Do we publish what we present? The publication rate of a national arthroscopy society and a review of the literature.

The publication rate (PR) of full-text articles after presentation at medical society meetings varies widely. The purpose of this study is (1) to determine the PR of abstracts presented at the Dutch Arthroscopy Society's (NVA) annual meeting from 2006 until 2016, (2) to determine the time between presentation and publication, and (3) to review the known literature on the PR of orthopaedic scientific meetings. We retrospectively reviewed the programs of the NVA annual meetings from 2006 to 2016. All podium presentations reported were included. The search for subsequent journal publication was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed. All studies regarding the publication rates of orthopaedic scientific meetings were included. From 2006 to 2016 a total of 131 papers were presented at the NVA annual meetings, of which 83 were published as full text articles (63%). The mean time to publication was 16.5 months. The overall PR at orthopaedic scientific meetings ranges from 21% to 71%.

Shoulder arthroplasty volume standards: the more the better?

INTRODUCTION: The wide use of hip and knee arthroplasty has led to implementation of volume standards for hospitals and surgeons. For shoulder arthroplasty, the effect of volume on outcome has been researched, but no volume standard exists. This review assessed literature reporting on shoulder arthroplasty volumes and its relation to patient-reported and functional outcomes to define an annual volume threshold. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for articles published until February 2018 reporting on the outcome of primary shoulder arthroplasty in relation to surgeon or hospital volume. The primary outcome was predefined as any patient-reported outcome. The secondary outcome measures were length of stay, costs, rates of mortality, complications, readmissions, and revisions. A meta-analysis was performed for outcomes reported by two or more studies. RESULTS: Eight retrospective studies were included and did not consistently show any associations of volume with in-hospital complications, revision, discharge to home or cost. Volume was consistently associated with length of stay (shorter length of stay for higher volume) and in-hospital complications (fewer in-hospital complications for higher volume). It was not consistently associated with mortality. Functional outcomes were not reported. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the concept that only the number of shoulder arthroplasties annually performed (either per hospital or per surgeon) results in better patient-reported and functional outcomes. Currently, published volume thresholds are only based on short-term parameters such as length and cost of hospital stay.

Comparative study of total shoulder arthroplasty versus total shoulder surface replacement for glenohumeral osteoarthritis with minimum 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Compared with total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), total shoulder surface replacement (TSSR) may offer the advantage of preservation of bone stock and shorter surgical time, possibly at the expense of glenoid component positioning and increasing lateral glenohumeral offset. We hypothesized that in patients treated for osteoarthritis with a sufficient rotator cuff, TSA and TSSR patients have comparable functional outcome, glenoid component version, and lateral glenohumeral offset. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Patients in the TSA and TSSR groups received a cemented, curved, keeled, all-poly glenoid component. A cemented anatomical humeral stem was used in TSA. TSSR involved a humeral surface replacement (all components from Tornier Inc., St Ismier, France). Patients were assessed for functional outcome. Radiographs were assessed for radiolucent lines. Glenoid component position and lateral glenohumeral offset were assessed using computed tomography images. RESULTS: After 29 and 34 months of mean follow-up, respectively, TSA (n = 29) and TSSR (n = 20) groups showed similar median adjusted Constant Scores (84% vs. 88%), Oxford Shoulder Scores (44 vs. 44), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores (22 vs. 15), and Dutch Simple Shoulder Test scores (10 vs. 11). Glenoid components showed similar radiolucent line counts (median, 0 vs. 0), similar anteversion angles (mean, 0° vs. 2°), and similar preoperative to postoperative increases in lateral glenohumeral offset (mean, 4 vs. 5 mm). One intraoperative glenoid fracture occurred in the TSSR group. CONCLUSION: Short-term functional and radiographic outcomes were comparable for TSA and TSSR.

