Patient information leaflets for placebo-controlled surgical trials: a review of current practice and recommendations for developers.

INTRODUCTION: Informed consent for participation in an RCT is an important ethical and legal requirement. In placebo surgical trials, further issues are raised, and to date, this has not been explored. Patient information leaflets (PILs) are a core component of the informed consent process. This study aimed to investigate the key content of PILs for recently completed placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery, to highlight areas of good practice, identify gaps in information provision for trials of this type and provide recommendations for practice. METHODS: PILs were sought from trials included in a recent systematic review of placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery. Trial characteristics and data on surgical and placebo interventions under evaluation were extracted. Directed content analysis was applied, informed by published regulatory and good practice guidance on PIL content and existing research on placebo-controlled surgical trials. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and presented as a narrative summary. RESULTS: Of the 62 eligible RCTs, authors of 59 trials were contactable and 14 PILs were received for analysis. At least 50% of all PILs included content on general trial design. Explanations of how the placebo differs or is similar to the surgical intervention (i.e. fidelity) were reported in 6 (43%) of the included PILs. Over half (57%) of the PILs included information on the potential therapeutic benefits of the surgical intervention. One (7%) included information on potential indirect therapeutic benefits from invasive components of the placebo. Five (36%) presented the known risks of the placebo intervention, whilst 8 (57%) presented information on the known risks of the surgical intervention. A range of terms was used across the PILs to describe the placebo component, including 'control', 'mock' and 'sham'. CONCLUSION: Developers of PILs for placebo-controlled surgical trials should carefully consider the use of language (e.g. sham, mock), be explicit about how the placebo differs (or is similar) to the surgical intervention and provide balanced presentations of potential benefits and risks of the surgical intervention separately from the placebo. Further research is required to determine optimal approaches to design and deliver this information for these trials.

No exponential rise in revision knee replacement surgery over the past 15 years: an analysis from the National Joint Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends in the incidence rate and the main indication for revision knee replacement (rKR) over the past 15 years in the UK. METHOD: Repeated national cross-sectional study from 2006 to 2020 using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR). Crude incidence rates were calculated using population statistics from the Office for National Statistics. RESULTS: Annual total counts of rKR increased from 2,743 procedures in 2006 to 6,819 procedures in 2019 (149% increase). The incidence rate of rKR increased from 6.3 per 100,000 adults in 2006 (95% CI 6.1 to 6.5) to 14 per 100,000 adults in 2019 (95% CI 14 to 14) (122% increase). Annual increases in the incidence rate of rKR became smaller over the study period. There was a 43.6% reduction in total rKR procedures in 2020 (during the Covid-19 pandemic) compared to 2019. Aseptic loosening was the most frequent indication for rKR overall (20.7% procedures). rKR for aseptic loosening peaked in 2012 and subsequently decreased. rKR for infection increased incrementally over the study period to become the most frequent indication in 2019 (2.7 per 100,000 adults [95% CI 2.6 to 2.9]). Infection accounted for 17.1% first linked rKR, 36.5% second linked rKR and 49.4% third or more linked rKR from 2014 to 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Recent trends suggest slowing of the rate of increase in the incidence of rKR. Infection is now the most common indication for rKR, following recent decreases in rKR for aseptic loosening. Infection was prevalent in re-revision KR procedures.

