First knee for pain and function versus second knee for quality of life.

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe and compare joint-specific and generic health-related quality of life outcomes of the first versus second knee in patients undergoing staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty (BTKA) for osteoarthritis. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Australian national arthroplasty registry data from January 2013 to January 2021 to identify participants who underwent elective staged BTKA with six to 24 months between procedures. The primary outcome was Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at six months postoperatively for the first TKA compared to the second TKA, adjusted for age and sex. Secondary outcomes compared six-month EuroQol five-dimension five-level (EQ-5D-5L) domain scores, EQ-5D index scores, and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) between knees at six months postoperatively. Results: The cohort included 635 participants (1,270 primary procedures). Preoperative scores were worse in the first knee compared to the second for all instruments; however, comparing the first knee at six months postoperatively with the second knee at six months postoperatively, the mean between-knee difference was minimal for OKS (-0.8 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.4 to -0.2), EQ-VAS (3.3; 95% CI 1.9 to 4.7), and EQ-5D index (0.09 points; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.12). Outcomes for the EQ-5D-5L domains 'mobility', 'usual activities', and 'pain/discomfort' were better following the second TKA. Conclusion: At six months postoperatively, there were no clinically meaningful differences between the first and second TKA in either the joint-specific or overall generic health-related quality of life outcomes. However, individual domain scores assessing mobility, pain, and usual activities were notably higher after the second TKA, likely reflecting the cumulative improvement in quality of life after both knees have been replaced.

Hip-specific and generic patient-reported outcome measure scores after primary hip replacement are associated with early revision surgery: a national registry study.

BACKGROUND: The ability to efficiently identify patients at higher risk of poor outcomes after joint replacement would enable limited resources for post-operative follow-up to be directed to those with the greatest clinical need. This is particularly important as joint replacement rates continue to grow internationally, stretching health system capabilities. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are routinely administered in many settings and offer an opportunity to detect suboptimal patient outcomes early. This study aimed to determine whether hip-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision hip replacement within six to 24 months after the primary procedure. METHODS: Pre-operative and six-month post-operative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary total hip replacement (THR) were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National and linked to revision surgery data. Clinically important improvement was defined using anchor-based thresholds. Associations between PROM scores (hip pain, Oxford Hip Score, HOOS-12, EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS, patient-perceived change, satisfaction) and revision surgery were evaluated using t-tests, chi-square tests and regression models. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 21,236 primary THR procedures between 2013 and 2022. Eighty-eight revision procedures were performed at six to 24 months. Patients who were revised had more back pain and worse HOOS-12 scores pre-operatively but between-group differences were small. Worse post-operative PROM scores (hip pain, Oxford, HOOS-12, EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS) were associated with early revision, after adjusting for age and sex (p < 0.001 for all analyses). Patient dissatisfaction (relative risk (RR) 10.18, 95%CI 6.01-17.25) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 19.62, 95%CI 11.33-33.98) were also associated with a higher likelihood of revision. Patients who did not achieve clinically important improvement in hip pain, function, or quality of life had a higher revision risk (RRs 2.54-5.64), compared with those who did (reference). CONCLUSION: Six-month hip-specific and generic PROM scores can identify patients at higher risk of early revision surgery. Our data highlight the utility of routine post-operative PROM assessment for signaling suboptimal surgical outcomes.

RECITAL: a non-inferiority randomised control trial evaluating a virtual fracture clinic compared with in-person care for people with simple fractures (study protocol).

