Revision arthroplasty of the hip is expensive owing to the increased cost of pre-operative investigations, surgical implants and instrumentation, protracted hospital stay and drugs. We compared the costs of performing this surgery for aseptic loosening, dislocation, deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture. Clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 305 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 286 patients performed at a tertiary referral centre between 1999 and 2008. The mean total costs for revision surgery in aseptic cases (n = 194) were £11 897 (sd 4629), for septic revision (n = 76) £21 937 (sd 10 965), for peri-prosthetic fracture (n = 24) £18 185 (sd 9124), and for dislocation (n = 11) £10 893 (sd 5476). Surgery for deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with longer operating times, increased blood loss and an increase in complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening. Total inpatient stay was also significantly longer on average (p < 0.001). Financial costs vary significantly by indication, which is not reflected in current National Health Service tariffs.

Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee has increased in prevalence and now represents a major public health concern and driver of health care spending.^1-5 Treatments for knee OA range from activity modification, weight loss, physical therapy, and oral analgesics to joint injections and joint replacement surgery.⁶ The presence of multiple treatment options highlights the preference-sensitive nature of OA management and an opportunity for shared decision-making (SDM).^7,8 SDM is a concept that integrates effective communication and clinician-patient relationship building to understand patient preferences, values, and needs, with the transfer of knowledge regarding treatments, risks, benefits, and alternatives prior to making informed decisions.^9,10 Simultaneously, there is growing interest in incorporating patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in the decision-making process.^11,12 PROMs quantify physical, emotional, and social aspects of health from the patient’s perspective.^13,14 These tools have revolutionized patient outcomes research and are increasingly used at the point-of-care for clinical decision support.^9,15-17

Background: Psychosocial factors are key determinants of health after upper extremity injuries. However, a systematic review is needed to understand which psychosocial factors are most consistently associated with disability and how the language, conceptualization, and types of measures used to assess disability impact these associations in upper extremity injuries. Questions/purposes: (1) What factors are most consistently associated with disability after upper extremity injuries in adults? (2) What are the trends in types of outcome measures and conceptualization of disability in patients’ upper extremity injuries? Methods: We searched multiple electronic databases (PubMED, OVIDSP, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, ISI Web of Science) between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2016, using terms related to the “upper extremity”, “outcome measurement”, and “impairment, psychological, social or symptomatic” variables. We included all studies involving adult patients with any musculoskeletal injury and excluded those that did not use patient-reported outcome measures. We identified and screened 9339 studies. Of these, we retained 41 studies that involved conditions ranging from fractures to soft tissue injuries in various regions of the arm. We conducted quality assessment using a 10-item validated checklist and a five-tier strength of evidence assessment. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria and registered the review before performing our search (PROSPERO: CRD42017054048). None of the authors received any funding to perform this work. Results: Disability after upper extremity injury was most consistently associated with depression (21 cohorts), catastrophic thinking (13 cohorts), anxiety (11 cohorts), pain self-efficacy (eight cohorts), and pain interference (seven cohorts). Social and demographic factors were also associated with disability. Measures of impairment such as ROM and injury severity were least associated with disability. There has been a gradual increase in use of region or condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures and measures of psychological, social, and symptomatic factors over a period since the introduction of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) around 2000. Approximately 17% of studies (n = 454 of 2628) had instances of unclear, conflicting, or inappropriate terminology and 11% of studies (n = 257 of 2628) involved misrepresentations of outcome measures related to disability. Conclusions: Psychologic and social factors are most consistently associated with disability than factors related to impairment. Further research involving the assessment of depression, anxiety, and coping strategies in cohorts with specific injuries may support decision-making regarding the provision of emotional support and psychologic therapies during recovery. Using the WHO ICF framework to conceptualize disability is key in increasing strength of evidence and allowing accurate comparisons of research in this field. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

To assess disability more efficiently with less burden on the patient, the National Institutes of Health has developed the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function—an instrument based on item response theory and using computer adaptive testing (CAT). Initially, upper and lower extremity disabilities were not separated and we were curious if the PROMIS Physical Function CAT could measure upper extremity disability and the Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH).

Background: This prospective study identified the association of demographic, injury, psychological, and social variables, measured early during recovery, with limitations in function (measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test [PROMIS UE]) at 6 to 9 months after a distal radial fracture. Additionally, we assessed variables associated with the PROMIS UE; the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH); the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE); and the 3-Level EuroQol 5 Dimensions Index (EQ-5D-3L) over time. Methods: A total of 364 adult patients (73% female), with a median age of 65 years (interquartile range, 45.5 to 77 years), who sustained an isolated distal radial fracture completed questionnaires at 3 time periods after the fracture: within 1 week, between 2 and 4 weeks, and between 6 and 9 months. We created a multivariable regression model and a generalized least squares random effects model, accounting for multicollinearity using correlation matrices, the variable inflation factor, and the partial R². Results: Multiple variables within a week of the injury correlated with 6 to 9-month limitations in bivariate analysis. Being retired (partial R² = 0.19; p < 0.001), using opioids after the fracture (partial R² = 0.04; p < 0.001), using antidepressants (partial R² = 0.11; p < 0.001), greater pain interference (partial R² = 0.03; p = 0.001), and greater pain catastrophization (partial R² = 0.04; p = 0.002) within 1 week of the injury were strong predictors of greater limitations (PROMIS UE) at 6 to 9 months in multivariable analysis. Longitudinal analysis of variables over time demonstrated greater pain interference, greater fear of movement, lower self-efficacy, older age, and female sex as strong predictors of limitations. Conclusions: Recovery from a distal radial fracture is influenced by a series of demographic, psychological, and social variables. Of these factors, being retired, using opioids, using antidepressants, greater pain interference, and greater pain catastrophization within a week of the injury explain the largest amounts of unique variance in self-perceived upper-extremity physical function. Evaluating the impact of change in variables over time underlined the influence of pain interference as well as the influence of fear of movement and self-efficacy (or resiliency) on limitations in physical function and general health. These findings have important implications for identifying individuals who can benefit from behavioral interventions for these psychological factors to optimize recovery. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Osteoblasts are integral to the development, growth, function, repair and maintenance of bone. The osteoblast forms organic, non-mineralized bone matrix and is involved in complex interactions with a variety of factors, mediators and cell types. Degeneration, pathology, and trauma cause disruption and destruction of the normal skeletal environment and may lead to bone loss. There is a rise in active populations involved in trauma, elderly patients with fragility fractures and an overall increase in primary, revision and reconstructive bone and joint surgery. Despite the rapid evolution of implant technologies and bone grafting techniques, there is still a great demand for novel bone replacement strategies. Bone tissue engineering is the state of the art science with the potential to regenerate bone with natural form and function. This review presents the biology of osteoblasts and their current applications in bone tissue engineering biotechnologies and role in stem cell, bioactive factor, recombinant signalling molecule and gene therapy research.