Research quality and transparency, outcome measurement and evidence for safety and effectiveness in robot-assisted surgery: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has potential panspecialty surgical benefits. High-quality evidence for widespread implementation is lacking. This systematic review aimed to assess the RAS evidence base for the quality of randomized evidence on safety and effectiveness, specialty 'clustering', and outcomes for RAS research. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. All pathologies and procedures utilizing RAS were included. Studies were limited to RCTs, the English language and publication within the last decade. The main outcomes selected for the review design were safety and efficacy, and study purpose. Secondary outcomes were study characteristics, funding and governance. RESULTS: Searches identified 7142 titles, from which 183 RCTs were identified for data extraction. The commonest specialty was urology (35·0 per cent). There were just 76 unique study populations, indicating significant overlap of publications; 103 principal studies were assessed further. Only 64·1 per cent of studies reported a primary outcome measure, with 29·1 per cent matching their registration/protocol. Safety was assessed in 68·9 per cent of trials; operative complications were the commonest measure. Forty-eight per cent of trials reported no significant difference in safety between RAS and comparator, and 11 per cent reported RAS to be superior. Efficacy or effectiveness was assessed in 80·6 per cent of trials; 43 per cent of trials showed no difference between RAS and comparator, and 24 per cent reported that RAS was superior. Funding was declared in 47·6 per cent of trials. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for RAS is of limited quality and variable transparency in reporting. No patterns of harm to patients were identified. RAS has potential to be beneficial, but requires continued high-quality evaluation.

The use of a patch to augment rotator cuff surgery - A survey of UK shoulder and elbow surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff tears are a common cause of shoulder pain and can result in prolonged periods of pain, disability and absence from work. Rotator cuff repair surgery is increasingly used in an attempt to resolve symptoms but has failure rates of around 40%. There is a pressing need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff repairs. Patch augmentation increasingly being used within the NHS in an attempt to reduce repair failures. The aim of this survey was to determine current UK practice and opinion relating to the factors that influence choice of patch, current patient selection and willingness to assist with generation of improved evidence. METHODS: An online survey was sent to the surgeon members of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society (BESS). Questions covered respondent demographics, experience with patches, indications for patch augmentation and willingness to be involved in a randomised trial of patch augmented rotator cuff surgery. RESULTS: The response rate was 105/550 (19%). 58% of respondents had used a patch to augment rotator cuff surgery. 70% of patch users had undertaken an augmented repair within the last 6 months. A wide surgical experience in augmentation was reported (ranging 1 to 200 implants used). However, most surgeons reported low volume usage, with a median of 5 rotator cuff augmentation procedures performed. At least 10 different products had been used. Most of the patches used were constructed from human decellularised dermis tissue, although porcine derived and synthetic based patches had also been used. Only 3-5% stated they would undertake an augmented repair for small tears across ages, whereas 28-40% and 19-59% would do so for large or massive tears respectively. When assessing patient suitability, patient age seemed relevant only for those with large and massive tears. Half of the surgeons reported an interest in taking part in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the role of patch augmentation for rotator cuff surgery, with a further 22% of respondent's undecided. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of patches have been used by surgeons to augment rotator cuff repair with a wide range of operator experience. There was substantial uncertainty about which patch to use and differing views on which patients were most suitable. There is a clear need for robust clinical evaluation and further research in this area.

Optimizing the design of invasive placebo interventions in randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Placebo-controlled trials play an important role in the evaluation of healthcare interventions. However, they can be challenging to design and deliver for invasive interventions, including surgery. In-depth understanding of the component parts of the treatment intervention is needed to ascertain what should, and should not, be delivered as part of the placebo. Assessment of risk to patients and strategies to ensure that the placebo effectively mimics the treatment are also required. To date, no guidance exists for the design of invasive placebo interventions. This study aimed to develop a framework to optimize the design and delivery of invasive placebo interventions in RCTs. METHODS: A preliminary framework was developed using published literature to: expand the scope of an existing typology, which facilitates the deconstruction of invasive interventions; and identify placebo optimization strategies. The framework was refined after consultation with key stakeholders in surgical trials, consensus methodology and medical ethics. RESULTS: The resulting DITTO framework consists of five stages: deconstruct treatment intervention into constituent components and co-interventions; identify critical surgical element(s); take out the critical element(s); think risk, feasibility and role of placebo in the trial when considering remaining components; and optimize placebo to ensure effective blinding of patients and trial personnel. CONCLUSION: DITTO considers invasive placebo composition systematically, accounting for risk, feasibility and placebo optimization. Use of the framework can support the design of high-quality RCTs, which are needed to underpin delivery of healthcare interventions.

