Purpose Currently, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the standard instruments used to compare arthroplasty results. Goodman et al. recently published a well-constructed scale with excellent psychometric properties that can be quickly administered. The main objective of our study was to translate, culturally adapt, and validate a Spanish version of the Goodman questionnaire in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods The original Goodman scale was translated into Spanish and cross-culturally adapted. Then, the data from this version were tested for psychometric quality. We designed a cross-sectional study for data collection. This study enrolled 2 institutions. Patients who underwent hip replacement due to primary osteoarthritis secondary to dysplasia between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2019 were included. A total of 153 patients were contacted twice to record the Goodman and Oxford hip scales (OHS) to assess the validity of the questionnaire. Reliability was tested using the Cronbach’s alpha, Concordance using 3 test: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and the Bradley-Blackwood F test. The spearman correlation was used to asses correlation between the OHS and the Spanish-adapted Goodman scale. Results The overall satisfaction after THA was reported to be “very satisfied” by 137 patients (75%), and only 14 patients reported some degree of dissatisfaction (6%). The improvement in quality of life was reported to be “more than I ever dreamed possible” by 41% patients. Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable, reaching a coefficient of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.82–1). No statistical difference (t test, p = 0.55) was found in the original version, with great internal validity. Test re-test concordance was optimal among the 3 tests used. A moderate correlation was found between the OHS and the Spanish-adapted Goodman scale. Conclusion The Spanish version of the Goodman questionnaire in THA is a reliable, consistent, and feasible scale to evaluate patient satisfaction and improvement in the quality of life in Spanish speakers.

Introduction: Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) is an invasive procedure used in critically ill patients with catastrophic pulmonary failure or cardiogenic shock in which conventional management has failed. These patients are managed with permanent anticoagulation, with increased bleeding risk. Hemorrhage is the main reported complication. Case: A 25-year-old polytraumatized woman, both lower limbs amputated and a left femoral shaft fracture with catastrophic pulmonary failure (Murray score 4) that required intensive management care with ECMO. During her evolution definitive femoral shaft osteosynthesis with a nail as required and the medical team decided to operate on the patient under ECMO. She recovered with fluctuations in her hematocrit, but was hemodynamically stable. The patient recovered satisfactorily, was weaned from ECMO and commenced her rehabilitation program. At 16 months, she was almost autovalent, and full consolidation was achieved, with no complication of the implants. Discussion: ECMO is a life-saving support, but requires permanent anticoagulation, which implies a high risk of hemorrhages, specially for surgical treatment. This patient underwent an osteosynthesis surgery satisfactorily. Hematoma was the only complication of her intramedullary femoral nail, without compromising hemodynamics. This case shows that patients on ECMO can undergo a major orthopedic surgery in selected cases.

Introduction: Making decisions based on evidence has been a challenge for health professionals, given the need to have the tools and skills to carry out a critical appraisal of the evidence and assess the validity of the results. Systematic reviews of the literature (SRL) have been used widely to answer questions in the clinical field. Tools have been developed that support the appraisal of the quality of the studies. AMSTAR is one of these, validated and supported by reproducible evidence, which guides the methodological quality of the SRL. Objectives: To show a historical, theoretical and practical guide for critical assessment of systematic reviews using AMSTAR to guide the argumental bases for their use according to the components of this methodological structure in health research, and to provide practical examples of how to apply this checklist. Methods: We conducted a non-exhaustive review of literature in Pubmed and Cochrane Library using “AMSTAR” and “Systematic Reviews” as free terms without language or publication date limit; we also collected information from experts in the evaluation of the quality of the evidence. Conclusions: AMSTAR is an instrument used, validated and supported by reproducible evidence for the evaluation of the internal validity of systematic reviews of the literature. It consists of 16 items that assess the overall methodological quality of an SRL. It is currently used indiscriminately and favorably, but it is not exempt from limitations and future updates based on new reproducibility and validation studies.

No abstract