Rehabilitation for revision total knee replacement: survey of current service provision and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Revision total knee replacement (TKR) is a major operation with a long recovery period and many patients report suboptimal outcomes. Rehabilitation has the potential to improve outcomes. The aim of this study was to understand current provision of rehabilitation for revision TKR in England and evaluate the existing evidence. METHODS: Phase 1: An online national survey of education and rehabilitation provision for patients receiving revision TKR was completed by physiotherapy staff at 22 hospitals across England that were high volume for revision TKR (response rate of 34%). Phase 2: Systematic review to identify studies evaluating rehabilitation programmes for revision joint replacement. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases from inception to 15th June 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated post-operative rehabilitation for adults undergoing revision joint replacement were included. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment was undertaken by two reviewers. RESULTS: Phase 1: Pre-operative education which aimed to prepare patients for surgery and recovery was provided in most hospitals, predominately involving a single session delivered by a multidisciplinary team. Inpatient physiotherapy commonly commenced on post-operative day 1 and was provided twice daily, with most hospitals also providing occupational therapy. Rehabilitation was often provided in the first four weeks after hospital discharge, either in an outpatient, community or home setting. In most hospitals, the education and rehabilitation provided to patients receiving revision TKR was the same as that provided to patients undergoing primary TKR. Phase 2: Of the 1,445 articles identified, three retrospective cohort studies based on hospital records review were included. The studies evaluated intensive inpatient rehabilitation programmes, consisting of 2-3 h of daily group or individual physiotherapy, with additional occupational therapy in one study. All three studies reported improvement in functional outcomes for patients undergoing rehabilitation after revision TKR. All studies were limited by their retrospective design, short duration of follow-up and lack of sample size calculation. No RCTs evaluating effectiveness of rehabilitation for revision TKR were identified. CONCLUSION: This study identified the need for future research to develop and evaluate tailored rehabilitation to optimise patient outcomes following revision TKR.

The STAR care pathway for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: four-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway is a clinically important and cost-effective intervention found to improve pain outcomes over one year for people with chronic pain three months after total knee replacement (TKR). We followed up STAR trial participants to evaluate the longer-term clinical- and cost-effectiveness of this care pathway. METHODS: Participants who remained enrolled on the trial at one year were contacted by post at a median of four years after randomisation and invited to complete a questionnaire comprising the same outcomes collected during the trial. We captured pain (co-primary outcome using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference scales; scored 0-10, best to worst), function, neuropathic characteristics, emotional aspects of pain, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction. Electronic hospital informatics data on hospital resource use for the period of one to four years post-randomisation were collected from participating hospital sites. The economic evaluation took an National Health Service (NHS) secondary care perspective, with a four-year time horizon. RESULTS: Overall, 226/337 (67%) of participants returned completed follow-up questionnaires, yielding adjusted between-group differences in BPI means of -0.42 (95% confidence interval, CI (-1.07, 0.23); p = 0.20) for pain severity and - 0.64 (95% CI -1.41, 0.12); p = 0.10) for pain interference. Analysis using a multiple imputed data set (n = 337) showed an incremental net monetary benefit in favour of the STAR care pathway of £3,525 (95% CI -£990 to £8,039) at a £20,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, leading to a probability that the intervention was cost-effective of 0.94. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the longer-term benefits of the STAR care pathway are uncertain due to attrition of trial participants; however, there is a suggestion of some degree of sustained clinical benefit at four years. The care pathway remained cost-effective at four years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 92,545,361.

