A systematic review on the potential value of synovial fluid biomarkers to predict clinical outcomes in cartilage repair treatments.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple biochemical biomarkers have been previously investigated for the diagnosis, prognosis and response to treatment of articular cartilage damage, including osteoarthritis (OA). Synovial fluid (SF) biomarker measurement is a potential method to predict treatment response and effectiveness. However, the significance of different biomarkers and their correlation to clinical outcomes remains unclear. This systematic review evaluated current SF biomarkers used in investigation of cartilage degeneration or regeneration in the knee joint and correlated these biomarkers with clinical outcomes following cartilage repair or regeneration interventions. METHOD: PubMed, Institute of Science Index, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase databases were searched. Studies evaluating SF biomarkers and clinical outcomes following cartilage repair intervention were included. Two researchers independently performed data extraction and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Score 2 (QUADAS-2) analysis. Biomarker inclusion, change following intervention and correlation with clinical outcome was compared. RESULTS: 9 studies were included. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. There was significant variation in sampling and analysis. 33 biomarkers were evaluated in addition to microRNA and catabolic/anabolic ratios. Five studies reported on correlation of biomarkers with six biomarkers significantly correlated with clinical outcomes following intervention. However, correlation was only demonstrated in isolated studies. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates significant difficulties in drawing conclusions regarding the importance of SF biomarkers based on the available literature. Improved standardisation for collection and analysis of SF samples is required. Future publications should also focus on clinical outcome scores and seek to correlate biomarkers with progression to further understand the significance of identified markers in a clinical context. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42022304298. Study protocol available on PROSPERO website.

An Evaluation of the Efficacy of LED Light Curing Units in Primary and Secondary Dental Settings in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the irradiance and the quality of LED light curing units (LCUs) in primary and secondary clinics in the UK and to assess the effect of damage, contamination, use of protective sleeves, and distance of light tips to target on the irradiance and performance of LCUs. METHODS: The irradiance levels (mW/cm2) of 26 LED LCUs from general dental practices and 207 LED LCUs from two dental hospitals were measured using a digital radiometer (Blue Phase II, Ivoclar, Vivadent, Amherst, NY). Ten LED light guide tips (Satelec Mini, Acteon, Merignac, France) were selected to evaluate the effect of chipping, contamination (tip debris), and use of protective sleeves and tips to sensor distance on irradiance (mW/cm2) using a MARC Resin Calibrator (Blue Light Analytics, Halifax, Canada). Homogeneity of the light output was evaluated using a laser beam profiler (SP620; Ophir-Spiricon, North Longan, UT, USA). Statistical analysis was conducted using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey test (α=0.05) and linear regression with stepwise correlation tests. RESULTS: Thirty-three percent of the LCUs delivered irradiance output less than 500 mW/cm2. The condition of the light curing tips was poor, with 16% contaminated with resin debris, 26% damaged, and 10% both contaminated and damaged. The irradiance output was significantly reduced in contaminated (62%) and chipped (50%) light curing tips and when using protective sleeves (24%) (p<0.05). Irradiance was also reduced when increasing the distance with 25% and 34% reduction at 7 mm and 10 mm, respectively (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: There remains a lack of awareness of the need for regular monitoring and maintenance of dental LCUs. Damaged and contaminated light curing tips, use of protective sleeves, and increasing the distance from the restoration significantly reduced the irradiance output and the performance of the LCUs.

Hip fracture litigation: A 10-year review of NHS Litigation Authority data and the effect of national guidelines.

We present a review evaluating all litigation claims relating to hip fractures made in a 10-year period between 2005 and 2015. Data was obtained from the NHS Litigation Authority through a freedom of information request. All claims relating to hip fractures were reviewed. During the period analysed, 216 claims were made, of which 148 were successful (69%). The total cost of settling these claims was in excess of £5 million. The introduction of a best-practice tariff by the Department of Health in 2010 was designed to improve the quality of care for hip fracture patients. This was followed by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in 2011 and the British Orthopaedic Association in 2012. We analysed claims submitted before and after these guidelines were introduced and no significant difference in the number of claims was noted. The most common cause for litigation was a delay in diagnosis, which accounted for 86 claims in total (40%). Despite the presence of these guidelines and targets, there has not been a significant reduction in the number of claims or an improvement in diagnostic accuracy. This may be due to an increasing level of litigation in the UK but we must also question whether we are indeed providing best-practice care to our hip fracture patients and whether these guidelines need further review.