Prospectively screening for eligible patients was inaccurate in predicting patient recruitment of orthopedic randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of estimates of potential recruitment from a prospective 8-week screening study compared with a retrospective chart review across sites participating in two fracture management trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: During the planning phase of two large, multicenter, randomized controlled fracture management trials, 74 clinical sites provided estimates of the annual recruitment rate both retrospectively (based on chart reviews) and prospectively. The prospective estimate was generated by screening, for 8 weeks, all incoming patients for eligibility in the concerning trial, without actually enrolling any patient. We compared these prospective and retrospective estimates with one another (for 74 sites in the two trials) and with actual 1-year recruitment rates in the definitive trial (for nine sites in one trial). RESULTS: There was a median difference of four patients (interquartile range: -14 to 18 patients; P=0.89) between a center's prospective estimate and its retrospective estimate. Both predictions were overestimations of recruitment in the definitive trial; only 31% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28, 35) of retrospectively estimated patients, and 31% (95% CI: 27, 35) of prospectively estimated patients were recruited in the definitive trials. CONCLUSION: Compared with relatively simple chart reviews, prospectively screening for eligible patients at clinical sites, which is associated with substantial costs, did not result in more accurate predictions of accrual in large, multicenter, randomized controlled trials.

Is cytology useful in the diagnostic workup of male breast lesions? A retrospective study over a 16-year period and review of the recent literature.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of cytology in the workup of male breast lesions, important for the management in a same-day breast clinic. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 146 fine needle aspirations (FNAs) from the male breast were classified in the categories malignant, suspicious, atypical, benign and inadequate. Cytohistologic correlation was done. RESULTS: Histologic correlation was available in 85 cases. On FNA the 15 malignant cases were classified as malignant (n = 11), suspicious for malignancy (n = 2) or atypical (n = 2). Of the 35 benign lesions on histology 3 cases were classified as atypia and 1 as suspicious for malignancy on FNA. In the inadequate FNAs (n = 45), the corresponding histologic specimens were benign, no carcinomas were diagnosed. The sensitivity and specificity of the FNA compared to the definite resection diagnosis were 100% and 90.2%, respectively. The results were comparable with the outcomes of the reviewed studies on male breast lesions in the recent literature. CONCLUSION: Based on the nature of the benign breast lesions in man, a substantial number of inadequate FNAs were obtained. However, due to the good cytohistologic correlations in the group of malignant lesions, we can conclude that cytology remains an important diagnostic tool in the initial workup of male breast carcinomas.

Can orthopedic trials change practice?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The impact of large, randomized trials in orthopedic surgery on surgeons' preferences for a particular surgical approach remains unclear. We surveyed surgeons to assess whether they would change practice based upon results of a large, multicenter randomized controlled hip fracture trial. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among International Hip Fracture Research Collaborative (IHFRC) surgeons and surgeons who were members of Arbeitsgemeinschaft fuer Osteosynthesefragen - Association for the Study of Internal Fixation (AO/ASIF) to determine the likelihood that they would change practice based on findings of a proposed large, multicenter randomized controlled trial (the Hip Fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip Arthroplasty versus Hemi-Arthroplasty (HEALTH) study). We asked surgeons their current preferences for the management of displaced femoral neck fractures and whether a trial that definitively revealed a substantial improvement in function and quality of life with no difference in risk of revision surgery was important and would cause them to change practice. RESULTS: Of 883 surgeons surveyed, 210 responded from IHFRC and 586 from AO/ASIF (a response rate of 90%). Most surgeons (61%) preferred hemiarthroplasty (HA) for treating displaced femoral neck fractures. 72% of responding surgeons believed that a substantial improvement in patient function with total hip arthroplasty (THA) and no adverse effects on revision surgery would be an important finding. Moreover, of 483 surgeons who preferred hemiarthroplasty, 62% would change their practice based upon the findings of the trial. INTERPRETATION: Large clinical trials in orthopedics are worthwhile endeavors, as they have the potential to change practice among surgeons. Surgeons seem willing to adopt alternative surgical approaches if the evidence is compelling and sound.

Outcomes assessment in fracture healing trials: a primer.

