Participant recruitment and attrition in surgical randomised trials with placebo controls versus non-operative controls: a meta-epidemiological study and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in recruitment and attrition between placebo control randomised trials of surgery, and trials of the same surgical interventions and conditions that used non-operative (non-placebo) controls. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCES: Randomised controlled trials were identified from an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception date to 21 November 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Placebo control trials evaluating efficacy of any surgical intervention and non-operative control trials of the same surgical intervention were included in this study. 25 730 records were retrieved from our systemic search, identifying 61 placebo control and 38 non-operative control trials for inclusion in analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were recruitment and attrition. These were assessed in terms of recruitment rate (number of participants enrolled, as a proportion of those eligible) and overall attrition rate (composite of dropout, loss to follow-up and cross-overs, expressed as proportion of total sample size). Secondary outcome measures included participant cross-over rate, dropout and loss to follow-up. RESULTS: Unadjusted pooled recruitment and attrition rates were similar between placebo and non-operative control trials. Study characteristics were not significantly different apart from time to primary timepoint which was shorter in studies with placebo controls (365 vs 274 days, p=0.006). After adjusting for covariates (follow-up duration and number of timepoints), the attrition rate of placebo control trials was almost twice as high compared with non-operative controlled-trials (incident rate ratio (IRR) (95% CI) 1.8 (1.1 to 3.0), p=0.032). The incorporation of one additional follow-up timepoint (regardless of follow-up duration) was associated with reduced attrition in placebo control surgical trials (IRR (95% CI) 0.64 (0.52 to 0.79), p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Placebo control trials of surgery have similar recruitment issues but higher attrition compared with non-operative (non-placebo) control trials. Study design should incorporate strategies such as increased timepoints for given follow-up duration to mitigate losses to follow-up and dropout. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019117364.

Does preoperative opioid use predict outcomes to 6 months following primary unilateral knee or hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis? A data-linked retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Few Australian studies have examined the incidence of prescribed opioid use prior to primary total knee or total hip arthroplasty (TKA, THA) and whether it predicts post-surgery outcomes. A recent Australian study demonstrated that the prevalence of pre-arthroplasty opioid use was approximately 16%. In the United States, approximately 24% of people undergoing TKA or THA are chronic opioid users preoperatively. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine (i) the proportion of TKA and THA patients who use prescribed opioids regularly (daily) before surgery (i.e., opioid use reported between the time of waitlisting and any time up to 3 months before surgery), (ii) if opioid use before surgery predicts (a) complication/readmission rates to 6-months post-surgery, and (b) patient-reported outcomes to 6-months post-surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent TKA or THA between January 2013 and June 2018 from two Australian public hospitals was undertaken utilizing linked individual patient-level data from two prospectively collected independent databases comprising approximately 3,500 and 9,500 people (database contained known opioid usage data within the 5-year time frame). Inclusion criteria included (i) primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the index joint, (ii) primary elective THA or TKA, and (iii) age ≥ 18 years. Exclusion criteria included (i) revision arthroplasty, (ii) non-elective arthroplasty, (iii) hip hemiarthroplasty, (iv) uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty, and (v) previous unilateral high tibial osteotomy. RESULTS: Analysis was completed on 1,187 study participants (64% female, 69% TKA, mean (SD) age 67 [9.9]). 30% were using regular opioids preoperatively. Adjusted regression analyses controlling for multiple co-variates indicated no significant association between preoperative opioid use and complications/readmission rates or patient-reported outcomes to 6 months post-surgery. Model diagnostics produced poor discrimination for area under the curves and non-significant goodness of fit tests. Pre-arthroplasty opioid use was associated with lower health-related quality of life (EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale) compared to non-opioid users undergoing primary THA (mean difference -5.04 [-9.87, -0.22], P = 0.04, Adjusted R2 = 0.06) CONCLUSION: In this study, 30% of patients were using prescribed opioids daily prior to primary TKA or THA. Pre-arthroplasty opioid use was not associated with postoperative adverse events or patient-reported pain, function, or global perceived improvement up to six months post-surgery.

Tapentadol Versus Oxycodone for Opioid-Related Adverse Drug Events and Clinical Outcomes After Inpatient Surgery.