The effectiveness of non-pharmacological sleep interventions for people with chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: About two thirds of people with chronic pain report problems sleeping. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological sleep interventions for improving sleep in people with chronic pain. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of non-pharmacological and non-invasive interventions to improve sleep quality or duration for adults with chronic non-cancer pain evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. Our primary outcome of interest was sleep; secondary outcomes included pain, health-related quality of life, and psychological wellbeing. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to April 2020. After screening, two reviewers evaluated articles and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. RESULTS: We included 42 trials involving 3346 people randomised to 94 groups, of which 56 received an intervention targeting sleep. 10 studies were of fair and 32 of good methodological quality. Overall risk of bias was judged to be low in 11, high in 10 and unclear in 21 studies. In 9 studies with 385 people randomised, cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia showed benefit post-treatment compared with controls for improved sleep quality, standardised mean difference - 1.23 (95%CI -1.76, - 0.70; p < 0.00001). The effect size was only slightly reduced in meta-analysis of 3 studies at low risk of bias. The difference between groups was lower at 3 and 6 months after treatment but still favoured cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia. Pain, anxiety and depression were reduced post-treatment, but evidence of longer term benefit was lacking. There was no evidence that sleep hygiene interventions were effective in improving sleep and there was some evidence in comparative studies to suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia was more effective than sleep hygiene. Numerous other interventions were evaluated in small numbers of studies, but evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia is an effective treatment to improve sleep for people with chronic pain, but further high-quality primary research is required to explore combined CBT content that will ensure additional improvements to pain, quality of life and psychological health and longer-term maintenance of benefits. Primary research is also needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for which insufficient evidence exists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019093799 .

Experiences of recovery and a new care pathway for people with pain after total knee replacement: qualitative research embedded in the STAR trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of people experience chronic postsurgical pain after total knee replacement. The STAR randomised controlled trial (ISCRTN92545361) evaluated the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a new multifaceted and personalised care pathway, compared with usual care, for people with pain at three months after total knee replacement. We report trial participants' experiences of postoperative pain and the acceptability of the STAR care pathway, which consisted of an assessment clinic at three months, and up to six follow-up telephone calls over 12 months. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 people (10 men, 17 women) between February 2018 and January 2020. Participants were sampled purposively from the care pathway intervention group and interviewed after completion of the final postoperative trial questionnaire at approximately 15 months after knee replacement. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Many participants were unprepared for the severity and impact of postoperative pain, which they described as extreme and constant and that tested their physical and mental endurance. Participants identified 'low points' during their recovery, triggered by stiffening, pain or swelling that caused feelings of anxiety, depression, and pain catastrophising. Participants described the STAR assessment clinic as something that seemed "perfectly normal" suggesting it was seamlessly integrated into NHS care. Even in the context of some ongoing pain, the STAR care pathway had provided a source of support and an opportunity to discuss concerns about their ongoing recovery. CONCLUSIONS: People who have knee replacement may be unprepared for the severity and impact of postoperative pain, and the hard work of recovery afterwards. This highlights the challenges of preparing patients for total knee replacement and suggests that clinical attention is needed if exercise and mobilising is painful beyond the three month postoperative period. The STAR care pathway is acceptable to people with pain after total knee replacement.

Primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions: a comparison between patients with and without chronic pain after total knee replacement.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of patients experience chronic pain after total knee replacement (TKR). The impact of chronic pain after TKR on primary care services in the UK is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to compare primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions between patients with and without chronic pain after TKR. METHODS: Data from 5,055 patients who received TKR between 2009 and 2016 with anonymised linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold (CPRD) and English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) programme were analysed. The exposure time was from 10 years pre-operative to eight years post-operative. Patients with a score ≤ 14 on the Oxford Knee Score pain component scale at 6 months post-operative were classified as having chronic pain after TKR. Primary care consultations and prescribed pain medicines were quantified, and costs calculated based on national cost data. RESULTS: 721 patients (14%) had chronic pain after TKR. The prevalence and costs of primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions per year were consistently higher for patients with chronic pain after TKR compared with those without chronic pain after TKR; these differences were observed both before and after surgery. There was a substantial and sustained increase in the cost of opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients with chronic pain after TKR, peaking at seven years post-operative. CONCLUSIONS: Increased primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions associated with chronic pain after TKR represent a considerable financial cost to primary care services. Evaluation of interventions to reduce the risk of developing this pain condition and improve the early management of pain after TKR are needed to improve outcomes for patients and reduce costs to healthcare services.

