The King's Sliding Hindfoot Osteotomy for the Treatment of Talus Body Defects-Results of a New Technique in Tibiotalocalcaneal Arthrodesis.

Bone loss after avascular necrosis of the talus secondary to acute traumatic or chronic pathologies often requires surgical reconstruction. This study reports the early results of a sliding oblique hindfoot osteotomy for salvage procedures combined with tibiotalar arthrodesis to achieve a well-aligned, painless, plantigrade foot. All patients presenting to our institution with severe talus body defects requiring corrective surgery between January 2016 and August 2020 were included. An oblique osteotomy of the diseased talus was performed to correct anterior talus subluxation and prevent excessive loss of height at the tibiotalar apposition and to correct varus-valgus deformity. A retrograde hindfoot nail was used for intramedullary tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. Patients were prospectively followed. Primary outcomes included assessment of mobility and union at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative complications, patient satisfaction and change in American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score at 1-year postoperation. Nine patients underwent this procedure with a mean follow-up of 18 months (4-36 months). Average age was 66 (58-81) years. Mean body mass index was 33.7 (22-38) kg/m2. All patients went on to fusion and were ambulating at 6 months (n = 8). At 1 year, the mean improvement in AOFAS was 28.9 points (p < .05) (n = 7) and all patients were satisfied with the outcome of their treatment. This technique represents an alternative to conventional hindfoot salvage techniques showing predictable outcomes in complex hindfoot deformity with talar body collapse and anterior subluxation. Further quantitative studies are needed to define if this technique minimizes limb shortening/limb-length discrepancies when compared to traditional horizontal cuts.

A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures used for adults with an ankle fracture.

BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures are painful and debilitating injuries that pose a significant burden to society and healthcare systems. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used outcome measures in clinical trials of interventions for ankle fracture but there is little evidence on their validity and reliability. This systematic review aims to identify and appraise evidence for the measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs used in adults with an ankle fracture using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) methodology. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL online databases for evidence of measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs. Articles were included if they assessed or described the development of the PROM in adults with ankle fracture. Articles were ineligible if they used the PROM to assess the measurement properties of another instrument. Abstracts without full articles and conference proceedings were ineligible, as were articles that adapted the PROM under evaluation without any formal justification of the changes as part of a cross-cultural validation or translation process. Two reviewers completed the screening. To assess methodological quality we used COSMIN risk of bias checklist and summarised evidence using COSMIN quality criteria and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data for a sample of articles. RESULTS: The searches returned a total of 377 articles. From these, six articles were included after application of eligibility criteria. These articles evaluated three PROMs: A-FORM, OMAS and AAOS. The A-FORM had evidence of a robust development process within the patient population, however lacks post-formulation testing. The OMAS showed sufficient levels of reliability, internal consistency and construct validity. The AAOS showed low quality evidence of sufficient construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the recommendation of a particular PROM for use in adult ankle fracture research based on COSMIN methodology. Further validation of these outcome measures is required in order to ensure PROMs used in this area are sufficiently valid and reliable to assess treatment effects. This would enable high quality, evidenced-based management of adults with ankle fracture.

Primary outcome measures used in interventional trials for ankle fractures: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures cause considerable pain, loss of function and healthcare resource use. High quality randomised controlled trials are required to evaluate the optimal management protocols for ankle fracture. However, there is debate regarding the most appropriate outcome measure to use when assessing patients with ankle fractures. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and summarise primary outcome measure use in clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions for adults with an ankle fracture. METHODS: We performed comprehensive searches of the Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and Cochrane CENTRAL databases, as well as ISRCTN and ClinicalTrials.gov online clinical trial registries on 19/06/2019 with no date limits applied. The titles and abstracts were initially screened to identify randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions for ankle fracture in adults. Two authors independently screened the full text of any articles which could potentially be eligible. Descriptive statistics we used to summarise the outcome measures collected in these articles including an assessment of trends over time. Secondary analysis included a descriptive summary of the multi-item patient reported outcome measures used in this study type. RESULTS: The searches returned a total of 3380 records. Following application of the eligibility criteria, 121 records were eligible for inclusion in this review. The most frequently collected primary outcome measures in this type of publication was the Olerud Molander Ankle Score, followed by radiographic and range of movement assessments. There was a total of 28 different outcome measures collected and five different multi-item, patient reported outcome measures collected as the primary outcome measure. There was a sequential increase in the number of this type of study published per decade since the 1980's. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates the wide range of measurement methods used to assess outcome in adults with an ankle fracture. Future research should focus on establishing the validity and reliability of the outcome measures used in this patient population. Formulation of a consensus based core outcome set for adults with an ankle fracture would be advantageous for ensuring homogeneity across studies in order to meta-analyse trial results.

A complication to remember: stitch sinus following laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair.

This report describes a diagnostic dilemma and what we believe to be a previously unreported case of a stitch sinus caused by the presence of a non-absorbable centring suture used during laparoscopic mesh repair of an umbilical hernia. Successful treatment was achieved through umbilical excision and removal of the offending suture; the patient's recovery thereafter was uneventful. Surgeons should be aware of this complication when consenting patients and should consider the use of absorbable sutures to minimize such risk in similar procedures. In addition, clinicians may add this to their list of differential diagnoses in a patient presenting with pain, discharge or what appears to be a recurrence of their hernia following laparoscopic mesh repair of an umbilical hernia.

Has the sanctity of life law 'gone too far'?: analysis of the sanctity of life doctrine and English case law shows that the sanctity of life law has not 'gone too far'.

The medical profession consistently strives to uphold patient empowerment, equality and safety. It is ironic that now, at a time where advances in technology and knowledge have given us an increased capacity to preserve and prolong life, we find ourselves increasingly asking questions about the value of the lives we are saving. A recent editorial by Professor Raanan Gillon questions the emphasis that English law places on the sanctity of life doctrine. In what was described by Reverend Nick Donnelly as a "manifesto for killing patients", Professor Gillon argues that the sanctity of life law has gone too far because of its disregard for distributive justice and an incompetent person's previously declared autonomy. This review begins by outlining the stance of the sanctity of life doctrine on decisions about administering, withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging treatment. Using this as a foundation for a rebuttal, a proposal is made that Professor Gillon's assertions do not take the following into account:1) A sanctity of life law does not exist since English Common Law infringes the sanctity doctrine by tolerating quality of life judgements and a doctor's intention to hasten death when withdrawing life-prolonging treatment.2) Even if a true sanctity of life law did exist:a) The sanctity of life doctrine allows for resource considerations in the wider analysis of benefits and burdens.b) The sanctity of life doctrine yields to a competent person's autonomous decision.This review attempts to demonstrate that at present, and with the legal precedent that restricts it, a sanctity of life law cannot go too far.