Burr-hole drainage with or without irrigation for chronic subdural haematoma (FINISH): a Finnish, nationwide, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic subdural haematoma is a common surgically treated intracranial emergency. Burr-hole drainage surgery, to evacuate chronic subdural haematoma, involves three elements: creation of a burr hole for access, irrigation of the subdural space, and insertion of a subdural drain. Although the subdural drain has been established as beneficial, the therapeutic effect of subdural irrigation has not been addressed. METHODS: The FINISH trial was an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, multicentre, nationwide, randomised, controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial in five neurosurgical units in Finland that enrolled adults aged 18 years or older with a chronic subdural haematoma requiring burr-hole drainage. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer-generated block randomisation with block sizes of four, six, or eight, stratified by site, to burr-hole drainage either with or without subdural irrigation. All patients and staff were masked to treatment assignment apart from the neurosurgeon and operating room staff. A burr hole was drilled at the site of maximum haematoma thickness in both groups, and the subdural space was either irrigated or not irrigated before inserting a subdural drain, which remained in place for 48 h. Reoperations, functional outcome, mortality, and adverse events were recorded for 6 months after surgery. The primary outcome was the reoperation rate within 6 months. The non-inferiority margin was set at 7·5%. Key secondary outcomes that were also required to conclude non-inferiority were the proportion of participants with unfavourable functional outcomes (ie, modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, where 0 indicates no symptoms and 6 indicates death) and mortality rate at 6 months. The primary and key secondary analyses were done in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04203550) and is completed. FINDINGS: From Jan 1, 2020, to Aug 17, 2022, we assessed 1644 patients for eligibility and 589 (36%) patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group and treated (294 assigned to drainage with irrigation and 295 assigned to drainage without irrigation; 165 [28%] women and 424 [72%] men). The 6-month follow-up period extended until Feb 14, 2023. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 54 (18·3%) of 295 participants required reoperation in the group assigned to receive no irrigation versus 37 (12·6%) of 294 in the group assigned to receive irrigation (difference of 6·0 percentage points, 95% CI 0·2-11·7; p=0·30; adjusted for study site). There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of people with modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6 (37 [13·1%] of 283 in the no-irrigation group vs 36 [12·6%] of 285 in the irrigation group; p=0·89) or mortality rate (18 [6·1%] of 295 in the no-irrigation group vs 21 [7·1%] of 294 in the irrigation group; p=0·58). The findings of the primary intention-to-treat analysis were not materially altered in the per-protocol analysis. There were no significant between-group differences in the number of adverse events, and the most frequent severe adverse events were systemic infections (26 [8·8%] of 295 participants who did not receive irrigation vs 22 [7·5%] of 294 participants who received irrigation), intracranial haemorrhage (13 [4·4%] vs seven [2·4%]), and epileptic seizures (five [1·7%] vs nine [3·1%]). INTERPRETATION: We could not conclude non-inferiority of burr-hole drainage without irrigation. The reoperation rate was 6·0 percentage points higher after burr-hole drainage without subdural irrigation than with subdural irrigation. Considering that there were no differences in functional outcome or mortality between the groups, the trial favours the use of subdural irrigation. FUNDING: State Fund for University Level Health Research (Helsinki University Hospital), Finska Läkaresällskapet, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, and Svenska Kulturfonden.

Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy for a Degenerative Meniscus Tear Is Not Cost Effective Compared With Placebo Surgery: An Economic Evaluation Based on the FIDELITY Trial Data.