Oxycodone is a commonly prescribed opioid for postoperative pain. However, there has been a marked increase in the use of tapentadol over the previous decade due to a perceived superior safety profile of tapentadol compared to oxycodone. There is limited real-world evidence on the safety of tapentadol compared to oxycodone after surgery. The primary objective was to examine the impact of tapentadol compared to oxycodone use on the incidence of opioid-related adverse drug events after surgery. Data for adult surgical patients receiving tapentadol or oxycodone during hospitalization between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021, were collected from electronic medical records of 3 tertiary metropolitan hospitals in Australia. The primary outcome was the incidence of opioid-related adverse events. Patients receiving tapentadol or oxycodone were matched using nearest-neighbour propensity score matching. In the matched cohorts (n = 1,530 vs n = 2,775; mean [standard deviation] age 62.3 [17.0] years vs 61.9 [standard deviation 17.9] years; 43% vs 45% male for the tapentadol vs oxycodone groups, respectively), patients given tapentadol experienced a similar incidence of adverse events overall (14.4%, 220/1,530 vs 12.6%, 349/2,775; P = .100; 95% CI -.35% to 3.95%). Secondary outcomes included an increased risk of delirium (2.7%, 41/1,530 vs 1.3%, 37/2,775), arrhythmias (3.4%, 52/1,530 vs 2.2%, 62/2,775), and length of hospital stay (5 [range 1-201] vs 4 [range 1-226] days) compared with oxycodone use. Further real-world studies are warranted to determine the impact of tapentadol use on a broad range of patient outcomes. PERSPECTIVE: This study provides an early signal that tapentadol use may be associated with an increased risk of some adverse events and a longer length of stay. Further research is needed to examine the impact of tapentadol use on a broad range of patient outcomes in clinical practice settings.

Trial of Vancomycin and Cefazolin as Surgical Prophylaxis in Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The addition of vancomycin to beta-lactam prophylaxis in arthroplasty may reduce surgical-site infections; however, the efficacy and safety are unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, superiority, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients without known methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization who were undergoing arthroplasty to receive 1.5 g of vancomycin or normal saline placebo, in addition to cefazolin prophylaxis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection within 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 4239 patients underwent randomization. Among 4113 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (2233 undergoing knee arthroplasty, 1850 undergoing hip arthroplasty, and 30 undergoing shoulder arthroplasty), surgical-site infections occurred in 91 of 2044 patients (4.5%) in the vancomycin group and in 72 of 2069 patients (3.5%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.73; P = 0.11). Among patients undergoing knee arthroplasty, surgical-site infections occurred in 63 of 1109 patients (5.7%) in the vancomyin group and in 42 of 1124 patients (3.7%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.23). Among patients undergoing hip arthroplasty, surgical-site infections occurred in 28 of 920 patients (3.0%) in the vancomyin group and in 29 of 930 patients (3.1%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.63). Adverse events occurred in 35 of 2010 patients (1.7%) in the vancomycin group and in 35 of 2030 patients (1.7%) in the placebo group, including hypersensitivity reactions in 24 of 2010 patients (1.2%) and 11 of 2030 patients (0.5%), respectively (relative risk, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.08 to 4.49), and acute kidney injury in 42 of 2010 patients (2.1%) and 74 of 2030 patients (3.6%), respectively (relative risk, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of vancomycin to cefazolin prophylaxis was not superior to placebo for the prevention of surgical-site infections in arthroplasty among patients without known MRSA colonization. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12618000642280.).

Patients' experiences of subacute pain management following total hip or knee arthroplasty: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Total hip and knee arthroplasties are common surgeries performed worldwide, but the management of pain during the subacute period (defined as hospital discharge to 3 months postoperatively) is poorly understood. This study aimed to determine patients' experiences, facilitators and barriers to subacute pain management following total hip or knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patients following total hip or knee arthroplasty were conducted between June and August 2022. Participants were recruited from two tertiary metropolitan hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach to identify common themes. RESULTS: In total, 30 interviews were conducted with patients following hip or knee arthroplasty. Four main themes were identified: (i) Physical constitution before surgery (joint condition, analgesic use, age, and hearing); (ii) Attitude and knowledge (motivation, outlook on life, attitude towards taking medications, individual benchmarking, and knowledge); (iii) Socio-ethno-cultural factors (family and community connection, language, and religion), and (iv) Health-system support (health-professional delivered education, medications, services, staff, and costs). CONCLUSIONS: Participants' experiences of subacute pain following hip or knee arthroplasty were shaped by multidimensional factors. Strategies to empower patients through increased education and support during postoperative opioid tapering as well as a shift to a biopsychosocial approach to pain management during the subacute period may improve patient and health-system outcomes.

Cryotherapy following total knee replacement.

