Assessment of Technical Competence in Distal Radius Fracture Fixation by a Volar Locking Plate: A Global Delphi Consensus Study.

PURPOSE: Volar locking plate fixation of distal radius fractures is a common orthopedic procedure and should be mastered by graduating orthopedic residents. Surgical education is transitioning from a traditional time-based approach to competency-based medical education. Valid and objective assessment is essential for successful transition. The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive, procedure-specific assessment tool to evaluate technical competence in volar locking plate osteosynthesis of a distal radius fracture. METHODS: International orthopedic/trauma experts involved in resident education participated as panelists in a four-round online Delphi process to reach consensus on the content of the assessment tool. Round 1 was an item-generating round, in which the panelists identified potential assessment parameters. In round 2, the panelists rated the importance of each suggested assessment parameter and reached consensus on which to include in the assessment tool. Round 3 yielded specific assessment score intervals for specific bone and fracture models and is not reported in this study. In round 4, the panelists assigned weights to the assessment parameters on a 1-10 scale to determine how each parameter should have an impact on the overall results. RESULTS: Eighty-seven surgeons, representing 42 countries, participated in the study. Round 1 resulted in 45 assessment parameters, grouped into five procedural steps. After round 2, the number of parameters was reduced to 39. After the final round, an additional parameter was removed and weights were assigned to the remaining parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Using a systematic methodology, a preliminary assessment tool to evaluate technical competence in distal radius fracture fixation was developed. A consensus of international experts supports the content validity of the assessment tool. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This assessment tool represents the first step in the evidence-based assessment essential for competency-based medical education. Before implementation, further studies exploring validity of variations of the assessment tool in different educational contexts are required.

Patient-reported outcomes of 7133 distal femoral, patellar, and proximal tibial fracture patients: A national cross-sectional study with one-, three-, and five-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have described patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in knee fracture patients. We reported knee-specific and generic median PROM scores after knee fracture and identified risk factors for poor outcome defined by low median PROM scores. METHODS: In a Danish cross-sectional study of 7133 distal femoral, patellar, and proximal tibial fracture patients during 2011-2017, OKS, FJS-12, EQ5D-5L Index, and EQ5D-5L Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), were collected electronically (response rate 53%; median age 60; 63% female). Poor outcome was defined as score lower than median PROM score. Poor outcome risk factors were estimated as odds ratios from binary logistic regression models. RESULTS: At 0 to one year after knee fracture, median PROM scores were 31 (OKS), 27 (FJS-12), 0.50 (EQ5D-5L Index), and 74 (EQ5D-5L VAS). At >5 years after knee fracture, median OKS score was 40, median FJS-12 score was 54, median EQ5D-5L Index was 0.76, and median EQ5D-5L VAS score was 80. Age > 40 years had higher odds for poor OKS and FJS-12 scores at short- and long-term follow-up after knee fracture. Comorbidity burden, distal femoral fracture, and treatment with external fixation and knee arthroplasty were risk factors for poor outcome at long-term follow-up, for all four PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Although knee fracture patients have relatively high knee function and quality of life, their ability to forget about the knee joint after knee fracture is compromised. We identified several important risk factors for poor outcome measured by PROMs at different follow-up periods following knee fracture, which will help direct future quality-improvement initiatives.

Is arthroplaSty bEtter than interNal fixation for undiSplaced femoral nEck fracture? A national pragmatic RCT: the SENSE trial.