The measurement of clinical outcomes in trauma research is often problematic in that it is subjective and currently no feasible gold standard evaluation is available. Consequently, observed trial results are partly dependent on which outcome measure is used. Precise and useful estimates of treatment effects can only be obtained when using reliable, valid, and responsive instruments for measuring fracture healing. This overview outlines the concept of the validation of outcome measures and provides a summary of available and frequently used instruments in orthopaedic clinical trials. Outcome instruments can be divided into assessments by the clinician and assessments by the patient. Clinician-assessed measures are frequently used in routine practice but have often not been validated before their use in research. They include clinical and radiographic assessments. In contrast, patient-assessed measures have been designed specifically for investigational purposes and measure health on various domains. Some of them have been validated extensively. Critically evaluating established clinician-based assessments and integrating those found to be valid with patient-assessed outcomes into a composite measure of fracture healing constitute major future challenges.

The radiographic union scale in tibial fractures: reliability and validity.

Radiographic assessment of tibial fracture healing continues to pose significant challenges to both routine fracture care and clinical research. Orthopaedic surgeons fail to achieve sufficient agreement on fracture healing when using conventional radiographic measures such as their general impression or the number of cortices bridged by callus. Moreover, the extent to which radiographic assessment of healing corresponds to patient-important outcomes is largely unknown. In an attempt to improve the former (ie, reliability) and inform the latter (ie, validity), recent studies have explored a novel radiographic assessment for tibial shaft fractures, the Radiographic Union Scale for Tibial fractures (RUST). The RUST score assesses the presence of bridging callus and that of a fracture line on each of 4 cortices seen on 2 orthogonal radiographic views. A recent study has found that RUST scores have greater inter-rater reliability when compared with surgeon's general impression or the number of cortices bridged by callus. This may increase the utility of radiographs as a standardized measure of treatment efficacy in the follow-up of tibial fractures.

Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: has quality kept up with quantity?

BACKGROUND: As the number of studies in the literature is increasing, orthopaedic surgeons highly depend on meta-analyses as their primary source of scientific evidence. The objectives of this review were to assess the scientific quality and number of published meta-analyses on orthopaedics-related topics over time. METHODS: We conducted, in duplicate and independently, a systematic review of published meta-analyses in orthopaedics in the years 2005 and 2008 and compared them with a previous systematic review of meta-analyses from 1969 to 1999. A search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) was performed to identify meta-analyses published in 2005 and 2008. We searched bibliographies and contacted content experts to identify additional relevant studies. Two investigators independently assessed the quality of the studies, using the Oxman and Guyatt index, and abstracted relevant data. RESULTS: We included forty-five and forty-four meta-analyses from 2005 and 2008, respectively. While the number of meta-analyses increased fivefold from 1999 to 2008, the mean quality score did not change significantly over time (p = 0.067). In the later years, a significantly lower proportion of meta-analyses had methodological flaws (56% in 2005 and 68% in 2008) compared with meta-analyses published prior to 2000 (88%) (p = 0.006). In 2005 and 2008, respectively, 18% and 30% of the meta-analyses had major to extensive flaws in their methodology. Studies from 2008 with positive conclusions used and described appropriate criteria for the validity assessment less often than did those with negative results. The use of random-effects and fixed-effects models as pooling methods became more popular toward 2008. CONCLUSIONS: Although the methodological quality of orthopaedic meta-analyses has increased in the past twenty years, a substantial proportion continues to show major to extensive flaws. As the number of published meta-analyses is increasing, a routine checklist for scientific quality should be used in the peer-review process to ensure methodological standards for publication.

Electrical stimulation: Nonunions.

The current paper attempts to provide an overview on the currently available fundamental, preclinical, and clinical evidence on the biologic rationale and therapeutic efficacy of electrical stimulation devices applied in patients with long-bone nonunions. Electrical stimulation (ES) involves the generation of an electrical or electromagnetic current through the ununited fracture. Such currents, which are present in physiologically healing bone, provide stimuli that favor a healing response to bone cells. These stimuli include the enhancement of transmembrane and intracellular calcium-mediated signal transduction and an increased synthesis of paracrine and autocrine growth factors by osteoblasts. Favorable healing union rates, ranging from 43% to 90%, as found by several clinical case series, have prompted the orthopedic community to, at least partially, adopt ES for the treatment of long bone nonunions. Nonetheless, randomized controlled trials have not provided definitive evidence of ES causing nonunions to heal more often than sham devices. This impediment is probably formed by small sample sizes, lack of consistency regarding the definition of union and nonunion, and variability in ES current used.