BACKGROUND: In patients with a degenerative tear of the medial meniscus, recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown no treatment benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) over conservative treatment or placebo surgery. Yet, advocates of APM still argue that APM is cost effective. Giving advocates of APM their due, we note that there is evidence from the treatment of other musculoskeletal complaints to suggest that a treatment may prove cost effective even in the absence of improvements in efficacy outcomes, as it may lead to other benefits, such as diminished productivity loss and reduced costs, and so the question of cost effectiveness needs to be answered for APM. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does APM result in lower postoperative costs compared with placebo surgery? (2) Is APM cost-effective compared with placebo surgery? METHODS: One hundred forty-six adults aged 35 to 65 years with knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis according to the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria were randomized to APM (n = 70) or placebo surgery (n = 76). In the APM and placebo surgery groups, mean age was 52 ± 7 years and 52 ± 7 years, and 60% (42 of 70) and 62% (47 of 76) of participants were men, respectively. There were no between-group differences in baseline characteristics. In both groups, a standard diagnostic arthroscopy was first performed. Thereafter, in the APM group, the torn meniscus was trimmed to solid meniscus tissue, whereas in the placebo surgery group, APM was carefully mimicked but no resection of meniscal tissue was performed; as such, surgical costs were the same in both arms and were not included in the analyses. All patients received identical postoperative care including a graduated home-based exercise program. At the 2-year follow-up, two patients were lost to follow-up, both in the placebo surgery group. Cost effectiveness over the 2-year trial period was computed as incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for improvements in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), using both the societal (primary) and healthcare system (secondary) perspectives. To be able to consider APM cost effective, the CEA analysis should yield a positive INMB value. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to assess uncertainty. Several one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: APM did not deliver lower postoperative costs, nor did it convincingly improve quality of life scores when compared with placebo surgery. From a societal perspective, APM was associated with € 971 (95% CI -2013 to 4017) higher costs and 0.015 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.041) improved QALYs over 2-year follow-up compared with placebo surgery. Both differences were statistically inconclusive (a wide 95% CI that crossed the line of no difference). Using the conventional willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of € 35,000 per QALY, APM resulted in a negative INMB of € -460 (95% CI -3757 to 2698). In our analysis, APM would result in a positive INMB only when the WTP threshold rises to about € 65,000 per QALY. The wide 95% CIs suggests uncertain cost effectiveness irrespective of chosen WTP threshold. CONCLUSION: The results of this study lend further support to clinical practice guidelines recommending against the use of APM in patients with a degenerative meniscus tear. Given the robustness of existing evidence demonstrating no benefit or cost effectiveness of APM over nonsurgical treatment or placebo surgery, future research is unlikely to alter this conclusion.Level of Evidence Level III, economic analysis.

Five-Year Follow-Up of Surgery vs Functional Bracing for Closed Displaced Humeral Shaft Fractures.

This study compares outcomes of surgery and functional bracing for closed humeral shaft fractures after 5 years of follow-up.

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for common outcome instruments in patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture - analysis of the FISH randomised clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND: Two common ways of assessing the clinical relevance of treatment outcomes are the minimal important difference (MID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). The former represents the smallest change in the given outcome that makes people feel better, while the latter is the symptom level at which patients feel well. METHODS: We recruited 124 patients with a humeral shaft fracture to a randomised controlled trial comparing surgery to nonsurgical care. Outcome instruments included the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, the Constant-Murley score, and two numerical rating scales (NRS) for pain (at rest and on activities). A reduction in DASH and pain scores, and increase in the Constant-Murley score represents improvement. We used four methods (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve, the mean difference of change, the mean change, and predictive modelling methods) to determine the MID, and two methods (the ROC and 75th percentile) for the PASS. As an anchor for the analyses, we assessed patients' satisfaction regarding the injured arm using a 7-item Likert-scale. RESULTS: The change in the anchor question was strongly correlated with the change in DASH, moderately correlated with the change of the Constant-Murley score and pain on activities, and poorly correlated with the change in pain at rest (Spearman's rho 0.51, -0.40, 0.36, and 0.15, respectively). Depending on the method, the MID estimates for DASH ranged from -6.7 to -11.2, pain on activities from -0.5 to -1.3, and the Constant-Murley score from 6.3 to 13.5. The ROC method provided reliable estimates for DASH (-6.7 points, Area Under Curve [AUC] 0.77), the Constant-Murley Score (7.6 points, AUC 0.71), and pain on activities (-0.5 points, AUC 0.68). The PASS estimates were 14 and 10 for DASH, 2.5 and 2 for pain on activities, and 68 and 74 for the Constant-Murley score with the ROC and 75th percentile methods, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study provides credible estimates for the MID and PASS values of DASH, pain on activities and the Constant-Murley score, but not for pain at rest. The suggested cut-offs can be used in future studies and for assessing treatment success in patients with humeral shaft fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01719887, first registration 01/11/2012.

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain and the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) for patients with osteoarthritis at the base of thumb.