The EQ-5D-3L administered by text message compared to the paper version for hard-to-reach populations in a rural South African trauma setting: a measurement equivalence study.

INTRODUCTION: Administering patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by text message may improve response rate in hard-to-reach populations. This study explored cultural acceptability of PROMs and compared measurement equivalence of the EQ-5D-3L administered on paper and by text message in a rural South African setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with upper or lower limb orthopaedic pathology were recruited. The EQ-5D was administered first on paper and then by text message after 24 h and 7 days. Differences in mean scores for paper and text message versions of the EQ-5D were evaluated. Test-retest reliability between text message versions was evaluated using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: 147 participants completed a paper EQ-5D. Response rates were 67% at 24 h and 58% at 7 days. There were no differences in means between paper and text message responses for the EQ-5D Index (p = 0.95) or EQ-5D VAS (p = 0.26). There was acceptable agreement between the paper and 24-h text message EQ-5D Index (0.84; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.78-0.89) and EQ-5D VAS (0.73; 95% CI 0.64-0.82) and acceptable agreement between the 24-h and 7-day text message EQ-Index (0.72; CI 0.62-0.82) and EQ-VAS (0.72; CI 0.62-0.82). Non-responder traits were increasing age, Xhosa as first language and lower educational levels. CONCLUSIONS: Text messaging is equivalent to paper-based measurement of EQ-5D in this setting and is thus a viable tool for responders. Non-responders had similar socioeconomic characteristics and attrition rates to traditional modes of administration. The EQ-5D by text message offers potential clinical and research uses in hard-to-reach populations.

Perceived occurrence of an adverse event affects patient-reported outcomes after total hip replacement.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation, periprosthetic fracture and infection are serious complications of total hip replacement (THR) and which negatively impact on patients' outcomes including satisfaction, quality of life, mental health and function. The accuracy with which patients report adverse events (AEs) after surgery varies. The impact of patient self-reporting of AEs on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after THR is yet to be investigated. Our aim was to determine the effect of confirmed and perceived AEs on PROMs after primary THR. METHODS: A prospective single-centre cohort study of patients undergoing primary THR, with one-year follow-up, was performed. Participants completed forms pre-operatively and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-operatively, including Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), EuroQol-5D-3 L (EQ5D), Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction (SAPS) and AE reporting questionnaires. Results were reported in three groups: No AE, reported but not confirmed AE and confirmed AE. A generalised linear model was used to compare among groups using robust standard errors (SE). RESULTS: Forty-one AEs were reported in a cohort of 417 patients (234 females), with 30 AEs reported by 3 months. Eleven (27 reported) infections, two (six reported) periprosthetic fractures and two (eight reported) dislocations were confirmed. Those in the no AE group reported significantly better outcomes that the reported AE group as measured by WOMAC Co-Eff 14.27 (p = 0.01), EQ5D - 0.128 (p = 0.02) and SAPS - 9.926 (p = 0.036) and the combined reported and confirmed AE groups as measured by WOMAC Co-Eff 13.72 (p = 0.002), EQ5D - 0.129 (p = 0.036) and SAPS - 11.512 (p = 0.004). No significant differences were seen in WPAI among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who report AEs have worse outcomes than those who do not, regardless of whether the AEs can be confirmed by standard medical record review methods. The observed negative trends suggest that patient perception of AEs may influence patient outcome in a similar way to those with confirmed AEs.