INTRODUCTION: Undisplaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs) are usually treated by internal fixation (IF) but two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated advantages of treatment with arthroplasty. The complication rate was lowered but there were no clinically improved patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), which could be due to underpowering or choice of selected PROM as the studies do appear to report a better functional outcome. We will conduct an RCT comparing IF with arthroplasties in patients aged over 65 years with an undisplaced FNF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All hospitals in Denmark treating patients with hip fracture can provide patients for this study; therefore, the study can be considered a national RCT. Patients over 65 years old with an undisplaced FNF will be screened for eligibility and patients will only be excluded if they are unable to understand the study information (due to dementia or language), if they have a posterior tilt >20°, a pathological fracture or they cannot walk. Participants will be electronically randomised (in alternating blocks of 4 or 6) into either IF or arthroplasty. Postoperative care will follow the department standards.Primary and secondary outcomes and measuring points have been established in collaboration with patients with hip fracture by focus group interviews. The primary outcome measure is the New Mobility Score assessed after 1 year. Secondary outcomes are the Oxford Hip Score, EuroQol 5 domain (EQ-5D-5L), degree of posterior tilt, pain Verbal Rating Scale, reoperation and mortality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (19/7429) and the scientific ethics committee (S-20180036). All participants will sign an informed consent before entering the trial. Because this is a national trial, all relevant healthcare professionals in Denmark will automatically receive the trial results that will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04075461).

Better outcome from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy than skin incisions only? A sham-controlled randomised trial in patients aged 35-55 years with knee pain and an MRI-verified meniscal tear.

OBJECTIVE: Compare arthroscopic partial meniscectomy to a true sham intervention. METHODS: Sham-controlled superiority trial performed in three county hospitals in Denmark comparing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy to skin incisions only in patients aged 35-55 years with persistent knee pain and an MRI-confirmed medial meniscus lesion. A computer-generated table of random numbers generated two comparison groups. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Exclusions were locking knees, high-energy trauma or severe osteoarthritis. Outcomes were collected at baseline, 3 and 24 months. We hypothesised no difference between groups. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change from baseline to 2 years in the mean score across all five normalised Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales (KOOS5). RESULTS: Forty-four patients (of the estimated 72) underwent randomisation; 22 in each group. Sixteen participants (36%) were non-blinded and eight participants (36%) from the sham group crossed over to the surgery group prior to the 2-year follow-up. At 2 years, both groups reported clinically relevant improvements (surgery 21.8, skin incisions only 13.6), the mean difference between groups was 8.2 in favour of surgery, which is slightly less than the cut-off of 10 prespecified to represent a clinically relevant difference; judged by the 95% CI (-3.4 to 19.8), a possibility of clinically relevant difference could not be excluded. In total, nine participants experienced 11 adverse events; six in the surgery group and three in the skin-incisions-only group. CONCLUSION: We found greater improvement from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compared with skin incisions only at 2 years, with the statistical uncertainty of the between-group difference including what could be considered clinically relevant. Because of the study being underpowered, nearly half in the sham group being non-blinded and one-third crossing over to surgery, the results cannot be generalised to the greater patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01264991.

Large regional differences in incidence of arthroscopic meniscal procedures in the public and private sector in Denmark.

OBJECTIVES: A recent study reported a large increase in the number of meniscal procedures from 2000 to 2011 in Denmark. We examined the nation-wide distribution of meniscal procedures performed in the private and public sector in Denmark since different incentives may be present and the use of these procedures may differ from region to region. SETTING: We included data on all patients who underwent an arthroscopic meniscal procedure performed in the public or private sector in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: Data were retrieved from the Danish National Patient Register on patients who underwent arthroscopic meniscus surgery as a primary or secondary procedure in the years 2000 to 2011. Hospital identification codes enabled linkage of performed procedures to specific hospitals. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Yearly incidence of meniscal procedures per 100,000 inhabitants was calculated with 95% CIs for public and private procedures for each region. RESULTS: Incidence of meniscal procedures increased at private and at public hospitals. The private sector accounted for the largest relative and absolute increase, rising from an incidence of 1 in 2000 to 98 in 2011. In 2011, the incidence of meniscal procedures was three times higher in the Capital Region than in Region Zealand. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified a large increase in the use of meniscal procedures in the public and private sector in Denmark. The increase was particularly conspicuous in the private sector as its proportion of procedures performed increased from 1% to 32%. Substantial regional differences were present in the incidence and trend over time of meniscal procedures.