ANTECEDENTES: Los ensayos controlados con placebo juegan un papel importante en la evaluación de las intervenciones sanitarias. Sin embargo, pueden ser difíciles de diseñar e implementar en el caso de intervenciones invasivas, incluida la cirugía. Se necesita un conocimiento profundo de los componentes de la intervención terapéutica (para determinar qué se debe y qué no se debe administrar como parte del placebo). También se precisa de una evaluación del riesgo para los pacientes y de las estrategias para garantizar que el placebo imite el tratamiento de forma efectiva. Hasta la fecha no existen guías para el diseño de intervenciones invasivas con placebo. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo desarrollar un marco para optimizar el diseño y la práctica de intervenciones invasivas con placebo dentro en los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (ECA). MÉTODOS: Utilizando la literatura publicada, se desarrolló un marco preliminar para i) ampliar el alcance de los modelos existentes para facilitar la deconstrucción de las actuaciones invasivas, y ii) identificar estrategias para optimizar el placebo. El marco se perfeccionó tras consultar con partes interesadas ​​en ensayos quirúrgicos, metodología de consenso y ética médica. RESULTADOS: El marco DITTO resultantes consiste en cinco etapas: Etapa 1: deconstrucción de la intervención de tratamiento en sus componentes esenciales y co-intervenciones; Etapa 2: identificar el(los) elemento(s) quirúrgico(s) básico(s); Etapa 3: eliminar el(los) elemento(s) básico(s); Etapa 4: considerar el riesgo, la viabilidad y el papel del placebo en el ensayo al tener en cuenta los demás componentes; y Etapa 5: optimizar el placebo para garantizar el cegamiento efectivo de los pacientes y del personal del ensayo. CONCLUSIÓN: DITTO considera de forma sistemática la naturaleza invasiva del placebo, teniendo en cuenta el riesgo, la viabilidad y la optimización del placebo. El uso de este marco de referencia puede ayudar al diseño de ECAs de alta calidad, necesarios para afianzar la implementación de intervenciones sanitarias.

Arthroscopic meniscal surgery: a national society treatment guideline and consensus statement.

AIMS: The aim of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) Meniscal Consensus Project was to develop an evidence-based treatment guideline for patients with meniscal lesions of the knee. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A formal consensus process was undertaken applying nominal group, Delphi, and appropriateness methods. Consensus was first reached on the terminology relating to the definition, investigation, and classification of meniscal lesions. A series of simulated clinical scenarios was then created and the appropriateness of arthroscopic meniscal surgery or nonoperative treatment in each scenario was rated by the group. The process was informed throughout by the latest published, and previously unpublished, clinical and epidemiological evidence. Scenarios were then grouped together based upon the similarity of clinical features and ratings to form the guideline for treatment. Feedback on the draft guideline was sought from the entire membership of BASK before final revisions and approval by the consensus group. RESULTS: A total of 45 simulated clinical scenarios were refined to five common clinical presentations and six corresponding treatment recommendations. The final guideline stratifies patients based upon a new, standardized classification of symptoms, signs, radiological findings, duration of symptoms, and previous treatment. CONCLUSION: The 2018 BASK Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery Treatment Guidance will facilitate the consistent identification and treatment of patients with meniscal lesions. It is hoped that this guidance will be adopted nationally by surgeons and help inform healthcare commissioning guidance. Validation in clinical practice is now required and several areas of uncertainty in relation to treatment should be a priority for future high-quality prospective studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:652-659.