Identifying individuals with chronic pain after knee replacement: a population-cohort, cluster-analysis of Oxford knee scores in 128,145 patients from the English National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one in five patients undergoing knee replacement surgery experience chronic pain after their operation, which can negatively impact on their quality of life. In order to develop and evaluate interventions to improve the management of chronic post-surgical pain, we aimed to derive a cut-off point in the Oxford Knee Score pain subscale to identify patients with chronic pain following knee replacement, and to characterise these patients using self-reported outcomes. METHODS: Data from the English Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) programme were used. This comprised patient-reported data from 128,145 patients who underwent primary knee replacement surgery in England between 2012 and 2015. Cluster analysis was applied to derive a cut-off point on the pain subscale of the Oxford Knee Score. RESULTS: A high-pain group was identified, described by a maximum of 14 points in the Oxford Knee Score pain subscale six months after surgery. The high-pain group, comprising 15% of the sample, was characterised by severe and frequent problems in all pain dimensions, particularly in pain severity, night pain and limping, as well as in all dimensions of health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Oxford Knee Score pain subscale scores of 14 or less at six months after knee replacement can be considered to be in chronic pain that is likely to negatively affect their quality of life. This derived cut-off can be used for patient selection in research settings to design and assess interventions that support patients in their management of chronic post-surgical pain.

Outcomes following hip and knee replacement in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients and well versus poorly controlled diabetic patients: a prospective cohort study.

Background and purpose - The impact of diabetes and glycemic control before joint replacement on clinical and patient-reported outcomes is unclear. We compared pain, function, complications, and length of hospital stay in diabetic and nondiabetic patients receiving primary total hip (THR) or knee replacement (TKR) and compared these outcomes in patients with poorly controlled versus well-controlled diabetes. Patients and methods - We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing primary THR (n = 300) or TKR (n = 287) for osteoarthritis. Self-reported diabetes and glycemic control (HbA1c ≤ or >7%) extracted from medical notes were used. Adjusted comparisons were performed with generalized linear models including body mass index (BMI) and comorbidities. Results - Diabetes prevalence was 11% (THR 8%; TKR 14%). Diabetic patients were more likely to have a higher BMI and greater number of comorbidities. The median length of hospital stay was 1 day longer in diabetic patients (p = 0.004), but this attenuated after adjustments for BMI and comorbidities (p = 0.3). Inpatient pain was greater for diabetic patients but attenuated following adjustment. The 12-month postoperative WOMAC subscales were similar by diabetes status following adjustment. There was little evidence of difference in outcomes according to glycemic control. Interpretation - The associations between diabetes and worse postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing THR or TKR for osteoarthritis appear to be predominantly due to associated obesity and comorbidities. In diabetic patients there is little evidence of association between postoperative outcome and preoperative glycemic control. The underlying mechanisms and causal pathways of obesity, diabetes, and multimorbidity that lead to worse outcomes after joint replacement are not well known.

Comparison of group-based outpatient physiotherapy with usual care after total knee replacement: a feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial comparing group-based outpatient physiotherapy with usual care in patients following total knee replacement. DESIGN: A feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: One secondary-care hospital orthopaedic centre, Bristol, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 46 participants undergoing primary total knee replacement. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group were offered six group-based exercise sessions after surgery. The usual care group received standard postoperative care. Participants were not blinded to group allocation. OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility was assessed by recruitment, reasons for non-participation, attendance, and completion rates of study questionnaires that included the Lower Extremity Functional Scale and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. RESULTS: Recruitment rate was 37%. Five patients withdrew or were no longer eligible to participate. Intervention attendance was high (73%) and 84% of group participants reported they were 'very satisfied' with the exercises. Return of study questionnaires at six months was lower in the usual care (75%) than in the intervention group (100%). Mean (standard deviation) Lower Extremity Functional Scale scores at six months were 45.0 (20.8) in the usual care and 57.8 (15.2) in the intervention groups. CONCLUSION: Recruitment and retention of participants in this feasibility study was good. Group-based physiotherapy was acceptable to participants. Questionnaire return rates were lower in the usual care group, but might be enhanced by telephone follow-up. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale had high responsiveness and completion rates. Using this outcome measure, 256 participants would be required in a full-scale randomized controlled trial.

Preoperative psychosocial risk factors for poor outcomes at 1 and 5 years after total knee replacement.

