What recovery domains are important following a total knee replacement? A qualitative, interview-based study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore people's views of recovery from total knee replacement (TKR) and which recovery domains they felt were important. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews exploring the views of individuals about to undergo or who have undergone TKR. A constant-comparative approach with thematic analysis was used to identify themes. The process of sampling, collecting data and analysis were continuous and iterative throughout the study, with interviews ceasing once thematic saturation was achieved. SETTING: Tertiary care centre. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample was used to account for variables including pre, early or late postoperative status. RESULTS: 12 participants were interviewed, 4 who were preoperative, 4 early postoperative and 4 late postoperative. Themes of pain, function, fear of complications, awareness of the artificial knee joint and return to work were identified. Subthemes of balancing acute and chronic pain were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this interview-based study identify pain and function, in particular mobility, that were universally important to those undergoing TKR. Surgeons should consider exploring these domains when taking informed consent to enhance shared decision-making. Researchers should consider these recovery domains when designing interventional studies.

The Wire Study-a protocol for a multi-stage feasibility study evaluating K-wire fixation of hand fractures in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Hand fractures are common and sometimes require surgery to restore function. Placement of Kirschner wires (K-wires) is the most common form of surgical fixation. After placement, a key decision is whether to bury the end of a K-wire or leave it protruding from the skin (exposed). A recent systematic review found no evidence to support either approach and a national clinician and surgeon survey demonstrated further uncertainty. We aim to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the cost and clinical effectiveness of buried versus exposed Kirschner wires for adults with metacarpal or phalangeal fractures. METHODS: We will employ three methodologies: a national service evaluation of current clinical practice, patient and surgeon focus groups and a consensus meeting to finalise the protocol for a randomised controlled trial. For the service evaluation, all outcomes will be summarised using descriptive statistics overall and split by group (buried versus exposed K-wires). Information collected in the patient focus groups will be analysed thematically. The surgeon consensus meeting will address each part of the design in turn and through discussion agree a final protocol. DISCUSSION: The study may be monitored, or audited in accordance with the current approved protocol, Good Clinical Practice (GCP), relevant regulations and standard operating procedures. The Chief Investigator will submit and, where necessary, obtain approval from the above parties for all substantial amendments to the original approved documents. A feasibility study report will be published by the Wire Study Steering committee. Additional members of the steering group and citable collaborators will be listed within the manuscript and their roles identified.

An audit of best evidence topic reviews in the International Journal of Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: IJS launched best evidence topic reviews (BETs) in 2011, when the guidelines for conducting and reporting these reviews were published in the journal. AIMS: (1) Audit the adherence of all published BETs in IJS to these guidelines. (2) Assess the reach and impact of BETs published in IJS. METHODS: BETs published between 2011 and February 2014 were identified from http://www.journal-surgery.net/. Standards audited included: completeness of description of study attrition, and independent verification of searches. Other extracted data included: relevant subspecialty, duration between searches and publication, and between acceptance and publication. Each BET's number of citations (http://scholar.google.co.uk/), number of tweets (http://www.altmetric.com/) and number of Researchgate views (https://www.researchgate.net/) were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-four BETs were identified: the majority, 19 (56%), relating to upper gastrointestinal surgery and none to cardiothoracic, orthopaedic or paediatric surgery. Twenty-nine BETs (82%) fully described study attrition. Twenty-one (62%) had independently verified search results. The mean times from literature searching to publication and acceptance to publication were 38.5 weeks and 13 days respectively. There were a mean 40 (range 0-89) Researchgate views/article, mean 2 (range 0-7) citations/article and mean 0.36 (range 0-2) tweets/article. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to BET guidelines has been variable. Authors are encouraged to adhere to journal guidelines and reviewers and editors to enforce them. BETs have received similar citation levels to other IJS articles. Means of increasing the visibility of published BETs such as social media sharing, conference presentation and deposition of abstracts in public repositories should be explored. More work is required to encourage more submissions from other surgical subspecialties other than gastrointestinal specialties.