INTRODUCTION: Most simple undisplaced fractures can be managed without surgery by immobilising the limb with a splint, prescribing medication for pain, and providing advice and early rehabilitation. Recent systematic reviews based on retrospective observational studies have reported that virtual fracture clinics can deliver follow-up care that is safe and cost-effective. However, no randomised controlled trial has investigated if a virtual fracture clinic can provide non-inferior physical function outcomes compared with an in-person clinic for patients with simple fractures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 312 participants will be recruited from 2 metropolitan hospitals located in Sydney, Australia. Adult patients will be eligible if they have an acute simple fracture that can be managed with a removable splint and is deemed appropriate for follow-up at either the virtual or in-person fracture clinic by an orthopaedic doctor. Patients will not be eligible if they have a complex fracture that requires a cast or surgery. Eligible participants will be randomised to receive their follow-up care either at the virtual or the in-person fracture clinic. Participants at the virtual fracture clinic will be reviewed within 5 days of receiving a referral through video calls with a physiotherapist. Participants at the in-person fracture clinic will be reviewed by an orthopaedic doctor within 7-10 days of receiving a referral. The primary outcome will be the patient's function measured using the Patient-Specific Functional Scale at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, patient-reported experiences, pain, health cost, healthcare utilisation, medication use, adverse events, emergency department representations and surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Sydney Local Health District Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone) (X23-0200 and 2023/ETH01038). The trial results will be submitted for publication in a reputable international journal and will be presented at professional conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623000934640.

HIP fracture Supplemental Therapy to Enhance Recovery (HIPSTER): a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures result in substantial health impacts for patients and costs to health systems. Many patients require prolonged hospital stays and up to 60% do not regain their prefracture level of mobility within 1 year. Physical rehabilitation plays a key role in regaining physical function and independence; however, there are no recommendations regarding the optimal intensity. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of early intensive in-hospital physiotherapy compared with usual care in patients who have had surgery following a hip fracture. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This two-arm randomised, controlled, assessor-blinded trial will recruit 620 participants who have had surgery following a hip fracture from eight hospitals. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive usual care (physiotherapy according to usual practice at the site) or intensive physiotherapy in the hospital over the first 7 days following surgery (two additional sessions per day, one delivered by a physiotherapist and the other by an allied health assistant). The primary outcome is the total hospital length of stay, measured from the date of hospital admission to the date of hospital discharge, including both acute and subacute hospital days. Secondary outcomes are functional mobility, health-related quality of life, concerns about falling, discharge destination, proportion of patients remaining in hospital at 30 days, return to preadmission mobility and residence at 120 days and adverse events. Twelve months of follow-up will capture data on healthcare utilisation. A cost-effectiveness evaluation will be undertaken, and a process evaluation will document barriers and facilitators to implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee has approved this protocol. The trial findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, submitted for presentation at conferences and disseminated to patients and carers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001442796.

Measurement Properties of the Oxford Shoulder Score and Minimal Clinically Important Changes After Primary Total Shoulder Replacement Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the measurement properties of the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and estimated the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) in patients undergoing primary total shoulder replacement in Australia. METHODS: Deidentified data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used for this analysis. Pre- and 6-month postoperative OSS scores were used, with the 5-level EuroQoL quality of life instrument and shoulder pain scores used as comparators. Floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness to change were evaluated using standard psychometric methods. Mean change and predictive modeling approaches (with and without adjustment for the proportion of improved patients) were used to calculate MCIC thresholds, with patient-perceived improvement after surgery as the anchor. RESULTS: Preoperative OSS data were available for 1,117 patients (59% female; 90% aged ≥60 years) undergoing primary total shoulder replacement. No floor or ceiling effects were observed pre- or postoperatively. The OSS showed high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha >0.89), good construct validity, and high responsiveness to change (effect size 1.88). The MCIC derived from the mean change method was 6.50 points (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.41-8.61). The predictive modeling approach produced an MCIC estimate of 8.42 points (95% CI 5.68-12.23) after adjustment. CONCLUSION: The OSS has good measurement properties to capture pain and function outcomes after shoulder replacement procedures and is highly responsive to change. Based on robust methods, an increase in OSS scores of at least eight points can be considered as meaningful improvement after surgery from the patient's perspective.