BACKGROUND: The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Patient-rated wrist/hand evaluation (PRWHE) are patient-reported outcomes frequently used for evaluating pain and function of the wrist and hand. The aim of this study was to determine thresholds for minimal important difference (MID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for NRS pain and PRWHE instruments in patients with base of thumb osteoarthritis. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with symptomatic base of thumb osteoarthritis wore a splint for six weeks before undergoing trapeziectomy. NRS pain (0 to 10) and PRWHE (0 to 100) were collected at the time of recruitment (baseline), after splint immobilization prior to surgery, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. Four anchor-based methods were used to determine MID for NRS pain and PRWHE: the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve, the mean difference of change (MDC), the mean change (MC) and the predictive modelling methods. Two approaches were used to determine PASS for NRS pain and PRWHE: the 75th percentile and the ROC curve methods. The anchor question for MID was the change perceived by the patient compared with baseline; the anchor question for PASS was whether the patient would be satisfied if the condition were to stay similar. The correlation between the transition anchor at baseline and the outcome at all time points combined was calculated using the Spearman's rho analysis. RESULTS: The MID for NRS pain was 2.5 using the ROC curve method, 2.0 using the MDC method, 2.8 using the MC method, and 2.5 using the predictive modelling method. The corresponding MIDs for PRWHE were 22, 24, 10, and 20. The PASS values for NRS pain and PRWHE were 2.5 and 30 using the ROC curve method, and 2.0 and 22 using the 75th percentile method, respectively. The area under curve (AUC) analyses showed excellent discrimination for all measures. CONCLUSION: We found credible MID estimates for NRS and PRWHE (including its subscales), although the MID estimates varied depending on the method used. The estimates were 20-30% of the range of scores of the instruments. The cut-offs for MID and PASS showed good or excellent discrimination, lending support for their use in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinimetrics study was approved by the Helsinki University ethical review board (HUS1525/2017).

Responsiveness of different pain measures and recall periods in people undergoing surgery after a period of splinting for basal thumb joint osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Basal thumb joint osteoarthritis (OA) is a common painful condition of the hand often treated surgically if non-operative care does not provide sufficient pain relief. Many instruments are available to measure pain for this condition including single item and multidimensional measures. To inform our choice of instrument for the purpose of evaluating the value of surgery for people with thumb OA, the aim of this study was to compare the longitudinal validity and signal to noise ratio of a single item numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain and the Patient-rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) pain subscale, and to assess if recall period affects longitudinal validity of the NRS pain and reported pain levels. METHODS: We invited 52 patients referred for surgical treatment of basal thumb joint OA to participate in this study. All wore a splint for six weeks followed by surgery. Pain during the past day, week, and month and the PRWHE were collected at baseline, operation day, and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. Responsiveness was assessed with two methods: 1) using participant-reported global improvement and PRWHE function subscale as external anchors (longitudinal validity) and 2) comparing Standardized Response Means (SRM). RESULTS: The Spearman's ρ between PRWHE pain and participant-reported global improvement was better (0.71) compared with NRS past day (0.55), past week (0.62), or past month (0.59). Similar findings were found with PRWHE function as anchor (Pearson's r for PRWHE pain 0.78; NRS past day 0.68; past week 0.73; past month 0.69). The SRM of PRWHE pain subscale (2.8) and NRS past week (2.9) outperformed pain past day (2.3) and month (2.4). Mean pain was 0.3 points (on a 0 to 10 scale) worse during past week when compared with past day and 0.3 worse during past month than during past week. CONCLUSIONS: All studied pain measures captured the change in pain over time. For clinical trials, we recommend PRWHE pain subscale or NRS past week due to their better signal noise ratio. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered.

