Global assessment of military and civilian trauma systems integration: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The global burden of trauma disproportionately affects low-income countries and middle-income countries (LMIC), with variability in trauma systems between countries. Military and civilian healthcare systems have a shared interest in building trauma capacity for use during peace and war. However, in LMICs it is largely unknown if and how these entities work together. Understanding the successful integration of these systems can inform partnerships that can strengthen trauma care. This scoping review aims to identify examples of military-civilian trauma systems integration and describe the methods, domains, and indicators associated with integration including barriers and facilitators. METHODS: A scoping review of all appropriate databases was performed to identify papers with evidence of military and civilian trauma systems integration. After manuscripts were selected for inclusion, relevant data was extracted and coded into methods of integration, domains of integration, and collected information regarding indicators of integration, which were further categorized into facilitators or barriers. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies were included with authors from 18 countries describing experiences in 23 countries. There was a predominance of authorship and experiences from High-Income Countries (91.9 and 75.7%, respectively). Five key domains of integration were identified; Academic Integration was the most common (45.9%). Among indicators, the most common facilitator was administrative support and the lack of this was the most common barrier. The most common method of integration was Collaboration (50%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence demonstrates the existence of military and civilian trauma systems integration in several countries. High-income country data dominates the literature, and thus a more robust understanding of trauma systems integration, inclusive of all geographic locations and income statuses, is necessary prior to development of a framework to guide integration. Nonetheless, the facilitators identified in this study describe the factors and environment in which integration is feasible and highlight optimal indicators of entry.

The PAT randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: A pragmatic, single-centre, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in a NHS teaching hospital to evaluate whether there is a difference in functional knee scores, quality-of-life outcome assessments, and complications at one-year after intervention between total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) in patients with severe isolated patellofemoral arthritis. METHODS: This parallel, two-arm, superiority trial was powered at 80%, and involved 64 patients with severe isolated patellofemoral arthritis. The primary outcome measure was the functional section of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the full 24-item WOMAC, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), American Knee Society Score (AKSS), EuroQol five dimension (EQ-5D) quality-of-life score, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Physical Activity Rating Scale, and complication rates collected at three, six, and 12 months. For longer-term follow-up, OKS, EQ-5D, and self-reported satisfaction score were collected at 24 and 60 months. RESULTS: Among 64 patients who were randomized, five patients did not receive the allocated intervention, three withdrew, and one declined the intervention. There were no statistically significant differences in the patients' WOMAC function score at 12 months (adjusted mean difference, -1.2 (95% confidence interval -9.19 to 6.80); p = 0.765). There were no clinically significant differences in the secondary outcomes. Complication rates were comparable (superficial surgical site infections, four in the PFA group versus five in the TKA group). There were no statistically significant differences in the patients' OKS score at 24 and 60 months or self-reported satisfaction score or pain-free years. CONCLUSION: Among patients with severe isolated patellofemoral arthritis, this study found similar functional outcome at 12 months and mid-term in the use of PFA compared with TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):310-318.

Total knee arthroplasty reduces knee extension torque in-vitro and patellofemoral arthroplasty does not.

Patients often have difficulty recovering knee extension strength post total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and that may reflect alteration of the mechanics including geometry and rollback kinematics, so the purpose of this work was to explore this by comparing the knee extension torque (KET) of the native knee, TKA and patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) in response to quadriceps tension. Eight fresh-frozen knees were mounted in a knee extension rig with quadriceps loading and tibial extension torque measurement. Each knee was subject to four conditions: native knee, PFA, cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA. The KET was measured from 120° to 0° knee flexion. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc paired t-tests. The native KET was lowest in terminal extension and 70-100° flexion, and maximal at 20-30° flexion. PFA produced the greatest KET (p < 0.008) compared with native, CR- and PS-TKA, at 30-40° flexion. CR- and PS-TKA had lower KET across 0-50° flexion (p < 0.001 across 0-30°), falling to 25% of the native knee KET or the PFA at full extension. PFA had the highest KET in early flexion possibly due to increased trochlear offset and/or preservation of the cruciate mechanism, so PFA may be more beneficial during the functional range of motion. The claimed benefits of PS- over CR-TKA in deep flexion were not detected. Both CR- and PS-TKAs led to lower KET than the native and PFA knee states across 0-50° flexion. This mechanical effect may help to explain clinical findings of knee extension weakness post-TKA.