Are Outcomes From an Exercise Therapy and Patient Education Program for Osteoarthritis Associated With Hip and Knee Replacement Within Two Years? A Register-Based Study of 9,339 Patients With Osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether short-term outcomes from exercise therapy and patient education for osteoarthritis (OA) are associated with hip or knee replacement within two years. METHODS: Individual-level data from the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D) Registry were linked to the Danish National Patient Registry and other national registries. Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate associations between program outcomes (baseline to three-month changes) and time to primary hip or knee replacement. Patients who did not receive joint replacement were censored at two years, time of death, or emigration. RESULTS: A total of 2,304 and 7,035 patients with clinically diagnosed hip and knee OA, respectively, were included. Of these, 30% with hip OA and 10% with knee OA had joint replacement within two years. Postprogram improvements in hip-related quality of life and arthritis self-efficacy (pain subscale) were associated with a reduced hazard of hip replacement (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs] for a 10-unit improvement: 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.80] and 0.90 [95% CI 0.85-0.96], respectively). Improvements in knee pain, knee-related quality of life, and arthritis self-efficacy (pain subscale) were associated with a lower hazard of knee replacement (adjusted HRs for 10-unit improvement: 0.81 [95% CI 0.76-0.86] to 0.90 [95% CI 0.86-0.95], 0.70 [95% CI 0.63-0.78] to 0.79 [95% CI 0.72-0.86], and 0.89 [95% CI 0.83-0.94], respectively). CONCLUSION: The magnitude of improvement in key measures after exercise therapy and education was significantly associated with the likelihood of surgery. Progression to hip replacement was three times higher than progression to knee replacement. This information can guide patient-clinician conversations around anticipated program outcomes.

Stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs: results from a national cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The capacity to meet anticipated growth in joint replacement demand requires safe, efficient models of care. While short-stay joint replacement programs are being used internationally, they have not been widely implemented in many countries. Importantly, the critical challenges that need to be addressed ahead of large-scale program implementation remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs, including perceived barriers and enablers to implementation and sustainability, and understand current practices in Australia. METHODS: Four key stakeholder groups were invited to participate in this national study: (1) health professionals who provide joint replacement care; (2) hospital administrators involved in joint replacement provision; (3) patients with recent joint replacement; and (4) carers of people with recent joint replacement. Data on perceived feasibility (0 (not at all feasible) - 10 (highly feasible), appeal (0 (not at all appealing) - 10 (highly appealing), current practices, and barriers and enablers were collected using visual analogue scales, multiple response option and open-ended questions, via an online platform. Descriptive analysis and free-text content analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Data were available from 1,445 participants including 360 health professionals, 20 hospital administrators, 1,034 patients, and 31 carers. Short-stay program implementation was considered moderately feasible by health professionals (median 6, interquartile range (IQR) 3-8) and hospital administrators (median 5, IQR 5-6). Short-stay programs were moderately appealing to patients (median 7, IQR 2-9) but of little appeal to carers (median 3, IQR 1-7). Prominent implementation barriers included perceived limited appropriateness of short-stay programs, inadequate home supports, and issues around reimbursement models or program funding. Not having daily physiotherapy access and concerns about pain and mobility at home were common barriers for patients. Concern about patients' ability to manage daily activities was the most common barrier for carers. Access to post-discharge services, better funding models, improved staffing, and consistent protocols and national care standards were prominent enablers. CONCLUSIONS: This national study has uniquely captured multiple stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs. The findings can guide future quality improvement and implementation initiatives and the development of resources to best support patients, carers, clinicians, and hospitals.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-stay programmes for total hip and knee replacement, focusing on safety and optimal patient selection.