BACKGROUND: Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common intervention for people with end-stage symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, resulting in significant improvements in pain, function and quality of life within three to six months. It is, however, acutely associated with pain, local oedema and blood loss. Post-operative management may include cryotherapy. This is the application of low temperatures to the skin surrounding the surgical site, through ice or cooled water, often delivered using specialised devices. This is an update of a review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of cryotherapy in the acute phase after TKR (within 48 hours after surgery) on blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, range of motion, knee function, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers, as well as reference lists, related links and conference proceedings on 27 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing cryotherapy with or without other treatments (such as compression, regional nerve block or continuous passive motion) to no treatment, or the other treatment alone, following TKR for osteoarthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We discussed any disagreements and consulted another review author to resolve them, if required. Major outcomes were blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, knee range of motion, knee function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. Minor outcomes were analgesia use, knee swelling, length of stay, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 trials (20 randomised trials and two controlled clinical trials), with 1839 total participants. The mean ages reflected the TKR population, ranging from 64 to 74 years. Cryotherapy with compression was compared to no treatment in four studies, and to compression alone in nine studies. Cryotherapy without compression was compared to no treatment in eight studies. One study compared cryotherapy without compression to control with compression alone. We combined all control interventions in the primary analysis. Certainty of evidence was low for blood loss (downgraded for bias and inconsistency), pain (downgraded twice for bias) and range of motion (downgraded for bias and indirectness). It was very low for transfusion rate (downgraded for bias, inconsistency and imprecision), function (downgraded twice for bias and once for inconsistency), total adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision) and withdrawals from adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision). The nature of cryotherapy made blinding difficult and most studies had a high risk of performance and detection bias. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials (956 participants) shows that cryotherapy may reduce blood loss at one to 13 days after surgery. Blood loss was 825 mL with no cryotherapy and 561 mL with cryotherapy: mean difference (MD) 264 mL less (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 mL less to 516 mL less). Low-certainty evidence from six trials (530 participants) shows that cryotherapy may slightly improve pain at 48 hours on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (lower scores indicate less pain). Pain was 4.8 points with no cryotherapy and 3.16 points with cryotherapy: MD 1.6 points lower (95% CI 2.3 lower to 1.0 lower). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate at zero to 13 days after surgery. The transfusion rate was 37% with no cryotherapy and 79% with cryotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 2.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 109.63; 2 trials, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from three trials (174 participants) indicates cryotherapy may improve range of motion at discharge: it was 62.9 degrees with no cryotherapy and 71.2 degrees with cryotherapy: MD 8.3 degrees greater (95% CI 3.6 degrees more to 13.1 degrees more). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves function two weeks after surgery. Function was 75.4 points on the 0- to 100-point Dutch Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scale (lower score indicates worse function) in the control group and 88.6 points with cryotherapy (MD 13.2 points better, 95% CI 0.5 worse to 27.1 improved; 4 trials, 296 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces total adverse events: the risk ratio was 1.30 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.20; 16 trials, 1199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included discomfort, local skin reactions, superficial infections, cold-induced injuries and thrombolytic events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces withdrawals from adverse events (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 17.38; 19 trials, 1347 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No significant benefit was found for secondary outcomes of analgesia use, length of stay, activity level or quality of life. Evidence from seven studies (403 participants) showed improved mid-patella swelling between two and six days after surgery (MD 7.32 mm less, 95% CI 11.79 to 2.84 lower), though not at six weeks and three months after surgery. The included studies did not assess participant-reported global assessment of success. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of evidence was low for blood loss, pain and range of motion, and very low for transfusion rate, function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate, function, total adverse events or withdrawals from adverse events. We downgraded evidence for bias, indirectness, imprecision and inconsistency. Hence, the potential benefits of cryotherapy on blood loss, pain and range of motion may be too small to justify its use. More well-designed randomised controlled trials focusing especially on clinically meaningful outcomes, such as blood transfusion, and patient-reported outcomes, such as knee function, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success, are required.

Comparative effectiveness of aspirin for symptomatic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty, a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the symptomatic 90-day venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates in patients receiving aspirin to patients receiving low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), after total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: Data were collected from a multi-centre cohort study, including demographics, confounders and prophylaxis type (aspirin alone, LMWH alone, aspirin and LMWH, and DOACs). The primary outcome was symptomatic 90-day VTE. Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, joint related reoperation and mortality within 90 days. Data were analysed using logistic regression, the Student's t and Fisher's exact tests (unadjusted) and multivariable regression (adjusted). RESULTS: There were 1867 eligible patients; 365 (20%) received aspirin alone, 762 (41%) LMWH alone, 482 (26%) LMWH and aspirin and 170 (9%) DOAC. The 90-day VTE rate was 2.7%; lowest in the aspirin group (1.6%), compared to 3.6% for LMWH, 2.3% for LMWH and aspirin and 2.4% for DOACs. After adjusted analysis, predictors of VTE were prophylaxis duration < 14 days (OR = 6.7, 95% CI 3.5-13.1, p < 0.001) and history of previous VTE (OR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.8, p = 0.05). There were no significant differences in the primary or secondary outcomes between prophylaxis groups. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin may be suitable for VTE prophylaxis following THA and TKA. The comparatively low unadjusted 90-day VTE rate in the aspirin group may have been due to selective use in lower-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, trial number NCT01899443 (15/07/2013).