Return to work after subacromial decompression, diagnostic arthroscopy, or exercise therapy for shoulder impingement: a randomised, placebo-surgery controlled FIMPACT clinical trial with five-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic subacromial decompression is one of the most commonly performed shoulder surgeries in the world. It is performed to treat patients with suspected shoulder impingement syndrome, i.e., subacromial pain syndrome. Only few studies have specifically assessed return-to-work rates after subacromial decompression surgery. All existing evidence comes from open, unblinded study designs and this lack of blinding introduces the potential for bias. We assessed return to work and its predictors in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome in a secondary analysis of a placebo-surgery controlled trial. METHODS: One hundred eighty-four patients in a randomised trial had undergone arthroscopic subacromial decompression (n = 57), diagnostic arthroscopy, a placebo surgical intervention, (n = 59), or exercise therapy (n = 68). We assessed return to work, defined as having returned to work for at least two follow-up visits by the primary 24-month time point, work status at 24 and 60 months, and trajectories of return to work per follow-up time point. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to the assignment regarding the arthroscopic subacromial decompression vs. diagnostic arthroscopy comparison. We assessed the treatment effect on the full analysis set as the difference between the groups in return-to-work rates and work status at 24 months and at 60 months using Chi-square test and the predictors of return to work with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: There was no difference in the trajectories of return to work between the study groups. By 24 months, 50 of 57 patients (88%) had returned to work in the arthroscopic subacromial decompression group, while the respective figures were 52 of 59 (88%) in the diagnostic arthroscopy group and 61 of 68 (90%) in the exercise therapy group. No clinically relevant predictors of return to work were found. The proportion of patients at work was 80% (147/184) at 24 months and 73% (124/184) at 60 months, with no difference between the treatment groups (p-values 0.842 and 0.943, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic subacromial decompression provided no benefit over diagnostic arthroscopy or exercise therapy on return to work in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. We did not find clinically relevant predictors of return to work either. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00428870 .

Outcomes With Surgery vs Functional Bracing for Patients With Closed, Displaced Humeral Shaft Fractures and the Need for Secondary Surgery: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the FISH Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Existing evidence indicates that surgery fails to provide superior functional outcome over nonoperative care in patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture. However, up to one-third of patients treated nonoperatively may require secondary surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare the 2-year outcomes of patients who required secondary surgery with the outcomes of patients with successful initial treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 2-year follow-up of the Finnish Shaft of the Humerus (FISH) randomized clinical trial comparing surgery with nonoperative treatment (functional brace) was completed in January 2020. Enrollment in the original trial was between November 2012 and January 2018 at 2 university hospital trauma centers in Finland. A total of 321 adult patients with closed, displaced humeral shaft fracture were assessed for eligibility. After excluding patients with cognitive disabilities, multimorbidity, or multiple trauma and those refusing randomization, 82 patients were randomized. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions were surgery with plate fixation (n = 38; initial surgery group) or functional bracing (n = 44); the latter group was divided into the successful fracture healing group (n = 30; bracing group) and the secondary surgery group (n = 14) with fracture healing problems. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 2 years (range, 0 to 100 points; 0 denotes no disability, 100 extreme disability; minimal clinically important difference, 10 points). RESULTS: Of 82 randomized patients, 38 (46%) were female. The mean (SD) age was 48.9 (17.1) years. A total of 74 patients (90%) completed the 2-year follow-up. At 2 years, the mean DASH score was 6.8 (95% CI, 2.3 to 11.4) in the initial surgery group, 6.0 (95% CI, 1.0 to 11.0) in the bracing group, and 17.5 (95% CI, 10.5 to 24.5) in the secondary surgery group. The between-group difference was -10.7 points (95% CI, -19.1 to -2.3; P = .01) between the initial and secondary surgery groups and -11.5 points (95% CI, -20.1 to -2.9; P = .009) between the bracing group and secondary surgery group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients contemplating treatment for closed humeral shaft fracture should be informed that two-thirds of patients treated with functional bracing may heal successfully while one-third may experience fracture healing problems that require secondary surgery and lead to inferior functional outcomes 2 years after the injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01719887.

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for pain, Constant-Murley score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The results of clinical trials should be assessed for both statistical significance and importance of observed effects to patients. Minimal important difference (MID) is a threshold denoting a difference that is important to patients. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a threshold above which patients feel well. OBJECTIVE: To determine MID and PASS for common outcome instruments in patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS). METHODS: We used data from the FIMPACT trial, a randomised controlled trial of treatment for SAPS that included 193 patients. The outcomes were shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity, both measured with the 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS), the Constant-Murley score (CS), and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). The transition question was a five-point global rating of change. We used three anchor-based methods to determine the MID for improvement: the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the mean difference of change and the mean change methods. For the PASS, we used the ROC and 75th percentile methods and calculated estimates using two different anchor question thresholds. RESULTS: Different MID methods yielded different estimates. The ROC method yielded the smallest estimates for MID: 20 mm for shoulder pain on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST, with good to excellent discrimination (areas under curve (AUCs) from 0.86 to 0.94). We could not establish a reliable MID for pain at rest. The PASS estimates were consistent between methods. The ROC method PASS thresholds using a conservative anchor question threshold were 2 mm for pain at rest, 9 mm for pain on activity, 80 points for CS and 11 points for SST, with AUCs from 0.74 to 0.83. CONCLUSION: We recommend the smallest estimate from different methods as the MID, because it is very unlikely that changes smaller than the smallest MID estimate are important to patients: 20 mm for pain VAS on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST. We recommend PASS estimates of 9 mm for pain on arm activity, 80 points for CS, and 11 points for SST. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00428870 (first registered January 29, 2007).

