BackgroundMedial humeral epicondyle fractures of the elbow are one of the most common injuries in childhood and often require surgery. There are currently no standardised outcome measures to assess progress after an elbow injury in a child. Wide variation in currently reported outcomes makes comparison of treatment difficult. This study aims to identify outcome measures that have previously been reported in studies evaluating the management of medial epicondyle fractures in children and to facilitate the development of a consensus core outcome set (COS) suitable for use in all future studies of medial humeral epicondyle fractures in children.Methods/designThis study will include a systematic review of the academic literature to identify a list of outcome measures that have previously been reported. The list of outcome measures will be used in a consensus setting exercise with focus groups of key stakeholders to identify key outcomes. A Delphi process to include two rounds will then be used to define the most important outcomes to all stakeholders forming the COS.DiscussionCore outcomes represent the minimum expected data reported for a specific condition and will improve the quality of future studies reducing bias, allowing easier comparison and enhancing opportunities for larger meta-analysis. It is anticipated that this COS will form part of the feasibility to a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trial concerning the management of elbow fractures in children.Trial registrationCore Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (COMET), registration number:949. Registered on 17 January 2017.Prospero International prospective register of systematic reviews, registration number: CRD 42017057912. Registered on 16 April 2017.
Aims The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which patient demographics, clinical presentation, and blood parameters vary in Kingella kingae septic arthritis when compared with those of other organisms, and whether this difference needs to be considered when assessing children in whom a diagnosis of septic arthritis is suspected. Methods A prospective case series was undertaken at a single UK paediatric institution between October 2012 and November 2018 of all patients referred with suspected septic arthritis. We recorded the clinical, biochemical, and microbiological findings in all patients. Results A total of 160 patients underwent arthrotomy for a presumed septic arthritis. Of these, no organism was identified in 61 and only 25 of these were both culture- and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-negative. A total of 36 patients did not undergo PCR analysis. Of the remaining 99 culture- and PCR-positive patients, K. kingae was the most commonly isolated organism (42%, n = 42). The knee (n = 21), shoulder (n = 9), and hip (n = 5) were the three most commonly affected joints. A total of 28 cases (66%) of K. kingae infection were detected only on PCR. The mean age of K. kingae-positive cases (16.1 months) was significantly lower than that of those whose septic arthitis was due to other organisms (49.4 months; p < 0.001). The mean CRP was significantly lower in the K. kingae group than in the other organism group (p < 0.001). The mean ESR/CRP ratio was significantly higher in K. kingae (2.84) than in other infections (1.55; p < 0.008). The mean ESR and ESR/CRP were not significantly different from those in the 'no organism identified' group. Conclusion K. kingae was the most commonly isolated organism from paediatric culture- and/or PCR-positive confirmed septic arthritis, with only one third of cases detected on routine cultures. It is important to develop and maintain a clinical suspicion for K. kingae infection in young patients presenting atypically. Routine PCR testing is recommended in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):584–588.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.