Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Decentralised services using outreach clinics or modern technology are methods to reduce both patient transports and costs to the healthcare system. Telemedicine consultations via videoconference are one such modality. Before new technologies are implemented, it is important to investigate both the quality of care given and the economic impact from the use of this new technology. The aim of this clinical trial was to study the quality of planned remote orthopaedic consultations by help of videoconference. Method We performed a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with two parallel groups: video-assisted remote consultations at a regional medical centre (RMC) as an intervention versus standard consultation in the orthopaedic outpatient clinic at the University Hospital of North Norway (UNN) as a control. The participants were patients referred to or scheduled for a consultation at the orthopaedic outpatient clinic. The orthopaedic surgeons evaluated each consultation they performed by completing a questionnaire. The primary outcome measurement was the difference in the sum score calculated from this questionnaire, which was evaluated by the non-inferiority of the intervention group. The study design was based on the intention to treat principle. Ancillary analyses regarding complications, the number of consultations per patient, operations, patients who were referred again and the duration of consultations were performed. Results Four-hundred patients were web-based randomised. Of these, 199 (98 %) underwent remote consultation and 190 (95 %) underwent standard consultation. The primary outcome, the sum score of the specialist evaluation, was significantly lower (i.e. ‘better’) at UNN compared to RMC (1.72 versus 1.82, p  = 0.0030). The 90 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in score (0.05, 0.17) was within the non-inferiority margin. The orthopaedic surgeons involved evaluated 98 % of the video-assisted consultations as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. In the ancillary analyses, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions This study supports the argument that it is safe to offer video-assisted consultations for selected orthopaedic patients. We did not find any serious events related to the mode of consultation. Further assessments of the economic aspects and patient satisfaction are needed before we can recommend its wider application. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00616837

More than 235 million patients undergo surgery every year worldwide, but less than 1% are enrolled in surgical clinical trials—few of which are international collaborations. Several levels of action are needed to improve this situation. International research collaborations in surgery between developed and developing countries could encourage capacity building and quality improvement, and mutually enhance care for patients with surgical disorders. Low-income and middle-income countries increasingly report much the same range of surgical diseases as do high-income countries (eg, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and the surgical sequelae of metabolic syndrome); collaboration is therefore of mutual interest. Large multinational trials that cross cultures and levels of socioeconomic development might have faster results and wider applicability than do single-country trials. Surgeons educated in research methods, and aided by research networks and trial centres, are needed to foster these international collaborations. Barriers to collaboration could be overcome by adoption of global strategies for regulation, health insurance, ethical approval, and indemnity coverage for doctors.

Background and challenges Writing and publishing research is important in the fields of orthopaedic surgery, and medicine in general. In recent years, the number of orthopaedic publications has significantly increased, highlighting the value of possessing the ability to write and publish a paper. However, publishing research is not an easy task, especially if English is not a native language. Non-native English speakers have been reported to experience barriers to writing and publishing research in English, the dominant language of scientific publication. This affects not only individual researchers, but also the scientific community in general. To improve reporting in scientific manuscripts, many peer-reviewed guidelines have been published for a variety of study designs and study types. These guidelines are made available through the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network and have associated checklists that guide authors in the synthesis of their research manuscript. Purpose Whether you are a non-native English speaker or a novice research writer, these checklists can ameliorate the process of building your manuscript. The purpose of this paper is to empower orthopaedic researchers, and researchers in general, through an easy-to-follow framework for writing a research manuscript using available checklists and general research knowledge.

Purpose The aim of this manuscript is to review the available strategies in the international literature to efficiently and safely return to both normal orthopaedic surgical activities and to normal outpatient clinical activities in the aftermath of a large epidemic or pandemic. This information would be beneficial to adequately reorganize outpatient clinics and hospitals to provide the highest possible level of orthopaedic care to our patients in a safe and efficient manner. Methods A literature search was performed for relevant research articles. In addition, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), the EU CDC and other government health agency websites were searched for any relevant information. In particular, interest was paid to strategies and advise on managing the orthopaedic patient flow during outpatient clinics as well as surgical procedures including the necessary safety measures, while still providing a high-quality patient experience. The obtained information is provided as a narrative review. Results There was not any specific literature concerning the organization of an outpatient clinic and surgical activities and the particular challenges in dealing with a high-volume practice, in the afterwave of a pandemic. Conclusion As the COVID-19 crisis has abruptly halted most of the orthopaedic activities both in the outpatient clinic and the operating room, a progressive start-up scenario needs to be planned. The exact timing largely depends on factors outside of our control. After restrictions will be lifted, clinical and surgical volume will progressively increase. This paper offers key points and possible strategies to provide the highest level of safety to both the orthopaedic patient and the orthopaedic team including administrative staff and nurses, during the start-up phase. Level of evidence Review, Level V.