Background and purpose - Psychosocial factors are important risk factors for poor outcomes in the first year after total knee replacement (TKR), however their impact on long-term outcomes is unclear. We aimed to identify preoperative psychosocial risk factors for poor outcomes at 1 year and 5 years after TKR. Patients and methods - 266 patients were recruited prior to TKR surgery. Knee pain and function were assessed preoperatively and at 1 and 5 years postoperative using the WOMAC Pain score, WOMAC Function score and American Knee Society Score (AKSS) Knee score. Preoperative depression, anxiety, catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy and social support were assessed. Statistical analyses involved multiple linear regression and mixed effect linear regression. Results - Higher anxiety was a risk factor for worse pain at 1 year postoperative. No psychosocial factors were associated with any outcomes at 5 years postoperative. Analysis of change over time found that patients with higher pain self-efficacy had lower preoperative pain and experienced less improvement in pain up to 1 year postoperative. Higher pain self-efficacy was associated with less improvement in the AKSS up to 1 year postoperative but more improvement between 1 and 5 years postoperative. Interpretation - Preoperative anxiety was found to influence pain at 1 year after TKR. However, none of the psychosocial variables were risk factors for a poor outcome at 5 years post-operative, suggesting that the negative effects of anxiety on outcome do not persist in the longer-term.

5 Year Outcomes and Survivorship of the Triathlon Total Knee Replacement: a Cohort Study.

The aim of this study was to determine outcomes and survivorship of the Triathlon knee replacement up to 5 years post-operation. A cohort of 266 patients receiving a Triathlon knee replacement were assessed before surgery and at 3 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years and 5 years post-operation. Assessments included patient-reported outcome measures, American Knee Society Score, complications and survivorship. The largest improvements in pain, function, stiffness and knee-related quality of life occurred in the first 3 months post-operation. Further smaller improvements were reported between 3 and 12 months post-operation, and then a plateauing of outcomes was observed up to 5 years. A high percentage of patients (86%) were satisfied with their outcome at 5 years. Survivorship with revision as the endpoint was 96.6% (95% CI 93.2-98.1%) at 5 years post-operation. In conclusion, this study observed good mid-term patient outcomes and survivorship of the Triathlon knee replacement.

Local anaesthetic wound infiltration in addition to standard anaesthetic regimen in total hip and knee replacement: long-term cost-effectiveness analyses alongside the APEX randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The Arthroplasty Pain Experience (APEX) studies are two randomised controlled trials in primary total hip (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) at a large UK orthopaedics centre. APEX investigated the effect of local anaesthetic wound infiltration (LAI), administered before wound closure, in addition to standard analgesia, on pain severity at 12 months. This article reports results of the within-trial economic evaluations. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health and social care payer perspective in relation to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and the primary clinical outcome, the WOMAC Pain score at 12-months follow-up. Resource use was collected from hospital records and patient-completed postal questionnaires, and valued using unit cost estimates from local NHS Trust finance department and national tariffs. Missing data were addressed using multiple imputation chained equations. Costs and outcomes were compared per trial arm and plotted in cost-effectiveness planes. If no arm was dominant (i.e., more effective and less expensive than the other), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. The economic results were bootstrapped incremental net monetary benefit statistics (INMB) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses explored any methodological uncertainty. RESULTS: In both the THR and TKR trials, LAI was the dominant treatment: cost-saving and more effective than standard care, in relation to QALYs and WOMAC Pain. Using the £20,000 per QALY threshold, in THR, the INMB was £1,125 (95 % BCI, £183 to £2,067) and the probability of being cost-effective was over 98 %. In TKR, the INMB was £264 (95 % BCI, -£710 to £1,238), but there was only 62 % probability of being cost-effective. When considering an NHS perspective only, LAI was no longer dominant in THR, but still highly cost-effective, with an INMB of £961 (95 % BCI, £50 to £1,873). CONCLUSIONS: Administering LAI is a cost-effective treatment option in THR and TKR surgeries. The evidence, because of larger QALY gain, is stronger for THR. In TKR, there is more uncertainty around the economic result, and smaller QALY gains. Results, however, point to LAI being cheaper than standard analgesia, which includes a femoral nerve block. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN96095682 , 29/04/2010.