Subacromial decompression versus diagnostic arthroscopy for shoulder impingement: a 5-year follow-up of a randomised, placebo surgery controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term efficacy of arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) by comparing it with diagnostic arthroscopy (primary comparison), a placebo surgical intervention, and with a non-operative alternative, exercise therapy (secondary comparison). METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, three group, randomised, controlled superiority trial. We included 210 patients aged 35-65 years, who had symptoms consistent with shoulder impingement syndrome for more than 3 months. 175 participants (83%) completed the 5 years follow-up. Patient enrolment began on 1 February 2005 and the 5-year follow-up was completed by 10 October 2018. The two primary outcomes were shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity measured with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Minimally important difference (MID) was set at 15. We used a mixed-model repeated measurements analysis of variance with participant as a random factor, the baseline value as a covariate and assuming a covariance structure with compound symmetry. RESULTS: In the primary intention to treat analysis (ASD vs diagnostic arthroscopy), there were no between-group differences that exceeded the MID for the primary outcomes at 5 years: the mean difference between groups (ASD minus diagnostic arthroscopy) in pain VAS were -2.0 (95% CI -8.5 to 4.6; p=0.56) at rest and -8.0 (-17.3 to 1.3; p=0.093) on arm activity. There were no between-group differences in the secondary outcomes or adverse events that exceeded the MID. In our secondary comparison (ASD vs exercise therapy), the mean differences between groups (ASD minus exercise therapy) in pain VAS were 1.0 (-5.6 to 7.6; p=0.77) at rest and -3.9 (-12.8 to 5.1; p=0.40) on arm activity. There were no significant between-group differences for the secondary outcomes or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: ASD provided no benefit over diagnostic arthroscopy (or exercise therapy) at 5 years for patients with shoulder impingement syndrome.

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 5 year follow-up of the placebo-surgery controlled FIDELITY (Finnish Degenerative Meniscus Lesion Study) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) on the development of radiographic knee osteoarthritis, and on knee symptoms and function, at 5 years follow-up. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, participant- and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled trial. SETTING: Orthopaedic departments in five public hospitals in Finland. PARTICIPANTS: 146 adults, mean age 52 years (range 35-65 years), with knee symptoms consistent with degenerative medial meniscus tear verified by MRI scan and arthroscopically, and no clinical signs of knee osteoarthritis were randomised. INTERVENTIONS: APM or placebo surgery (diagnostic knee arthroscopy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used two indices of radiographic knee osteoarthritis (increase in Kellgren and Lawrence grade ≥1, and increase in Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) atlas radiographic joint space narrowing and osteophyte sum score, respectively), and three validated patient-relevant measures of knee symptoms and function (Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET), Lysholm, and knee pain after exercise using a numerical rating scale). RESULTS: There was a consistent, slightly greater risk for progression of radiographic knee osteoarthritis in the APM group as compared with the placebo surgery group (adjusted absolute risk difference in increase in Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥1 of 13%, 95% CI -2% to 28%; adjusted absolute mean difference in OARSI sum score 0.7, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.3). There were no relevant between-group differences in the three patient-reported outcomes: adjusted absolute mean differences (APM vs placebo surgery), -1.7 (95% CI -7.7 to 4.3) in WOMET, -2.1 (95% CI -6.8 to 2.6) in Lysholm knee score, and -0.04 (95% CI -0.81 to 0.72) in knee pain after exercise, respectively. The corresponding adjusted absolute risk difference in the presence of mechanical symptoms was 18% (95% CI 5% to 31%); there were more symptoms reported in the APM group. All other secondary outcomes comparisons were similar. CONCLUSIONS: APM was associated with a slightly increased risk of developing radiographic knee osteoarthritis and no concomitant benefit in patient-relevant outcomes, at 5 years after surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01052233 and NCT00549172).