Developing a patient decision aid for Achilles tendon rupture management: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and user-test a patient decision aid portraying the benefits and harms of non-surgical management and surgery for Achilles tendon ruptures. DESIGN: Mixed methods. SETTING: A draft decision aid was developed using guidance from a multidisciplinary steering group and existing patient decision aids. Participants were recruited through social media. PARTICIPANTS: People who have previously sustained an Achilles tendon rupture and health professionals who manage these patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid from health professionals and patients who had previously suffered an Achilles tendon rupture. The feedback was used to redraft the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, redrafting according to feedback and further interviews was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Questionnaire data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: We interviewed 18 health professionals (13 physiotherapists, 3 orthopaedic surgeons, 1 chiropractor, 1 sports medicine physician) and 15 patients who had suffered an Achilles tendon rupture (median time since rupture was 12 months). Most health professionals and patients rated the aid's acceptability as good-excellent. Interviews showcased agreement among health professionals and patients on most aspects of the decision aid: introduction, treatment options, comparing benefits and harms, questions to ask health professionals and formatting. However, health professionals had differing views on details about Achilles tendon retraction distance, factors that modify the risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms. CONCLUSION: Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to both patients and health professionals, and our study highlights the views of key stakeholders on important information to consider when developing a patient decision aid for Achilles tendon rupture management. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of this tool on the decision-making of people considering Achilles tendon surgery is warranted.

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

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

A randomized controlled trial of patient recall after detailed written consent versus standard verbal consent in adults with routine orthopaedic trauma.

Patient decision aids have previously demonstrated an improvement in the quality of the informed consent process. This study assessed the effectiveness of detailed written patient information, compared to standard verbal consent, in improving postoperative recall in adult orthopaedic trauma patients. This randomized controlled feasibility trial was conducted at two teaching hospitals within the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District. Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) pending orthopaedic trauma surgery between March 2021 and September 2021 were recruited and randomized to detailed or standard methods of informed consent using a random sequence concealed in sealed, opaque envelopes. The detailed group received procedure-specific written information in addition to the standard verbal consent. The primary outcome was total recall, using a seven-point interview-administered recall questionnaire at 72 hours postoperatively. Points were awarded if the participant correctly recalled details of potential complications (maximum three points), implants used (maximum three points), and postoperative instructions (maximum one point). Secondary outcomes included the anxiety subscale of the Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS-A) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain collected at 24 hours preoperatively and 72 hours postoperatively. Additionally, the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (PSQ-18) measured satisfaction at 72 hours postoperatively. A total of 60 patients were randomized, 32 to the standard group and 28 to the detailed group. Patients in the detailed group had significantly higher total recall score compared to the standard group (mean difference 1.29 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 2.08); p = 0.002). There were no differences in HADS-A (mean difference 0.39 (95% CI -2.11 to 2.88); p = 0.757), VAS pain (mean difference 5.71 (95% CI -22.25 to 11.11); p = 0.499), or PSQ-18 (mean difference 0.499; 95% CI -1.6 to 3.42; p = 0.392). Detailed written tools are useful in improving postoperative recall in adult orthopaedic trauma patients.

Has the degree of outcome reporting bias in surgical randomized trials changed? A meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Outcome reporting bias in individual trials can compromise the validity of pooled estimates within systematic reviews. Recent strategies have attempted to address outcome reporting bias, which favours the full reporting of statistically significant outcomes over non-significant outcomes. We examined whether the association between full outcome reporting and statistical significance in surgical trials has changed from 2009 to 2019. METHODS: We systematically searched for 350 surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2009 and 350 surgical RCTs from 2019. Outcomes were classified as fully reported, partially reported, qualitatively reported or unreported. For each outcome, a contingency table was populated with full outcome reporting (yes/no) and statistical significance (yes/no). We combined odds ratios in random effects meta-analysis to estimate the association between full outcome reporting and statistical significance in 2009 compared with 2019. RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent of outcomes in 2009 were incompletely reported, compared with 30% in 2019. In 2009, significant outcomes were more likely to be fully reported than non-significant outcomes (OR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.7-3.4, I2  = 35%), but the opposite association was seen in 2019 (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.77, I2  = 43%). RCTs from 2019 were less likely to demonstrate outcome reporting bias favouring significant outcomes (OR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.12-0.35, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Outcome reporting bias favouring the full reporting of significant over non-significant outcomes was demonstrated in 2009, but the opposite association was seen in 2019. There remains a high prevalence of incomplete outcome reporting. We recommend ongoing adherence to trial protocol guidelines to improve outcome reporting transparency and completeness.