BACKGROUND: Short-stay joint replacement programmes are used in many countries but there has been little scrutiny of safety outcomes in the literature. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the safety of short-stay programmes versus usual care for total hip (THR) and knee replacement (KR), and optimal patient selection. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies including a comparator group reporting on 14 safety outcomes (hospital readmissions, reoperations, blood loss, emergency department visits, infection, mortality, neurovascular injury, other complications, periprosthetic fractures, postoperative falls, venous thromboembolism, wound complications, dislocation, stiffness) within 90 days postoperatively in adults ≥ 18 years undergoing primary THR or KR were included. Secondary outcomes were associations between patient demographics or clinical characteristics and patient outcomes. Four databases were searched between January 2000 and May 2023. Risk of bias and certainty of the evidence were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were included. Based upon low certainty RCT evidence, short-stay programmes may not reduce readmission (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.12-7.43); blood transfusion requirements (OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.27-11.36); neurovascular injury (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01-7.92); other complications (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26-1.53); or stiffness (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.53-2.05). For registry studies, there was no difference in readmission, infection, neurovascular injury, other complications, venous thromboembolism, or wound complications but there were reductions in mortality and dislocations. For interrupted time series studies, there was no difference in readmissions, reoperations, blood loss volume, emergency department visits, infection, mortality, or neurovascular injury; reduced odds of blood transfusion and other complications, but increased odds of periprosthetic fracture. For other observational studies, there was an increased risk of readmission, no difference in blood loss volume, infection, other complications, or wound complications, reduced odds of requiring blood transfusion, reduced mortality, and reduced venous thromboembolism. One study examined an outcome relevant to optimal patient selection; it reported comparable blood loss for short-stay male and female participants (p = 0.814). CONCLUSIONS: There is low certainty evidence that short-stay programmes for THR and KR may have non-inferior 90-day safety outcomes. There is little evidence on factors informing optimal patient selection; this remains an important knowledge gap.

Forecasting the future burden of primary total shoulder replacement in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To forecast the number of primary total shoulder replacements (TSR) in Australia to the year 2035, and associated costs. METHODS: De-identified TSR data for 2009-2019 were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Population data, including population projections to 2035, were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Three forecasting scenarios were used: constant TSR rates from 2019 onwards (Scenario 1, conservative); continued growth in TSR rates using negative binomial regression (Scenario 2, exponential); and continued growth using negative binomial regression with monotone B-splines (Scenario 3, moderate). Healthcare costs were estimated using TSR projections and average procedure costs, inflated to 2035 Australian dollars. RESULTS: The use of TSR increased by 242% in Australia from 2009 to 2019 (from 1983 to 6789 procedures for people ≥40 years). Under Scenario 1, the incidence of TSR is conservatively projected to rise to 9676 procedures by 2035 (43% increase from 2019), at a cost of $AUD 312.6 million to the health system. Under Scenario 2, TSR incidence would increase to 45,295 procedures by 2035 (567% increase), costing $AUD 1.46 billion. Under Scenario 3, 28,257 TSR procedures are forecast in 2035 (316% increase) at a cost of $913 million. CONCLUSIONS: Recent growth in TSR likely relates to prosthesis improvements, greater surgeon proficiency, and expanded clinical indications. Under moderate and exponential scenarios that consider rising TSR rates and population projections, Australia would face three- to five-fold growth in procedures by 2035. This would have profound implications for the healthcare budget, clinical workforce, and infrastructure.

Health facility availability and readiness for family planning and maternity and neonatal care services in Nepal: Analysis of cross-sectional survey data.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the availability and readiness of health facilities to provide family planning, antenatal care and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care in Nepal in 2021. Secondary objectives were to identify progress since 2015 and factors associated with readiness. METHOD: This is a secondary analysis of cross-sectional Nepal Health Facility Survey (NHFS) data collected in 2015 and 2021. The main outcome measures were availability and readiness of family planning, antenatal care, and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care services. Readiness indices were calculated using WHO-recommended service availability and readiness assessment (SARA) methods (score range 0 to 100%, with 100% indicating facilities are fully prepared to provide a specific service). We used independent t-tests to compare readiness indices in 2015 and 2021. Factors potentially associated with readiness (rurality setting, ecological region, managing authority, management meeting, quality assurance activities, and external supervision) were explored using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: There were 940 and 1565 eligible health facilities in the 2015 and 2021 surveys, respectively. Nearly all health facilities provided family planning (2015: n = 919 (97.8%); 2021: n = 1530 (97.8%)) and antenatal care services (2015: n = 920 (97.8%); 2021: n = 1538 (98.3%)) in both years, but only half provided delivery services (2015: n = 457 (48.6%); 2021: n = 804 (51.4%)). There were suboptimal improvements in readiness indices over time: (2015-21: family planning 68.0% to 70.9%, p<0.001, antenatal care 49.5% to 54.1%, p<0.001 and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care 56.7% to 58.0%, p = 0.115). The regression model comprising combined datasets of both NHFSs indicates facilities with regular management meetings and/or quality assurance activities had significantly greater readiness for all three indices. Similarly, public facilities had greater readiness for family planning and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care while they had lower readiness for antenatal care. CONCLUSIONS: Readiness to deliver family planning, antenatal care and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care services in Nepal remains inadequate, with little improvement observed over six years.