Statistical analysis plan for the 5-year and 10-year follow-up assessments of the FIDELITY trial.

BACKGROUND: The research objectives of the 5-year and 10-year assessments in the Finnish degenerative meniscal lesion study (FIDELITY) are twofold: (1) to assess the long-term efficacy of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in adults (age 35 to 65 years) with a degenerative meniscus tear and (2) to determine the respective effects of APM and degenerative meniscus tear on the development of radiographic and clinical knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS AND DESIGN: FIDELITY is an ongoing multi-center, randomized, participant and outcome assessor blinded, placebo-surgery-controlled trial in 146 patients. This statistical analysis plan (SAP) article describes the overall principles for analysis of long-term outcomes (5-year and 10-year follow up), including how participants will be included in each analysis, the primary and secondary outcomes and their respective analyses, adjustments for covariates, and the presentation of the results. In addition, we will present the planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses. DISCUSSION: To assess the long-term efficacy of APM on knee symptoms and function we are carrying out a long-term (5-year and 10-year) follow up of our placebo-surgery-controlled FIDELITY trial according to statistical principles outlined in detail in this document. As our second primary objective, whether APM (resection of torn meniscus tear) accelerates or delays the development of knee osteoarthritis in patients with an arthroscopically verified degenerative tear of the medial meniscus, a pre-registered follow-up is also carried out. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00549172 (Arthroscopy in the Treatment of Degenerative Medial Meniscus Tear). Registered on 25 October 2007 (NCT00549172). ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01052233 (Development of Knee Osteoarthritis After Arthroscopic Partial Resection of Degenerative Meniscus Tear). Registered on 20 January 2010.

Public, health professional and legislator perspectives on the concept of psychiatric disease: a population-based survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess which mental health-related states of being are perceived as diseases by psychiatrists, non-psychiatric physicians, nurses, parliament members and laypeople. DESIGN AND SETTING: A population-based, mailed survey in Finland. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents from a random sample of 3000 laypeople, 1500 physicians, 1500 nurses and all 200 members of the parliament (MPs) of Finland. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents' perspectives on 20 mental health-related states of being as diseases, measuring the extent of agreement with the claim: '[This state of being] is a disease'. RESULTS: Of the 6200 people approached, we received 3259 eligible responses (53%). Two conditions (schizophrenia and autism) were considered to be diseases by at least 75% and two states (grief and homosexuality) were considered not to be diseases by at least 75% in each group. A majority (at least 50% in each group) considered seven states as diseases (anorexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, bulimia, depression, generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder and personality disorder) and three not to be diseases (absence of sexual desire, premature ejaculation and transsexualism). In six states, there was a wide divergence of opinion (alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling addiction, insomnia, social anxiety disorder and work exhaustion). Psychiatrists were significantly more inclined to considering states of being as diseases relative to other groups, followed by non-psychiatric physicians, nurses, MPs and laypeople. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents agreed that some conditions, such as schizophrenia and autism, are diseases and other states, such as grief and homosexuality, are not; for others, there was considerable disagreement. Psychiatrists are more inclined to consider mental health-related states of being as diseases compared with other physicians, who, in turn, are more inclined than other constituencies. Understanding notions of disease may underlie important debates in public policy and practice in areas of mental health and behaviour, and have implications for resource allocation and stigma.