Is Enoxaparin Associated With a Higher Risk of Persistent Wound Drainage Than Aspirin? A Secondary Analysis of Data From the CRISTAL Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Owing to its association with prosthetic joint infection, persistent wound drainage has become an important clinical entity after THA or TKA. The association between venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis and persistent wound drainage has not been extensively reported before but has potentially important clinical implications. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is the type of VTE prophylaxis (enoxaparin or aspirin) used after hip arthroplasty or knee arthroplasty associated with a higher risk of persistent wound drainage? (2) In patients who experience persistent wound drainage, is the type of VTE prophylaxis associated with a longer time taken to achieve a dry wound? (3) Is type of VTE prophylaxis associated with a higher risk of joint-related reoperation within 6 months? METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data from an earlier cluster-randomized trial conducted through the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry; data were drawn from two participating hospitals from that study. According to the trial's allocation sequence, the two participating hospitals were randomized to administer aspirin (100 mg daily) or enoxaparin (40 mg daily) as VTE prophylaxis to all patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for 35 days after the procedure and for all patients undergoing knee arthroplasty for 14 days afterwards. Crossover to the alternate prophylaxis group occurred after the patient enrollment target had been met for the first arm. Between April 2019 and December 2020, 1339 of 1679 eligible patients were included in this study; 82% (707 of 861) of eligible patients were allocated to the enoxaparin group and 77% (632 of 818) of eligible patients we allocated to the aspirin group. The mean age in both groups was 67 ± 10 years and the mean BMI was 32 ± 7 kg/m 2 . There was a higher proportion of male patients (43% [302 of 707] versus 36% [227 of 632]; p = 0.01), hip arthroplasties (36% [254 of 707] versus 29% [182 of 632]; p = 0.006), and patients receiving subcuticular closure (62% [441 of 707] versus 33% [208 of 631]; p < 0.001) in the enoxaparin group than in the aspirin group. Patients were monitored for wound drainage on each postoperative day until discharge, and this was recorded in the medical record once per day. Assessors were not blinded to the type of prophylaxis each patient received. Persistent wound drainage was defined as any wound drainage beyond Postoperative Day 3. For patients who experienced persistent wound drainage, the time taken to achieve a dry wound was defined as the number of days beyond Postoperative Day 3 for the wound to become dry. Logistic regression was used to determine whether the prophylaxis type was associated with persistent wound drainage. For patients with persistent wound drainage, the median time of drainage was compared between groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The number of patients undergoing a joint-related reoperation within 6 months was identified through data linkage to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and electronic record review, and was compared using a Fisher exact test. RESULTS: We found no difference between the enoxaparin and aspirin groups in terms of the percentage of patients who had persistent wound drainage (9% [65 of 707] versus 8% [49 of 632], odds ratio 1.2 [95% confidence interval 0.8 to 1.8]; p = 0.40). For patients receiving subcuticular closure, after controlling for other potentially confounding variables, including age, sex, BMI, preoperative anticoagulant use, and type of arthroplasty, enoxaparin was associated with a higher risk of persistent wound drainage than aspirin (OR 3.6 [95% CI 1.5 to 10.6]; p = 0.009). For patients receiving a skin staple closure, after controlling for the same variables above, we found enoxaparin was not associated with a higher risk of persistent wound drainage (OR 1.1 [95% CI 0.7 to 1.9]; p = 0.66). For patients who experienced persistent wound drainage patients (114: 65 in the enoxaparin group and 49 in the aspirin group), there was no difference in the median (interquartile range) time taken to achieve a dry wound (enoxaparin: 1 day [IQR 1 to 2 days], aspirin: 1 day [IQR 1 to 3 days]; p = 0.22). There was no difference in the risk of joint-related reoperation within 6 months between enoxaparin (2.4% [17 of 707]) and aspirin (2.2% [14 of 632], OR 1.1 [95% CI 0.5 to 2.4]; p = 0.86). CONCLUSION: Enoxaparin was not associated with an increased risk of persistent wound drainage compared with aspirin for all patients included in this study. Enoxaparin may be associated with a higher risk of drainage for patients receiving subcuticular closure. However, this finding should be interpreted cautiously, given the small sample size in this analysis. The duration of drainage was short regardless of the prophylaxis used, and enoxaparin was not associated with an increased risk of joint-related reoperation. These findings should not deter clinicians from using enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis after hip or knee arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Quality indicators in primary elective total hip and knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) represent a significant portion of healthcare spending and are high-priority for quality improvement initiatives. This study aims to develop quality indicators (QIs) in the care of primary elective THA and TKA patients. These QIs serve a number of purposes including documentation of the quality of care, objective comparisons of institutions/providers, facilitating pay-for-performance initiatives, and supporting accountability, regulation, and accreditation. METHODS: A guideline-based approach, initially described by Kötter et al., was utilized. Eight clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were evaluated for candidate indicators (CIs). CIs with high-quality evidence and consensus statements were extracted. Eighteen additional CIs were included from previous work that evaluated quality improvement databases. Each CI and supporting evidence was submitted for independent review by an expert panel. The RAND Corporation-University of California, Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) appropriateness methodology was utilized and items were rated based on validity, reliability, and feasibility of measurement. After two rounds of ratings and ranking, a final ranked list of QIs was obtained. RESULTS: Fifty-six CIs were identified from the literature and CPGs or proposed by the expert panel. Two rounds of voting resulted in 12 total QIs that were deemed appropriate measures of high-quality care. The final 12 QIs were ranked by order of importance: use of peri-operative tranexamic acid, infusion of prophylactic antibiotics prior to inflation of tourniquet, appropriate post-operative venous thromboembolic prophylaxis, complication rate, rate of secondary procedure, readmission rate, early mobilization, average change of pre- to one year post-operative functional status, use of multimodal analgesia, use of neuraxial anesthesia, use of peri-articular injection in TKA, and use of pre-operative PO analgesia. CONCLUSION: This study is an expert opinion based on parameters observed in modern and high-quality academic settings. Twelve QIs are proposed to assess the quality of care in the peri-operative management of primary elective THA and TKA patients.