Background The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is a globally recognized leader in musculoskeletal and orthopaedic education. Clinical guidelines are one important focus of the AAOS’ educational efforts. Although their recommendations sometimes generate controversy, a critical appraisal of the overall quality of these guidelines has not, to our knowledge, been reported. Questions/purposes We wished to assess the overall quality of the AAOS guidelines using the AGREE II (Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care) instrument. Methods All 14 guidelines available on the AAOS website as of August 2, 2013 were evaluated. Appraisal was performed by three reviewers, independently, using the AGREE II instrument. This is an internationally recognized and validated assessment tool for evaluating guideline quality. Interrater reliability was calculated and descriptive statistics were performed. Strong interrater reliability was shown using a Spearman’s Rho test (correlation coefficient ≥ 0.95). Results The overall results for AGREE II domains across all 14 guidelines were: scope and purpose (median score, 95%), stakeholder involvement (median score, 83%), rigor of development (median score, 94%), clarity of presentation (median score, 92%), applicability (median score, 48%), and editorial independence (median score, 79%). Conclusions This study showed that the overall quality of the AAOS guidelines is high, however their applicability was found to be poor. The value of guidelines that have a high quality but that are difficult for clinicians to implement is questionable. Numerous suggestions have been proposed to improve applicability including; health economist involvement in guideline production, implementation of pilot studies and audit to monitor uptake of the guidelines and clinician feedback sessions and barrier analysis studies. Future AAOS guidelines should consider and implement steps that can improve their applicability.

Background The perception and use of scientific evidence in orthopaedic surgical decision-making is variable, and there is considerable variation in practice. A previous conceptual framework described eight different drivers of orthopaedic surgical decision-making: formal codified and managerial knowledge, medical socialisation, cultural, normative and political influence, training and formal education, experiential factors, and individual patient and surgeon factors. This Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) aims to refine the conceptual framework to understand how these drivers of decision-making are applied to orthopaedic surgical work in a dynamic and fluid way. Methods A QES explored how different types of knowledge and evidence inform decision-making to explore why there is so much variation in orthopaedic surgical work. Nine databases were systematically searched from 2014 to 2023. Screening was undertaken independently by two researchers. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one researcher and accuracy checked by another. Findings were mapped to the conceptual framework and expanded through thematic synthesis. Results Twenty-five studies were included. Our re-conceptualised framework of evidence-based orthopaedics portrays how surgeons undergo a constant process of medical brokering to make decisions. Routinely standardising, implementing and regulating surgical decision making presents a challenge when the decision-making process is in a constant state of flux. We found that surgeons constantly prioritise drivers of decision-making in a flexible and context-specific manner. We introduce the concept of socialisation in decision making, which describes “the socialisation of factors affecting decision-making. Socialisation is additive to surgeon identity and organisational capacity, which as explanatory linchpins act to mediate our understanding of how and why surgical decision-making varies. Our conceptual framework allows us to rationalise why formal codified knowledge, typically endorsed through clinical guidelines, consistently plays a limited role in orthopaedic decision-making. Conclusions We present a re-conceptualised framework for understanding what drives real world decision-making in orthopaedics. This framework highlights the dynamic and fluid way these drivers of decision-making are applied in orthopaedic surgical work. A shift in orthopaedics is required away from prioritising informal, experiential knowledge first to incorporating evidence-based sources of evidence as essential for decision-making. This paradigm shift, views decision-making as a complex intervention, that requires alternative approaches underpinned by multi-faceted, evidence-based implementation strategies to encourage evidence-based practice. Registration PROSPERO CRD42022311442 Clinical Trial Number Not applicable.

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) questionnaire is an effective tool for evaluating shoulder joint function. The development and usage of a mobile version of the ASES questionnaire has the potential to save time, money, and effort. The aim of this study is to assess the equivalence between the paper and mobile versions of the ASES questionnaire and their acceptability among patients. The paper and mobile versions of the ASES questionnaire were used to evaluate the shoulder joint function of 50 patients with shoulder pain. This study included patients from the shoulder clinic of Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman method were used to evaluate the agreement (reliability) of the scores obtained by the two methods (paper versus mobile). Of the 50 patients recruited from March 2018 to May 2019, 46 (92%) completed the study. There was a high agreement between the paper and mobile versions of the ASES questionnaire (ICC=0.979, 95% CI 0.943-0.987; P<.001). The mean difference between the scores of the mobile and paper versions was 1.0, and only 1/46 (2%) had a difference greater than the minimal clinically important difference of 12 points. About 75% of patients preferred the mobile version to the paper version. Our study shows that the mobile version of the ASES questionnaire is comparable to the paper version, and has a higher patient preference. This could prove to be a useful tool for epidemiological studies and patient follow-up over longer periods of time.