Effect of Aspirin vs Enoxaparin on 90-Day Mortality in Patients Undergoing Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: A Secondary Analysis of the CRISTAL Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: Ischemic heart disease remains the leading cause of mortality following hip and knee arthroplasty. Due to its antiplatelet and cardioprotective properties, aspirin has been proposed as an agent that could reduce mortality when used as venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following these procedures. Objective: To compare aspirin with enoxaparin in reducing 90-day mortality for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a planned secondary analysis of the CRISTAL cluster randomized, crossover, registry-nested trial performed across 31 participating hospitals in Australia between April 20, 2019, and December 18, 2020. The aim of the CRISTAL trial was to determine whether aspirin was noninferior to enoxaparin in preventing symptomatic VTE following hip or knee arthroplasty. The primary study restricted the analysis to patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis only. This study includes all adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing any hip or knee arthroplasty procedure at participating sites during the course of the trial. Data were analyzed from June 1 to September 6, 2021. Interventions: Hospitals were randomized to administer all patients oral aspirin (100 mg daily) or subcutaneous enoxaparin (40 mg daily) for 35 days after hip arthroplasty and 14 days after knee arthroplasty procedures. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality within 90 days. The between-group difference in mortality was estimated using cluster summary methods. Results: A total of 23 458 patients from 31 hospitals were included, with 14 156 patients allocated to aspirin (median [IQR] age, 69 [62-77] years; 7984 [56.4%] female) and 9302 patients allocated to enoxaparin (median [IQR] age, 70 [62-77] years; 5277 [56.7%] female). The mortality rate within 90 days of surgery was 1.67% in the aspirin group and 1.53% in the enoxaparin group (estimated difference, 0.04%; 95% CI, -0.05%-0.42%). For the subgroup of 21 148 patients with a nonfracture diagnosis, the mortality rate was 0.49% in the aspirin group and 0.41% in the enoxaparin group (estimated difference, 0.05%; 95% CI, -0.67% to 0.76%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial comparing aspirin with enoxaparin following hip or knee arthroplasty, there was no significant between-group difference in mortality within 90 days when either drug was used for VTE prophylaxis. Trial Registration: http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12618001879257.

Loss of Productivity-Adjusted Life-Years in Working-Age Australians Due to Knee Osteoarthritis: A Life-Table Modeling Approach.

OBJECTIVE: Productivity-adjusted life-years (PALYs) offers a novel approach for quantifying the productivity burden of chronic conditions at the population level over the working lifespan. This study was undertaken to estimate the productivity burden of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) among working-age Australians, defined as lost PALYs and lost gross domestic product (GDP). METHODS: A static life-table model was constructed to simulate the experiences of working Australians (between the ages of 15-64 years) with KOA and those without KOA, with follow-up to 65 years (retirement age), a 1-year cycle length, and an annual discount rate of 5%. KOA prevalence data were obtained from the 2019 Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors study. Demographic and mortality data were sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Health utilities and productivity indices were derived from published sources. Population-level losses in years of life, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and PALYs attributable to KOA were estimated by comparing estimates in the KOA cohort to the no KOA cohort. RESULTS: In 2019, a total of 913,539 working-age Australians were estimated to have KOA, with an overall prevalence of 5.5% (4.5% in men and 6.5% in women). By retirement age, KOA was associated with 39,602 excess deaths, 125,651 years of life lost, 1,938,059 QALYs lost, and 1,943,287 PALYs lost. The economic impact of lost productivity due to KOA amounted to 424 billion Australian dollars in lost GDP. CONCLUSION: Our modeling demonstrates a significant economic burden of KOA among the working Australian population, with marked productivity loss. Our findings highlight the need for public health funding and scalable population-level strategies for effective KOA prevention and support to maintain productive working.