Post-discharge patient-reported non-adherence to aspirin compared to enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after hip or knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin and enoxaparin are commonly used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to compare non-adherence after discharge to aspirin or enoxaparin following THA or TKA. METHODS: A subset of participants in the CRISTAL study were selected for participation. Additional inclusion criteria were no preoperative anticoagulant use and discharge from hospital before the prophylaxis period ended. The first four consecutive patients from each arm at each participating hospital were planned to be recruited (planned sample size n = 248). A patient-reported adherence questionnaire was completed by telephone at 36-41 days after THA and at 15-20 days after TKA. The primary outcome was non-adherence. Secondary outcomes were number of missed doses and the reasons for non-adherence. RESULTS: There were 178 participants included from 15 sites, less than planned explained by early stopping of trial recruitment. There was no significant between-group difference in patient-reported non-adherence: 24% (17/71) for aspirin, 30% (32/107) for enoxaparin, odds ratio = 1.4 (95% CI 0.7-2.9). The mean number of missed doses was 2.5 for aspirin and 3.4 for enoxaparin (mean difference = 0.9 doses, 95% CI -1.2 to 3.1). For aspirin, the most commonly reported reason for non-adherence was forgotten doses and for enoxaparin it was clinician-recommended change. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of non-adherence and the number of missing doses were similar for patients regardless of drug prescribed. The most common reasons for non-adherence were unrelated to the mode of administration.

Dual mobility versus conventional total hip arthroplasty in femoral neck fractures (DISTINCT): protocol for a registry-nested, open-label, cluster-randomised crossover trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures treated with total hip arthroplasty (THA) are at high risk of prosthesis instability, and dislocation is the most common indication for revision surgery. This study aims to determine whether dual mobility THA implants reduce the risk of dislocation compared with conventional THA in patients with hip fracture suitable to be treated with THA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cluster-randomised, crossover, open-label trial nested within the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). The clusters will comprise hospitals that perform at least 12 THAs for hip fracture per annum. All adults age ≥50 years who meet the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry guidelines for THA will be included. The intervention will be dual mobility THA and the comparator will be conventional THA. Each hospital will be allocated to two consecutive periods, one of dual mobility THA and the other of conventional THA in random order, aiming for an average of 16 patients eligible for the primary analysis per group (32 total per site), allowing different recruitment totals between sites. Data will be collected through the AOANJRR and linked with patient-level discharge data acquired through government agencies. The primary outcome is dislocation within 1 year. Secondary outcomes include revision surgery for dislocation and all-cause, complications and mortality at 1, 2 and 5 years. If dual mobility THA is found to be superior, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. The study will aim to recruit 1536 patients from at least 48 hospitals over 3 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted (Sydney Local Health District - Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Zone (approval X20-0162 and 2020/ETH00680) and site-specific approvals). Participant recruitment is via an opt-out consent process as both treatments are considered accepted, standard practice. The trial is endorsed by the Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000069853.

