Bone: Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma

Review on Bone: Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma, with data on clinics, and the genes involved

Soft Tissue Tumors: Extraskeletal osteosarcoma

Short Communication on extraskeletal osteosarcoma with data on clinics

Soft tissue: Hibernomas

Review on Soft tissue: Hibernomas, with data on clinics, and the genes involved

Bone: Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma

Review on Bone: Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, with data on clinics, and the genes involved

What are we measuring? A critique of range of motion methods currently in use for Dupuytren's disease and recommendations for practice

Background: Range of motion is the most frequently reported measure used in practice to evaluate outcomes. A goniometer is the most reliable tool to assess range of motion yet, the lack of consistency in reporting prevents comparison between studies. The aim of this study is to identify how range of motion is currently assessed and reported in Dupuytren’s disease literature. Following analysis recommendations for practice will be made to enable consistency in future studies for comparability. This paper highlights the variation in range of motion reporting in Dupuytren’s disease. Methods: A Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design format was used for the search strategy and search terms. Surgery, needle fasciotomy or collagenase injection for primary or recurrent Dupuytren’s disease in adults were included if outcomes were monitored using range of motion to record change. A literature search was performed in May 2013 using subject heading and free-text terms to also capture electronic publications ahead of print. In total 638 publications were identified and following screening 90 articles met the inclusion criteria. Data was extracted and entered onto a spreadsheet for analysis. A thematic analysis was carried out to establish any duplication, resulting in the final range of motion measures identified. Results: Range of motion measurement lacked clarity, with goniometry reportedly used in only 43 of the 90 studies, 16 stated the use of a range of motion protocol. A total of 24 different descriptors were identified describing range of motion in the 90 studies. While some studies reported active range of motion, others reported passive or were unclear. Eight of the 24 categories were identified through thematic analysis as possibly describing the same measure, ‘lack of joint extension’ and accounted for the most frequently used. Conclusions: Published studies lacked clarity in reporting range of motion, preventing data comparison and meta-analysis. Percentage change lacks context and without access to raw data, does not allow direct comparison of baseline characteristics. A clear description of what is being measured within each study was required. It is recommended that range of motion measuring and reporting for Dupuytren’s disease requires consistency to address issues that fall into 3 main categories:- Definition of terms Protocol statement Outcome reportin

A classification method for neurogenic heterotopic ossification of the hip

Background: Existing classifications for heterotopic ossification (HO) do not include all HO types; nor do they consider the anatomy of the involved joint or the neurological injury. Therefore, we performed this study to propose and evaluate a classification according to the location of neurogenic HO and the neurological injury. Materials and methods: We studied the files of 24 patients/33 hips with brain or spinal cord injury and neurogenic HO of the hip treated with excision, indomethacin, and radiation therapy. We classified patients according to the Brooker classification scheme as well as ours. Four types of neurogenic HO were distinguished according to the anatomical location of HO: type 1, anterior; type 2, posterior; type 3, anteromedial; type 4, circumferential. Subtypes of each type were added based on the neurological injury: a, spinal cord; b, brain injury. Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (1-8 years). Results: The Brooker classification scheme was misleading - all hips were class III or IV, corresponding to ankylosis, even though only 14 hips had ankylosis. On the other hand, our classification was straightforward and easy to assign in all cases. It corresponded better to the location of the heterotopic bone, and allowed for preoperative planning of the appropriate surgical approach and evaluation of the prognosis; recurrence of neurogenic HO was significantly higher in patients with brain injury (subtype b), while blood loss was higher for patients with anteromedial (type 3) and circumferential (type 4) neurogenic HO. Conclusions: Our proposed classification may improve the management and evaluation of the prognosis for patients with neurogenic HO

Optimal functional outcome measures for assessing treatment for Dupuytren's disease: A systematic review and recommendations for future practice

This article is available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. Copyright © 2013 Ball et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.Background: Dupuytren's disease of the hand is a common condition affecting the palmar fascia, resulting in progressive flexion deformities of the digits and hence limitation of hand function. The optimal treatment remains unclear as outcomes studies have used a variety of measures for assessment. Methods: A literature search was performed for all publications describing surgical treatment, percutaneous needle aponeurotomy or collagenase injection for primary or recurrent Dupuytren’s disease where outcomes had been monitored using functional measures. Results: Ninety-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two studies reported outcomes using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) ranging from validated questionnaires to self-reported measures for return to work and self-rated disability. The Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score was the most utilised patient-reported function measure (n=11). Patient satisfaction was reported by eighteen studies but no single method was used consistently. Range of movement was the most frequent physical measure and was reported in all 91 studies. However, the methods of measurement and reporting varied, with seventeen different techniques being used. Other physical measures included grip and pinch strength and sensibility, again with variations in measurement protocols. The mean follow-up time ranged from 2 weeks to 17 years. Conclusions: There is little consistency in the reporting of outcomes for interventions in patients with Dupuytren’s disease, making it impossible to compare the efficacy of different treatment modalities. Although there are limitations to the existing generic patient reported outcomes measures, a combination of these together with a disease-specific questionnaire, and physical measures of active and passive individual joint Range of movement (ROM), grip and sensibility using standardised protocols should be used for future outcomes studies. As Dupuytren’s disease tends to recur following treatment as well as extend to involve other areas of the hand, follow-up times should be standardised and designed to capture both short and long term outcomes