Rates of knee arthroplasty within one-year of undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in England: temporal trends, regional and age-group variation in conversion rates.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) then subsequently receiving a knee arthroplasty within one or two years, with focus on patients over the age of 60 years and regional variation. METHODS: Patients undergoing APM in England over 20-years (01-April-1997 to 31-March 2017) were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). The proportion of patients undergoing arthroplasty in the same knee within one or two years of APM was determined and trends were analysed over time nationally and by NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) region. RESULTS: 806,195 APM patients were eligible for analysis with at least one-year of follow up and 746,630 with two-years. The odds of arthroplasty conversion within one year increased over the study period (odds ratio [OR] 3.10 within 1-year in 2014 vs 2000; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.75-3.50). For patients undergoing APM aged 60 years or older in 2015-16, 9.9% (1689/17,043; 95% CI 9.5-10.4) underwent arthroplasty within 1-year and, in 2014-15, 16.6% (3100/18,734; 95% CI 16.0-17.1) underwent arthroplasty within 2-years. There was greater than 10-fold variation by CCG. CONCLUSIONS: Over the study period, the proportion of patients undergoing arthroplasty within one-year of APM increased. In 2015-16, of patients aged 60 years or older who underwent APM, 10% subsequently underwent knee arthroplasty within one year (17% within two years in 2014-15) and there was a high level of regional variation in this outcome. The development and adoption of national treatment guidance is recommended to improve and standardise treatment selection.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a placebo-controlled randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of arthroscopic subacromial decompression in patients with subacromial shoulder pain.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to compare the use of resources, costs, and quality of life outcomes associated with subacromial decompression, arthroscopy only (placebo surgery), and no treatment for subacromial pain in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS), and to estimate their cost-effectiveness. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The use of resources, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed in the trial at six months and one year. Results were extrapolated to two years after randomization. Differences between treatment arms, based on the intention-to-treat principle, were adjusted for covariates and missing data were handled using multiple imputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, with uncertainty around the values estimated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Cumulative mean QALYs/mean costs of health care service use and surgery per patient from baseline to 12 months were estimated as 0.640 (standard error (se) 0.024)/£3147 (se 166) in the decompression arm, 0.656 (se 0.020)/£2830 (se 183) in the arthroscopy only arm and 0.522 (se 0.029)/£1451 (se 151) in the no treatment arm. Statistically significant differences in cumulative QALYs and costs were found at six and 12 months for the decompression versus no treatment comparison only. The probabilities of decompression being cost-effective compared with no treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY were close to 0% at six months and approximately 50% at one year, with this probability potentially increasing for the extrapolation to two years. DISCUSSION: The evidence for cost-effectiveness at 12 months was inconclusive. Decompression could be cost-effective in the longer-term, but results of this analysis are sensitive to the assumptions made about how costs and QALYs are extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the trial.

Towards prevention of post-traumatic osteoarthritis: report from an international expert working group on considerations for the design and conduct of interventional studies following acute knee injury.

OBJECTIVE: There are few guidelines for clinical trials of interventions for prevention of post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA), reflecting challenges in this area. An international multi-disciplinary expert group including patients was convened to generate points to consider for the design and conduct of interventional studies following acute knee injury. DESIGN: An evidence review on acute knee injury interventional studies to prevent PTOA was presented to the group, alongside overviews of challenges in this area, including potential targets, biomarkers and imaging. Working groups considered pre-identified key areas: eligibility criteria and outcomes, biomarkers, injury definition and intervention timing including multi-modality interventions. Consensus agreement within the group on points to consider was generated and is reported here after iterative review by all contributors. RESULTS: The evidence review identified 37 studies. Study duration and outcomes varied widely and 70% examined surgical interventions. Considerations were grouped into three areas: justification of inclusion criteria including the classification of injury and participant age (as people over 35 may have pre-existing OA); careful consideration in the selection and timing of outcomes or biomarkers; definition of the intervention(s)/comparator(s) and the appropriate time-window for intervention (considerations may be particular to intervention type). Areas for further research included demonstrating the utility of patient-reported outcomes, biomarkers and imaging outcomes from ancillary/cohort studies in this area, and development of surrogate clinical trial endpoints that shorten the duration of clinical trials and are acceptable to regulatory agencies. CONCLUSIONS: These considerations represent the first international consensus on the conduct of interventional studies following acute knee joint trauma.