Effect of Aspirin vs Enoxaparin on Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Undergoing Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: The CRISTAL Randomized Trial.

Importance: There remains a lack of randomized trials investigating aspirin monotherapy for symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Objective: To determine whether aspirin was noninferior to enoxaparin in preventing symptomatic VTE after THA or TKA. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized, crossover, registry-nested trial across 31 hospitals in Australia. Clusters were hospitals performing greater than 250 THA or TKA procedures annually. Patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty procedures were enrolled at each hospital. Patients receiving preoperative anticoagulation or who had a medical contraindication to either study drug were excluded. A total of 9711 eligible patients were enrolled (5675 in the aspirin group and 4036 in the enoxaparin group) between April 20, 2019, and December 18, 2020. Final follow-up occurred on August 14, 2021. Interventions: Hospitals were randomized to administer aspirin (100 mg/d) or enoxaparin (40 mg/d) for 35 days after THA and for 14 days after TKA. Crossover occurred after the patient enrollment target had been met for the first group. All 31 hospitals were initially randomized and 16 crossed over prior to trial cessation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was symptomatic VTE within 90 days, including pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (above or below the knee). The noninferiority margin was 1%. Six secondary outcomes are reported, including death and major bleeding within 90 days. Analyses were performed by randomization group. Results: Enrollment was stopped after an interim analysis determined the stopping rule was met, with 9711 patients (median age, 68 years; 56.8% female) of the prespecified 15 562 enrolled (62%). Of these, 9203 (95%) completed the trial. Within 90 days of surgery, symptomatic VTE occurred in 256 patients, including pulmonary embolism (79 cases), above-knee DVT (18 cases), and below-knee DVT (174 cases). The symptomatic VTE rate in the aspirin group was 3.45% and in the enoxaparin group was 1.82% (estimated difference, 1.97%; 95% CI, 0.54%-3.41%). This failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for aspirin and was significantly superior for enoxaparin (P = .007). Of 6 secondary outcomes, none were significantly better in the enoxaparin group compared with the aspirin group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, aspirin compared with enoxaparin resulted in a significantly higher rate of symptomatic VTE within 90 days, defined as below- or above-knee DVT or pulmonary embolism. These findings may be informed by a cost-effectiveness analysis. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12618001879257.

Evaluating methodological quality of prognostic prediction models on patient reported outcome measurements after total hip replacement and total knee replacement surgery: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Prediction models for poor patient-reported surgical outcomes after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) may provide a method for improving appropriate surgical care for hip and knee osteoarthritis. There are concerns about methodological issues and the risk of bias of studies producing prediction models. A critical evaluation of the methodological quality of prediction modelling studies in THR and TKR is needed to ensure their clinical usefulness. This systematic review aims to (1) evaluate and report the quality of risk stratification and prediction modelling studies that predict patient-reported outcomes after THR and TKR; (2) identify areas of methodological deficit and provide recommendations for future research; and (3) synthesise the evidence on prediction models associated with post-operative patient-reported outcomes after THR and TKR surgeries. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL electronic databases will be searched to identify relevant studies. Title and abstract and full-text screening will be performed by two independent reviewers. We will include (1) prediction model development studies without external validation; (2) prediction model development studies with external validation of independent data; (3) external model validation studies; and (4) studies updating a previously developed prediction model. Data extraction spreadsheets will be developed based on the CHARMS checklist and TRIPOD statement and piloted on two relevant studies. Study quality and risk of bias will be assessed using the PROBAST tool. Prediction models will be summarised qualitatively. Meta-analyses on the predictive performance of included models will be conducted if appropriate. A narrative review will be used to synthesis the evidence if there are insufficient data to perform meta-analyses. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will evaluate the methodological quality and usefulness of prediction models for poor outcomes after THR or TKR. This information is essential to provide evidence-based healthcare for end-stage hip and knee osteoarthritis. Findings of this review will contribute to the identification of key areas for improvement in conducting prognostic research in this field and facilitate the progress in evidence-based tailored treatments for hip and knee osteoarthritis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021271828.

