The efficacy of circumpatellar electrocautery in reducing the incidence of post-operative anterior knee pain is unknown. We conducted a single-centre, outcome-assessor and patient-blinded, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial to compare circumpatellar electrocautery with no electrocautery in total knee replacement in the absence of patellar resurfacing. Patients requiring knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis were randomly assigned circumpatellar electrocautery (intervention group) or no electrocautery (control group). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of anterior knee pain. A secondary measure was the standardised clinical and patient-reported outcomes determined by the American Knee Society scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index. A total of 131 knees received circumpatellar electrocautery and 131 had no electrocautery. The overall incidence of anterior knee pain at follow-up at one year was 26% (20% to 31%), with 19% (12% to 26%) in the intervention group and 32% (24% to 40%) in the control group (p = 0.02). The relative risk reduction from electrocautery was 40% (9% to 61%) and the number needed to treat was 7.7 (4.3 to 41.4). The intervention group had a better mean total WOMAC score at follow-up at one year compared with the control group (16.3 (0 to 77.7) versus 21.6 (0 to 76.7), p = 0.04). The mean post-operative American Knee Society knee scores and function scores were similar in the intervention and control groups (knee score: 92.4 (55 to 100) versus 90.4 (51 to 100), respectively (p = 0.14); function score: 86.5 (15 to 100) versus 84.5 (30 to 100), respectively (p = 0.49)). Our study suggests that in the absence of patellar resurfacing electrocautery around the margin of the patella improves the outcome of total knee replacement.

Background: This study aimed to assess pain and quality of life in a large cohort of patients with multiple hereditary exostoses.

In the absence of patellar resurfacing, we have previously shown that the use of electrocautery around the margin of the patella improved the one-year clinical outcome of total knee replacement (TKR). In this prospective randomised study we compared the mean 3.7 year (1.1 to 4.2) clinical outcomes of 300 TKRs performed with and without electrocautery of the patellar rim: this is an update of a previous report. The overall prevalence of anterior knee pain was 32% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 26 to 39), and 26% (95% CI 18 to 35) in the intervention group compared with 38% (95% CI 29 to 48) in the control group (chi-squared test; p = 0.06). The overall prevalence of anterior knee pain remained unchanged between the one-year and 3.7 year follow-up (chi-squared test; p = 0.12). The mean total Western Ontario McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Indices and the American Knee Society knee and function scores at 3.7 years' follow-up were similar in the intervention and control groups (repeated measures analysis of variance p = 0.43, p = 0.09 and p = 0.59, respectively). There were no complications. A total of ten patients (intervention group three, control group seven) required secondary patellar resurfacing after the first year. Our study suggests that the improved clinical outcome with electrocautery denervation compared with no electrocautery is not maintained at a mean of 3.7 years' follow-up.

ObjectivesThe patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire are patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used for clinical and research purposes. Methodological high-quality clinimetric studies that determine the measurement properties of these PROMs when used in patients with a distal radial fracture are lacking. This study aimed to validate the PRWE and DASH in Dutch patients with a displaced distal radial fracture (DRF).MethodsThe intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for test-retest reliability, between PROMs completed twice with a two-week interval at six to eight months after DRF. Internal consistency was determined using Cronbach’s α for the dimensions found in the factor analysis. The measurement error was expressed by the smallest detectable change (SDC). A semi-structured interview was conducted between eight and 12 weeks after DRF to assess the content validity.ResultsA total of 119 patients (mean age 58 years (sd 15)), 74% female, completed PROMs at a mean time of six months (sd 1) post-fracture. One overall meaningful dimension was found for the PRWE and the DASH. Internal consistency was excellent for both PROMs (Cronbach’s α 0.96 (PRWE) and 0.97 (DASH)). Test-retest reliability was good for the PRWE (ICC 0.87) and excellent for the DASH (ICC 0.91). The SDC was 20 for the PRWE and 14 for the DASH. No floor or ceiling effects were found. The content validity was good for both questionnaires.ConclusionThe PRWE and DASH are valid and reliable PROMs in assessing function and disability in Dutch patients with a displaced DRF. However, due to the high SDC, the PRWE and DASH are less useful for individual patients with a distal radial fracture in clinical practice.Cite this article: Y. V. Kleinlugtenbelt, R. G. Krol, M. Bhandari, J. C. Goslings, R. W. Poolman, V. A. B. Scholtes. Are the patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire used in distal radial fractures truly valid and reliable? Bone Joint Res 2018;7:36–45. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0081.R1.

ObjectivesPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used to evaluate the outcome of treatment in patients with distal radial fractures. Which PROM to select is often based on assessment of measurement properties, such as validity and reliability. Measurement properties are assessed in clinimetric studies, and results are often reviewed without considering the methodological quality of these studies. Our aim was to systematically review the methodological quality of clinimetric studies that evaluated measurement properties of PROMs used in patients with distal radial fractures, and to make recommendations for the selection of PROMs based on the level of evidence of each individual measurement property.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases to identify relevant clinimetric studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies on measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Level of evidence (strong / moderate / limited / lacking) for each measurement property per PROM was determined by combining the methodological quality and the results of the different clinimetric studies.ResultsIn all, 19 out of 1508 identified unique studies were included, in which 12 PROMs were rated. The Patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) were evaluated on most measurement properties. The evidence for the PRWE is moderate that its reliability, validity (content and hypothesis testing), and responsiveness are good. The evidence is limited that its internal consistency and cross-cultural validity are good, and its measurement error is acceptable. There is no evidence for its structural and criterion validity. The evidence for the DASH is moderate that its responsiveness is good. The evidence is limited that its reliability and the validity on hypothesis testing are good. There is no evidence for the other measurement properties.ConclusionAccording to this systematic review, there is, at best, moderate evidence that the responsiveness of the PRWE and DASH are good, as are the reliability and validity of the PRWE. We recommend these PROMs in clinical studies in patients with distal radial fractures; however, more clinimetric studies of higher methodological quality are needed to adequately determine the other measurement properties.Cite this article: Dr Y. V. Kleinlugtenbelt. Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid?: A critical assessment using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:153–161. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000462.