National consensus on the definition, investigation, and classification of meniscal lesions of the knee.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to deliver standardised terminology for the identification and stratification of patients with meniscal lesions of the knee. METHODS: A national group of expert surgeons was convened by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) and a formal consensus process was undertaken following a validated methodology. A combination of nominal group techniques and an iterative Delphi process was used to develop and refine relevant definitions. Where appropriate, definitions were placed into categories to facilitate use in clinical practice and guideline development. RESULTS: A degenerative meniscus develops progressively with degradation of meniscal tissue and this may be revealed by intra-meniscal high signal on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A meniscal tear was defined as a defect or split in the meniscocapsular complex, which can occur in a degenerative or non-degenerative meniscus. Degenerative meniscal lesions (high signal or tear) are frequent in the general population and are often incidental findings on knee MRI. Symptoms were defined and classified into three groups: (1) strongly suggestive of a treatable meniscal lesion, (2) potentially suggestive of a treatable meniscal lesion, (3) osteoarthritic. A strategy for radiological imaging (radiograph ±â€¯MRI) was agreed for the investigation of the patients with a possible meniscal tear. Meniscal lesions and tear patterns on MRI imaging were defined and classified with reference to potential treatability: (1) target, (2) possible target, (3) no target. CONCLUSIONS: The agreed terminology will enable patients with meniscal lesions to be identified and stratified consistently in clinical practice, research and guideline development.

The treatment of segmental tibial fractures: does patient preference differ from surgeon choice?

INTRODUCTION: Segmental tibial fractures are complex injuries with a prolonged recovery time. Current definitive treatment options include intramedullary fixation or a circular external fixator. However, there is uncertainty as to which surgical option is preferable and there are no sufficiently rigorous multi-centre trials that have answered this question. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nailing to the application of a circular external fixator. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A convenience questionnaire survey of attending surgeons was conducted during the United Kingdom's Orthopaedic Trauma Society annual meeting 2017 to determine the treatment modalities used for a segmental tibial fracture (n=63). Patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients who had been treated for a segmental tibial fracture as part of a patient and public involvement focus group with questions covering the domains of surgical preference, treatment expectations, outcome, the consent process and follow-up regime (n=5). RESULTS: Based on the surgeon survey, 39% routinely use circular frame fixation following segmental tibial fracture compared to 61% who use nail fixation. Nail fixation was reported as the treatment of choice for a closed injury in a healthy patient in 81% of surgeons, and by 86% for a patient with a closed fracture who was obese. Twenty-one percent reported that they would use a nail for an open segmental tibia fracture in diabetics who smoked, whilst 57% would opt for a nail for a closed injury with compartment syndrome, and only 27% would use a nail for an open segmental injury in a young fit sports person. The patient and public preference exercise identified that sleep, early functional outcomes and psychosocial measures of outcomes are important. CONCLUSION: We concluded that a RCT comparing definitive fixation with an intramedullary nail and a circular external fixator is justified as there remains uncertainty on the optimal surgical management for segmental tibial fractures. Furthermore, psychosocial factors and early post-operative outcomes should be reported as core outcome measures as part of such a trial.