Falls prevention and osteoarthritis: time for awareness and action.

Osteoarthritis (OA) and falls both commonly affect older people. While high-level evidence exists to prevent falls in older people, falls prevention is rarely considered within contemporary OA management. OA care and falls prevention have for too long been considered as separate clinical constructs. In the context of ageing populations and growing numbers of people with OA, the time to raise awareness and enact appropriate action is now. This Perspectives on Rehabilitation article draws on the findings from a comprehensive mixed-methods falls and OA research program (which uniquely spanned population, clinician, and consumer perspectives) to better understand existing evidence-practice gaps and identify key opportunities for improvements in clinical care.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONWhile high-level evidence exists to prevent falls in older people, falls prevention is rarely considered within contemporary OA management and this represents a concerning knowledge-to-practice gap.Given ageing populations and growth in the number of people with OA, it is time for falls prevention to be incorporated within routine OA care for older people.To achieve this, we need to re-shape current messaging around falls prevention and develop targeted resources to optimise clinician knowledge and skills in this area.

The feasibility and acceptability of a falls prevention e-learning program for physiotherapists.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of a falls prevention e-learning program for physiotherapists working with people with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A prospective pre-post quasi-experimental approach was adopted. An e-learning program on falls prevention specific to the OA population was developed and delivered. Feasibility and acceptability data were obtained from recruitment records, MoodleTM activity logs, multiple choice quizzes and customized surveys. RESULTS: Of the 65 physiotherapists and near-graduate physiotherapy students who met the eligibility criteria, 50 (77%) completed the e-learning program. Participants were satisfied and considered the program to be acceptable. The program met their expectations (n = 45; 90%) and was highly relevant to their work (median 8-10 [interquartile range (IQR)] 2; range 0 [not at all relevant] to 10 [extremely relevant]). An overall improvement in knowledge was also observed (mean percentage difference 8%; 95% CI -3.49, -1.27). DISCUSSION: Given a heightened risk of falls among people with OA, ensuring physiotherapists are skilled in falls prevention is important. Our acceptability and outcomes data indicate that a falls prevention e-learning program can be feasibly delivered to physiotherapists working in OA care. Future research should assess subsequent changes in clinical practice to determine whether physiotherapists deliver care reflective of contemporary falls prevention evidence.

A survey of patient and medical professional perspectives on implementing osteoarthritis management programs for hip and knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Strategies are needed to improve referral into, and uptake of, osteoarthritis (OA) management programs. This survey investigated and compared patients' and medical professionals' views around hip and knee OA management and factors impacting implementation of an osteoarthritis management program. METHODS: As part of a mixed-methods program of research, patients with hip or knee OA and medical professionals routinely involved in the management of OA, were invited to complete a comprehensive online survey. All data were analysed descriptively or using chi squared tests. Survey findings for factors perceived to impact implementation of an OA management programme were triangulated with previously reported qualitative data. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (38 females, 15 males) and 32 medical professionals (orthopaedic surgeons, sports physicians, rehabilitation physicians, rheumatologists and general practitioners) completed the survey. Twenty-eight patients (53%) had prior participation in the OA management programme (GLA:D® ) and 19 medical professionals (59%) had previously referred patients to the programme. Of the participants with prior exposure, 21 patients (75%) and 15 medical professionals (79%) agreed the programme was beneficial. A higher proportion of medical professionals, compared to patients, believed weight loss (100% vs. 67%), injection therapy (50% vs. 21%), hip replacement (100% vs. 62%) and knee replacement (97% vs. 62%) were effective treatments, with no differences for all other treatments. The barriers and enablers identified for referral into, and participation in, an OA management programme mostly aligned to factors identified in previous related qualitative research. Divergent factors in the survey included patients concerns about doing exercise-therapy with 81% (higher than expected) not reporting any concerns about exercising, and 19% (lower than expected) concerned about their OA joint, such as making their pain worse. CONCLUSIONS: This study has extended our understanding of barriers and enablers for referral into, and participation in, an OA management programme with a lower than expected number of patients being concerned about exercising due to their OA joint. Patients and medical professionals had positive views relating to the quality of the programme delivery, patient satisfaction and programme effectiveness. Medical professionals were more likely than patients to consider weight loss, injections and joint replacement as effective treatment options.