Is it possible to predict which patients are most likely to benefit from intra-articular corticosteroid injections? A systematic review.

AIM: Intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACIs) can reduce osteoarthritis-related pain, with differing levels of response across patient groups. This systematic review investigates what is known about the positive and negative predictors of outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis who undergo IACIs. METHODS: We systematically searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases to May 2023 for studies that evaluated patients undergoing IACIs for osteoarthritis and reported on predictors of outcomes in these patients. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. Two were placebo-controlled trials, six were observational studies. Due to the heterogeneity of outcomes and variables between the studies, it was not possible to pool the results for formal meta-analysis. Higher baseline pain, older age, higher BMI, lower range of movement, higher Kellgren-Lawrence radiographic score, joint effusion, and aspiration were shown to be predictors of a positive response to IACIs in some of the included studies. However, other studies showed no difference in response with these variables, or a negative correlation with response. Sex, smoking, mental health status, hypertension/ischaemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, duration of symptoms, and socioeconomic status did not demonstrate any correlation with the prediction of positive or negative outcomes after IACIs. CONCLUSION: Several patient features have been identified as positive predictors of outcomes following IACIs. However, this systematic review has identified inconsistent and variable findings across the existing literature. Further research with standardization of IACI administration and outcome measures is required to facilitate further analysis of the reliability and significance of predictive factors for response to IACIs.

Prevalence and patterns of neuropathic pain in people with chronic post-surgical pain after total knee arthroplasty.

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence and patterns of neuropathic pain over one year in a cohort of patients with chronic post-surgical pain at three months following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: Between 2016 and 2019, 363 patients with troublesome pain, defined as a score of ≤ 14 on the Oxford Knee Score pain subscale, three months after TKA from eight UK NHS hospitals, were recruited into the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) clinical trial. Self-reported neuropathic pain and postoperative pain was assessed at three, nine, and 15 months after surgery using the painDETECT and Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaires collected by postal survey. Results: Symptoms of neuropathic pain were common among patients reporting chronic pain at three months post-TKA, with half reporting neuropathic pain on painDETECT (191/363; 53%) and 74% (267/359) on DN4. Of those with neuropathic pain at three months, half continued to have symptoms over the next 12 months (148/262; 56%), one-quarter had improved (67/262; 26%), and for one-tenth their neuropathic symptoms fluctuated over time (24/262; 9%). However, a subgroup of participants reported new, late onset neuropathic symptoms (23/262; 9%). Prevalence of neuropathic symptoms was similar between the screening tools when the lower cut-off painDETECT score (≥ 13) was applied. Overall, mean neuropathic pain scores improved between three and 15 months after TKA. Conclusion: Neuropathic pain is common in patients with chronic pain at three months after TKA. Although neuropathic symptoms improved over time, up to half continued to report painful neuropathic symptoms at 15 months after TKA. Postoperative care should include screening, assessment, and treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with early chronic postoperative pain after TKA.