Effectiveness of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (UKUFF): a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: The appropriate management for patients with a degenerative tear of the rotator cuff remains controversial, but operative treatment, particularly arthroscopic surgery, is increasingly being used. Our aim in this paper was to compare the effectiveness of arthroscopic with open repair of the rotator cuff. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 273 patients were recruited to a randomised comparison trial (136 to arthroscopic surgery and 137 to open surgery) from 19 teaching and general hospitals in the United Kingdom. The surgeons used their usual preferred method of repair. The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), two years post-operatively, was the primary outcome measure. Imaging of the shoulder was performed at one year after surgery. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN97804283. RESULTS: The mean OSS improved from 26.3 (standard deviation (sd) 8.2) at baseline, to 41.7 (sd 7.9) two years post-operatively for arthroscopic surgery and from 25.0 (sd 8.0) to 41.5 (sd 7.9) for open surgery. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed no statistical difference between the groups at two years (difference in OSS score -0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.75 to 1.22; p = 0.452). The confidence interval excluded the pre-determined clinically important difference in the OSS of three points. The rate of re-tear was not significantly different between the two groups (46.4% for arthroscopic and 38.6% for open surgery; 95% CI -6.9 to 25.8; p = 0.256). Healed repairs had the most improved OSS. These findings were the same when analysed per-protocol. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence of difference in effectiveness between open and arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears. The rate of re-tear is high in both groups, for all sizes of tear and ages and this adversely affects the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:107-15.

A survival analysis of 1084 knees of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison between consultant and trainee surgeons.

AIMS: The aim of this to study was to compare the previously unreported long-term survival outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performed by trainee surgeons and consultants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We therefore identified a previously unreported cohort of 1084 knees in 947 patients who had a UKA inserted for anteromedial knee arthritis by consultants and surgeons in training, at a tertiary arthroplasty centre and performed survival analysis on the group with revision as the endpoint. RESULTS: The ten-year cumulative survival rate for revision or exchange of any part of the prosthetic components was 93.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.1 to 100, number at risk 45). Consultant surgeons had a nine-year cumulative survival rate of 93.9% (95% CI 90.2 to 97.6, number at risk 16). Trainee surgeons had a cumulative nine-year survival rate of 93.0% (95% CI 90.3 to 95.7, number at risk 35). Although there was no differences in implant survival between consultants and trainees (p = 0.30), there was a difference in failure pattern whereby all re-operations performed for bearing dislocation (n = 7), occurred in the trainee group. This accounted for 0.6% of the entire cohort and 15% of the re-operations. CONCLUSION: This is the largest single series of the Oxford UKA ever reported and demonstrates that good results can be achieved by a heterogeneous group of surgeons, including trainees, if performed within a high-volume centre with considerable experience with the procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;(10 Suppl B):22-7.

The clinical symptom profile of early radiographic knee arthritis: a pain and function comparison with advanced disease.

PURPOSE: Early knee OA is a significant problem that can be disabling. The purpose of this study was to understand the symptomatic profile of patients with early knee OA when compared to those with end-stage knee OA. METHODS: A cross-sectional case control study design was used to compare those with early structural change to those with advanced structural change. In total, 100 consecutive patients with early radiographic knee OA presenting to the knee service outpatient clinic from December 2010 to August 2011 were prospectively identified on the basis of their radiographic changes. All met the symptomatic and radiological diagnostic criteria of early knee OA as defined by Luyten et al. They were compared with 200 knees with full thickness anteromedial knee OA and 200 knees with full thickness tricompartmental knee OA for their demographic, pain and functional profile. RESULTS: Patients with early knee OA were younger than those with full thickness disease. However, 78% of individual patients with early radiographic OA had pain and function scores equal to individual patients presenting for UKA, whilst 74% of individual patients with early radiographic OA had pain and function scores that are equal to or worse than individual patients presenting for TKA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with early radiographic knee OA demonstrate considerable overlap in the severity of their symptoms with those demonstrating end-stage structural changes within the knee. Patients with early structural changes of arthritis should not be assumed by clinicians to have mild disease. In many cases, their symptoms are as bad as those with end-stage structural changes. This work will help clinicians to identify and categorise those with early arthritis and thereby assist in guiding appropriate treatments.

The effect of orientation of the acetabular component on outcome following total hip arthroplasty with small diameter hard-on-soft bearings.