Global Burden of Disease Study 2019: an opportunity to understand the growing prevalence and impact of hip, knee, hand and other osteoarthritis in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Understanding population-level trends in osteoarthritis (OA) is critical for planning health services and disease prevention initiatives. AIM: To examine trends in the burden of hip, knee, hand and other OA related conditions in Australia from 1990 to 2019 and consider the OA burden in the context of other common conditions associated with older age. METHODS: Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 data for Australia on OA prevalence, OA-related years lived with disability (YLDs) and OA-related YLDs attributable to high body mass index (BMI) were sourced for 1990-2019. Age-standardised YLD data for ischaemic heart disease, stroke, dementia, type 2 diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were obtained for comparison. RESULTS: Overall, 3.20 million Australians were estimated to have OA in 2019, with substantial growth in the prevalence of hip (+171%), knee (+126%), hand (+110%) and other types of OA (+130%) from 1990 to 2019. Age-standardised prevalence rates reflect the contribution of population ageing. Concomitant growth in OA-related YLDs was also evident; knee OA and hand OA demonstrated the highest disease burden in 2019 (59 684 and 41 893 YLDs respectively). The proportion of knee OA burden attributable to high BMI was 36% in 2019. In 2019, age-standardised YLD rates were higher for OA (313 per 100 000 population) than other common conditions (range: 47 per 100 000 (ischaemic heart disease) to 284 per 100 000 (type 2 diabetes)). CONCLUSIONS: OA is an increasingly prevalent, impactful condition with a high non-fatal disease burden relative to other health conditions. Growth in OA populations and OA-related disability underscore the need for enhanced investment in prevention and management.

Evaluation of an injury prevention programme (Prep-to-Play) in women and girls playing Australian Football: design of a pragmatic, type III, hybrid implementation-effectiveness, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the increase in participation and risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and concussion in women's Australian Football, an injury prevention programme (Prep-to-Play) was codesigned with consumers (eg, coaches, players) and stakeholders (eg, the Australian Football League). The impact of supported and unsupported interventions on the use of Prep-to-Play (primary aim) and injury rates (secondary aim) will be evaluated in women and girls playing community Australian Football. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial will include ≥140 teams from U16, U18 or senior women's competitions. All 10 geographically separated clusters (each containing ≥14 teams) will start in the control (unsupported) phase and be randomised to one of five dates (or 'wedges') during the 2021 or 2022 season to sequentially transition to the intervention (supported Prep-to-Play), until all teams receive the intervention. Prep-to-Play includes four elements: a neuromuscular training warm-up, contact-focussed football skills (eg, tackling), strength exercises and education (eg, technique cues). When transitioning to supported interventions, study physiotherapists will deliver a workshop to coaches and player leaders on how to use Prep-to-Play, attend team training at least two times and provide ongoing support. In the unsupported phase, team will continue usual routines and may freely access available Prep-to-Play resources online (eg, posters and videos about the four elements), but without additional face-to-face support. Outcomes will be evaluated throughout the 2021 and 2022 seasons (~14 weeks per season). PRIMARY OUTCOME: use of Prep-to-Play will be reported via a team designate (weekly) and an independent observer (five visits over the two seasons) and defined as the team completing 75% of the programme, two-thirds (67%) of the time. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: injuries will be reported by the team sports trainer and/or players. Injury definition: any injury occurring during a football match or training that results in: (1) being unable to return to the field of play for that match or (2) missing ≥ one match. Outcomes in the supported and unsupported phases will be compared using a generalised linear mixed model adjusting for clustering and time. Due to the type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness design, the study is powered to detect a improvement in use of Prep-to-Play and a reduction in ACL injuries. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: La Trobe University Ethics Committee (HREC 20488) approved. Coaches provided informed consent to receive the supported intervention and players provided consent to be contacted if they sustained a head or knee injury. Results will be disseminated through partner organisations, peer-reviewed publications and scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04856241.