REST: a preoperative tailored sleep intervention for patients undergoing total knee replacement - feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a novel preoperative tailored sleep intervention for patients undergoing total knee replacement. DESIGN: Feasibility two-arm two-centre RCT using 1:1 randomisation with an embedded qualitative study. SETTING: Two National Health Service (NHS) secondary care hospitals in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Preoperative adult patients identified from total knee replacement waiting lists with disturbed sleep, defined as a score of 0-28 on the Sleep Condition Indicator questionnaire. INTERVENTION: The REST intervention is a preoperative tailored sleep assessment and behavioural intervention package delivered by an Extended Scope Practitioner (ESP), with a follow-up phone call 4 weeks postintervention. All participants received usual care as provided by the participating NHS hospitals. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary aim was to assess the feasibility of conducting a full trial. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, 1-week presurgery, and 3 months postsurgery. Data collected to determine feasibility included the number of eligible patients, recruitment rates and intervention adherence. Qualitative work explored the acceptability of the study processes and intervention delivery through interviews with ESPs and patients. RESULTS: Screening packs were posted to 378 patients and 57 patients were randomised. Of those randomised, 20 had surgery within the study timelines. An appointment was attended by 25/28 (89%) of participants randomised to the intervention. Follow-up outcomes measures were completed by 40/57 (70%) of participants presurgery and 15/57 (26%) postsurgery. Where outcome measures were completed, data completion rates were 80% or higher for outcomes at all time points, apart from the painDETECT: 86% complete at baseline, 72% at presurgery and 67% postsurgery. Interviews indicated that most participants found the study processes and intervention acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study has demonstrated that with some amendments to processes and design, an RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the REST intervention is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14233189.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of elective primary total knee replacement with PAtellar Resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing: a pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled Trial (PART).

Aims: During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon's decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. Methods: The PAtellar Resurfacing Trial (PART) is a patient- and assessor-blinded multicentre, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary TKR for primary osteoarthritis at NHS hospitals in England, with an embedded internal pilot phase (ISRCTN 33276681). Participants will be randomly allocated intraoperatively on a 1:1 basis (stratified by centre and implant type (cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-sacrificing)) to always resurface or selectively resurface the patella, once the surgeon has confirmed sufficient patellar thickness for resurfacing and that constrained implants are not required. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures at three months, six months, and one year (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, OKS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and costs). Cost-effectiveness will be measured for the lifetime of the patient. Overall, 530 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a four-point difference in OKS between the groups one year after surgery, assuming up to 40% resurfacing in the selective group. Conclusion: The trial findings will provide evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. This will inform future NICE guidelines on primary TKR and the role of selective patellar resurfacing.

Inclusive approaches to involvement of community groups in health research: the co-produced CHICO guidance.

BACKGROUND: Racially marginalised groups are underserved in healthcare and underrepresented in health research. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is established as the method to ensure equity in health research. However, methods traditionally employed in PPIE can lead to the exclusion of some communities and exacerbation of existing inequalities, highlighting the need to develop inclusive processes for more inclusive community involvement in health research. We aimed to produce guidance to promote good practice for inclusive involvement of racially marginalised community groups in health research via public and community involvement and engagement. METHODS: The CHecklist for Inclusive COmmunity involvement in health research (CHICO) was co-produced by researchers and three Bristol-based community organisations: Dhek Bhal, My Friday Coffee Morning-Barton Hill, and Malcolm X Elders. After initial conversations and link building with community leaders to develop relationships, researchers attended at least three meetings with each community group to discuss preferred approaches to involvement. Each community group had a different format, and discussions were open and tailored to fit the groups preferences. The meetings were held in the community groups' usual meeting venue. Notes from meetings were reviewed by researchers to identify key themes, which were used to inform the creation of a draft illustration which was then taken back to the community groups for refinement and used to inform the development of written guidance and the final illustration. RESULTS: Checklist items were structured into three stages: (1) building relationships, (2) reciprocal relationships and (3) practicalities. Stage 1 highlights the importance of building trust with the community group over time through regular visits to community venues and talking to people informally to understand the history of the group, their preferences and needs, and topics that are likely to be of interest to them. Stage 2 focusses on maintaining a reciprocal relationship and understanding how to best to give back to the community. Stage 3 provides guidance on the practicalities of designing and running inclusive community-based involvement activities, including consideration of the venue, format, communication-style, language requirements, social activities, and provision of food. CONCLUSIONS: Our co-produced checklist can guide researchers in how to involve people from different ethnicities in health research that is relevant to their community.