We assessed the orientation of the acetabular component in 1070 primary total hip arthroplasties with hard-on-soft, small diameter bearings, aiming to determine the size and site of the target zone that optimises outcome. Outcome measures included complications, dislocations, revisions and ΔOHS (the difference between the Oxford Hip Scores pre-operatively and five years post-operatively). A wide scatter of orientation was observed (2sd 15°). Placing the component within Lewinnek's zone was not associated withimproved outcome. Of the different zone sizes tested (± 5°, ± 10° and ± 15°), only ± 15° was associated with a decreased rate of dislocation. The dislocation rate with acetabular components inside an inclination/anteversion zone of 40°/15° ± 15° was four times lower than those outside. The only zone size associated with statistically significant and clinically important improvement in OHS was ± 5°. The best outcomes (ΔOHS > 26) were achieved with a 45°/25° ± 5° zone. This study demonstrated that with traditional technology surgeons can only reliably achieve a target zone of ±15°. As the optimal zone to diminish the risk of dislocation is also ±15°, surgeons should be able to achieve this. This is the first study to demonstrate that optimal orientation of the acetabular component improves the functional outcome. However, the target zone is small (± 5°) and cannot, with current technology, be consistently achieved.

Can pain and function be distinguished in the Oxford Hip Score in a meaningful way? : an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore dimensionality of the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and examine whether self-reported pain and functioning can be distinguished in the form of subscales. METHODS: This was a secondary data analysis of the UK NHS hospital episode statistics/patient-reported outcome measures dataset containing pre-operative OHS scores on 97 487 patients who were undergoing hip replacement surgery. RESULTS: The proposed number of factors to extract depended on the method of extraction employed. Velicer's Minimum Average Partial test and the Parallel Analysis suggested one factor, the Cattell's scree test and Kaiser-over-1 rule suggested two factors. Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the two-factor OHS had most of the items saliently loading either of the two factors. These factors were named 'Pain' and 'Function' and their respective subscales were created. There was some cross-loading of items: 8 (pain on standing up from a chair) and 11 (pain during work). These items were assigned to the 'Pain' subscale. The final 'Pain' subscale consisted of items 1, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The 'Function' subscale consisted of items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, with the recommended scoring of the subscales being from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Cronbach's alpha was 0.855 for the 'Pain' subscale and 0.861 for the 'Function' subscale. A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the two-factor model of the OHS had a better fit. However, none of the one-factor or two-factor models was rejected. CONCLUSION: Factor analyses demonstrated that, in addition to current usage as a single summary scale, separate information on pain and self-reported function can be extracted from the OHS in a meaningful way in the form of subscales. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:305-9.

Protocol for the Femoroacetabular Impingement Trial (FAIT): a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing surgical and non-surgical management of femoroacetabular impingement.

AIMS: Femoroacetabular Junction Impingement (FAI) describes abnormalities in the shape of the femoral head-neck junction, or abnormalities in the orientation of the acetabulum. In the short term, FAI can give rise to pain and disability, and in the long-term it significantly increases the risk of developing osteoarthritis. The Femoroacetabular Impingement Trial (FAIT) aims to determine whether operative or non-operative intervention is more effective at improving symptoms and preventing the development and progression of osteoarthritis. METHODS: FAIT is a multicentre superiority parallel two-arm randomised controlled trial comparing physiotherapy and activity modification with arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of symptomatic FAI. Patients aged 18 to 60 with clinical and radiological evidence of FAI are eligible. Principal exclusion criteria include previous surgery to the index hip, established osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence ≥ 2), hip dysplasia (centre-edge angle < 20°), and completion of a physiotherapy programme targeting FAI within the previous 12 months. Recruitment will take place over 24 months and 120 patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio and followed up for three years. The two primary outcome measures are change in hip outcome score eight months post-randomisation (approximately six-months post-intervention initiation) and change in radiographic minimum joint space width 38 months post-randomisation. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01893034. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:321-7.