Subacromial decompression versus diagnostic arthroscopy for shoulder impingement: randomised, placebo surgery controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) by comparing it with diagnostic arthroscopy, a placebo surgical intervention, and with a non-operative alternative, exercise therapy, in a more pragmatic setting. DESIGN: Multicentre, three group, randomised, double blind, sham controlled trial. SETTING: Orthopaedic departments at three public hospitals in Finland. PARTICIPANTS: 210 patients with symptoms consistent with shoulder impingement syndrome, enrolled from 1 February 2005 with two year follow-up completed by 25 June 2015. INTERVENTIONS: ASD, diagnostic arthroscopy (placebo control), and exercise therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity (visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100, with 0 denoting no pain), at 24 months. The threshold for minimal clinically important difference was set at 15. RESULTS: In the primary intention to treat analysis (ASD versus diagnostic arthroscopy), no clinically relevant between group differences were seen in the two primary outcomes at 24 months (mean change for ASD 36.0 at rest and 55.4 on activity; for diagnostic arthroscopy 31.4 at rest and 47.5 on activity). The observed mean difference between groups (ASD minus diagnostic arthroscopy) in pain VAS were -4.6 (95% confidence interval -11.3 to 2.1) points (P=0.18) at rest and -9.0 (-18.1 to 0.2) points (P=0.054) on arm activity. No between group differences were seen between the ASD and diagnostic arthroscopy groups in the secondary outcomes or adverse events. In the secondary comparison (ASD versus exercise therapy), statistically significant differences were found in favour of ASD in the two primary outcomes at 24 months in both VAS at rest (-7.5, -14.0 to -1.0, points; P=0.023) and VAS on arm activity (-12.0, -20.9 to -3.2, points; P=0.008), but the mean differences between groups did not exceed the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference. Of note, this ASD versus exercise therapy comparison is not only confounded by lack of blinding but also likely to be biased in favour of ASD owing to the selective removal of patients with likely poor outcome from the ASD group, without comparable exclusions from the exercise therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In this controlled trial involving patients with a shoulder impingement syndrome, arthroscopic subacromial decompression provided no benefit over diagnostic arthroscopy at 24 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00428870.

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus placebo surgery for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 2-year follow-up of the randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is superior to placebo surgery in the treatment of patients with degenerative tear of the medial meniscus. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, participant-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled trial, 146 adults, aged 35-65 years, with knee symptoms consistent with degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis were randomised to APM or placebo surgery. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) and Lysholm knee scores and knee pain after exercise at 24 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of unblinding of the treatment-group allocation, participants' satisfaction, impression of change, return to normal activities, the incidence of serious adverse events and the presence of meniscal symptoms in clinical examination. Two subgroup analyses, assessing the outcome on those with mechanical symptoms and those with unstable meniscus tears, were also carried out. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the mean changes from baseline to 24 months in WOMET score: 27.3 in the APM group as compared with 31.6 in the placebo-surgery group (between-group difference, -4.3; 95% CI, -11.3 to 2.6); Lysholm knee score: 23.1 and 26.3, respectively (-3.2; -8.9 to 2.4) or knee pain after exercise, 3.5 and 3.9, respectively (-0.4; -1.3 to 0.5). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes or within the analysed subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this 2-year follow-up of patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after APM were no better than those after placebo surgery. No evidence could be found to support the prevailing ideas that patients with presence of mechanical symptoms or certain meniscus tear characteristics or those who have failed initial conservative treatment are more likely to benefit from APM.

Bioabsorbable Versus Metal Screw in the Fixation of Tibial Tubercle Transfer: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study.

BACKGROUND: In tibial tubercle transfer (TTT) procedures, the osteotomized and transferred tibial tubercle is usually fixed into the host bone using metal screws. PURPOSE: To compare the strength of fixation provided by a single bioabsorbable screw versus a metal screw for TTT. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twenty-two pairs of human cadaveric tibiae were used to compare the fixation strength of a single 4.5-mm bicortical bioabsorbable or metal screw for TTT. In our 2-phase biomechanical testing protocol, the specimens were first subjected to a cyclic-loading test (1500 loading cycles between 50 and 300 N at 0.5 Hz frequency), after which they were loaded to failure (single-cycle load-to-failure test). To control for possible differences in bone quality, volumetric bone mineral density was determined using peripheral quantitative computed tomography. RESULTS: No significant displacement differences were observed between the 2 groups for the cyclic-loading test. In the subsequent single-cycle load-to-failure test, the mean yield load was 566 ± 234 N in the bioabsorbable screw group and 984 ± 630 N in the metal screw group (P = .002). The failure mode of bioabsorbable screws was breakage and/or bending, and that of metal screws was bending and/or pull-out. Bone density was similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: A metal screw seems to provide greater fixation strength than a biodegradable screw in the TTT of a human cadaveric knee. However, considering the maximum quadriceps pull in vivo, the strength of fixation provided by a biodegradable screw seems clinically sufficient. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Bioabsorbable screws, particularly if used in duplicate, could provide a viable option for metal screws in TTT fixation.