male sex, diabetes, and hypertension showed an association with increased risk of death related to surgery. CONCLUSION: Mortality caused by elective spinal surgery is rare. Cardiovascular incidents are the most common reasons for deaths occurring soon after surgery. Consideration of expected gains and risks of surgery, prevention of unintended errors during surgery and recognition and treatment of complications once they occur are recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.