Poor Knee-specific and Generic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Scores at 6 Months Are Associated With Early Revision Knee Arthroplasty: A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: The ability to identify which patients are at a greater risk of early revision knee arthroplasty has important practical and resource implications. Many international arthroplasty registries administer patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide a holistic assessment of pain, function, and quality of life. However, few PROM scores have been evaluated as potential indicators of early revision knee arthroplasty, and earlier studies have largely focused on knee-specific measures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This national registry-based study asked: (1) Which 6-month postoperative knee-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision knee arthroplasty (defined as revision surgery performed 6 to 24 months after the primary procedure)? (2) Is a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on thresholds for the minimal important change) after primary knee arthroplasty associated with a lower risk of early revision? METHODS: Preoperative and 6-month postoperative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were sourced from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National. Between January 2013 and December 2020, PROM data were available for 19,402 primary total knee arthroplasties; these data were linked to AOANJRR data on revision knee arthroplasty. Of these, 3448 procedures were excluded because they did not have 6-month PROM data, they had not reached the 6-month postoperative point, they had died before 24 months, or they had received revision knee arthroplasty before the 6-month PROMs assessment. After these exclusions, data were analyzed for 15,954 primary knee arthroplasties. Associations between knee-specific (knee pain, Oxford Knee Score, and 12-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS-12]) or generic PROM scores (5-level EuroQol quality of life instrument [EQ-5D], EQ VAS, perceived change, and satisfaction) and revision surgery were explored using t-tests, chi-square tests, and regression models. Ninety-four revision procedures were performed at 6 to 24 months, most commonly for infection (39% [37 procedures]). The early revision group was younger than the unrevised group (mean age 64 years versus 68 years) and a between-group difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was noted. Apart from a small difference in preoperative low back pain for the early revision group (mean low back pain VAS 4.2 points for the early revision group versus 3.3 points for the unrevised group), there were no between-group differences in preoperative knee-specific or generic PROM scores on univariate analysis. As the inclusion of ASA grade or low back pain score did not alter the model results, the final multivariable model included only the most clinically plausible confounders (age and gender) as covariates. Multivariable models (adjusting for age and gender) were also used to examine the association between a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on published thresholds for minimal important change) and the likelihood of early revision. RESULTS: After adjusting for age and gender, poor postoperative knee pain, Oxford, KOOS-12, EQ-5D, and EQ VAS scores were all associated with early revision. A one-unit increase (worsening) in knee pain at 6 months was associated with a 31% increase in the likelihood of revision (RR 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.43]; p < 0.001). Reflecting the reversed scoring direction, a one-unit increase (improvement) in Oxford or KOOS-12 score was associated with a 9% and 5% reduction in revision risk, respectively (RR for Oxford: 0.91 [95% CI 0.90 to 0.93]; p < 0.001; RR for KOOS-12 summary: 0.95 [95% CI 0.94 to 0.97]; p < 0.001). Patient dissatisfaction (RR 6.8 [95% CI 3.7 to 12.3]) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 11.7 [95% CI 7.4 to 18.5]) at 6 months were also associated with an increased likelihood of early revision. After adjusting for age and gender, patients who did not achieve a clinically important improvement in PROM scores had a higher risk of early revision (RR 2.9 for the knee pain VAS, RR 4.2 for the Oxford Knee Score, RR 6.3 to 8.6 for KOOS-12, and RR 2.3 for EQ-5D) compared with those who did (reference group). CONCLUSION: Knee-specific and generic PROM scores offer an efficient approach to identifying patients at greater risk of early revision surgery, using either the 6-month score or the magnitude of improvement. These data indicate that surgeons can use single- and multi-item measures to detect a patient-perceived unsuccessful surgical outcome at 6 months after primary knee arthroplasty. Surgeons should be alert to poor PROM scores at 6 months or small improvements in scores (for example, less than 2 points for knee pain VAS or less than 10.5 points for Oxford Knee Score), which signal a need for direct patient follow-up or expedited clinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.