Health research needs to be for everyone. For this to happen, people from all backgrounds need to be involved. However, people from ethnic minority backgrounds are often not involved in the design of health research. We wanted to find out how researchers and community groups can work together to make the research process more inclusive. Researchers worked with three community groups in Bristol. These were South Asian, African Caribbean and (majority) Somali community groups. One researcher talked with community leaders to find out if the interests of the research unit was relevant to community members and to understand how each group would prefer to work. Following this, at least three meetings were held with each group. After these meetings, we looked at what was talked about. We suggest that researchers involving community groups in health research follow three key steps. Step 1 is making relationships and covers the importance of building trust with the community. This should be through talking with community leaders and regular visits to the group to get to know members before asking for input. Step 2 is about how to best to give back to the community. This is important to make sure that relationships are fair. Step 3 is about how to design and run activities. This includes thinking about the venue, language needs, social activities, and providing food. Our suggestions can help researchers and community groups to work together on health research. We have made an illustration of our findings for sharing.

Healthcare professionals' views on implementing the STAR care pathway for people with chronic pain after total knee replacement: A qualitative study.

For many people with advanced osteoarthritis, total knee replacement is an effective treatment to relieve pain and improve function. However, 10-34% of people experience chronic postsurgical pain in the months and years after total knee replacement. The Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) randomised controlled trial (ISCRTN92545361) evaluated the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a new multifaceted and personalised care pathway, compared with usual care, for people with pain at three months after total knee replacement. Our objective was to identify factors promoting or inhibiting its implementation, and to inform future training and wider implementation of the pathway. We conducted a prospective process evaluation using qualitative interviews with eight Extended Scope Practitioners and six Principal Investigators from seven trial sites who were involved in delivering the STAR care pathway during the trial. We used Normalization Process Theory as a theoretical framework for qualitative data collection and content analysis. We identified that factors promoting the implementation of the pathway were quick familiarisation with the pathway, valuing patient-centredness, formalising referral processes, and increasing confidence to address neuropathic pain. Challenges to implementation were availability of time and resources, sensitivity in referral process, and ensuring collective understanding of the pathway. These findings have enabled us to make recommendations about the future implementation of the STAR care pathway and will inform the development of a training package, and updated manual for successful delivery in usual care. Furthermore, this model of care has potential value in diverse elective surgeries and pain conditions.

Prehabilitation for frail patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement: protocol for the Joint PREP feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately, 8% of community-based adults aged ≥ 50 years in England are frail. Frailty has been found to be associated with poorer outcomes after joint replacement. Targeting frailty preoperatively via exercise and protein supplementation has the potential to improve outcomes for people undergoing joint replacement. Prior to proceeding with a randomised controlled trial (RCT), a feasibility study is necessary to address key uncertainties and explore how to optimise trial design and delivery. METHODS: The Joint PRehabilitation with Exercise and Protein (Joint PREP) study is a feasibility study for a multicentre, two-arm, parallel group, pragmatic, RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for frail patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. Sixty people who are ≥ 65 years of age, frail according to the self-reported Groningen Frailty Indicator, and scheduled to undergo total hip or knee replacement at 2-3 hospitals in England and Wales will be recruited and randomly allocated on a 1:1 ratio to the intervention or usual care group. The usual care group will receive the standard care at their hospital. The intervention group will be given a daily protein supplement and will be asked to follow a home-based, tailored daily exercise programme for 12 weeks before their operation, in addition to usual care. Participants will be supported through six follow-up calls from a physiotherapist during the 12-week intervention period. Study questionnaires will be administered at baseline and 12 weeks after randomisation. Embedded qualitative research with patients will explore their experiences of participating, reasons for nonparticipation, and/or reasons for withdrawal or treatment discontinuation. Primary feasibility outcomes will be eligibility and recruitment rates, adherence to the intervention, and acceptability of the trial and the intervention. DISCUSSION: This study will generate important data regarding the feasibility of a RCT to evaluate a prehabilitation intervention for frail patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement. A future phase-3 RCT will determine if preoperative exercise and protein supplementation improve the recovery of frail patients after primary joint replacement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11121506, registered 29 September 2022.