Use of Placebo and Nonoperative Control Groups in Surgical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Nonspecific effects, particularly placebo effects, are thought to contribute significantly to the observed effect in surgical trials. Objective: To estimate the proportion of the observed effect of surgical treatment that is due to nonspecific effects (including the placebo effect). Data Sources: Published Cochrane reviews and updated, extended search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL until March 2019. Study Selection: Published randomized placebo-controlled surgical trials and trials comparing the effect of the same surgical interventions with nonoperative controls (ie, no treatment, usual care, or exercise program). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Pairs of authors independently screened the search results, assessed full texts to identify eligible studies and the risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. The proportion of all nonspecific effects was calculated as the change in the placebo control divided by the change in the active surgery and pooled in a random-effect meta-analysis. To estimate the magnitude of the placebo effect, we pooled the difference in outcome between placebo and nonoperative controls and used metaregression to estimate the association between the type of control group and the treatment effect (difference between the groups), adjusting for risk of bias, sample size, and type of outcome. Main Outcomes and Measures: Between- and within-group effect sizes expressed as Hedges g. Results: In this review, 100 trials were included comprising data from 62 trials with placebo controls (3 also included nonoperative controls), and 38 trials with nonoperative controls (32 interventions; 10 699 participants). Risk of bias across trials was comparable except for performance and detection bias, which was high in trials with nonoperative controls. The mean nonspecific effects accounted for 67% (95% CI, 61% to 73%) of the observed change after surgery; however, this varied widely between different procedures. The estimated surgical placebo effect had a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.13 (95% CI, -0.26 to 0.51). Trials with placebo and nonoperative controls found comparable treatment effects (SMD, -0.09 [95% CI, -0.35 to 0.18]; 15 interventions; 73 between-group effects; adjusted analysis: SMD, -0.11 [95% CI, -0.37 to 0.15]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this review, the change in health state after surgery was composed largely of nonspecific effects, but no evidence supported a large placebo effect. Placebo-controlled surgical trials may be redundant when trials with nonoperative controls consistently report no substantial association from surgery compared with nonoperative treatment.

Do Dual-mobility Cups Reduce Revision Risk in Femoral Neck Fractures Compared With Conventional THA Designs? An International Meta-analysis of Arthroplasty Registries.

BACKGROUND: Dual-mobility cups in THA were designed to reduce prosthesis instability and the subsequent risk of revision surgery in high-risk patients, such as those with hip fractures. However, there are limited data from clinical studies reporting a revision benefit of dual-mobility over conventional THA. Collaboration between anthroplasty registries provides an opportunity to describe international practice variation and compare between-country, all-cause revision rates for dual-mobility and conventional THA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We summarized observational data from multiple arthroplasty registries for patients receiving either a dual-mobility or conventional THA to ask: (1) Is dual-mobility use associated with a difference in risk of all-cause revision surgery compared with conventional THA? (2) Are there specific patient characteristics associated with dual-mobility use in the hip fracture population? (3) Has the use of dual-mobility constructs changed over time in patients receiving a THA for hip fracture? METHODS: Six member registries of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (from Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States) provided custom aggregate data reports stratified by acetabular cup type (dual-mobility or conventional THA) in primary THA for hip fracture between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2019; surgical approach; and patient demographic data (sex, mean age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and BMI). The cumulative percent revision and mortality were calculated for each registry. To determine a global hazard ratio of all-cause revision for dual-mobility compared with conventional THA designs, we used a pseudoindividual patient data approach to pool Kaplan-Meier prosthesis revision data from each registry and perform a meta-analysis. The pseudoindividual patient data approach is a validated technique for meta-analysis of aggregate time-to-event survival data, such as revision surgery, from multiple sources. Data were available for 15,024 dual-mobility THAs and 97,200 conventional THAs performed for hip fractures during the study period. RESULTS: After pooling of complete Kaplan-Meier survival data from all six registries, the cumulative percent revision for conventional THA was 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2% to 4.5%) and 4.7% (95% CI 4.3% to 5.3%) for dual-mobility THA at 5 years. We did not demonstrate a lower risk of all-cause revision for patients receiving dual-mobility over conventional THA designs for hip fracture in the meta-analysis once between-registry differences were adjusted for (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.06]). A lower proportion of dual-mobility procedures were revised for dislocation than conventional THAs (0.9% versus 1.4%) but a higher proportion were revised for infection (1.2% versus 0.8%). In most registries, a greater proportion of dual-mobility THA patients were older, had more comorbidities, and underwent a posterior approach compared with conventional THA (p < 0.001). The proportion of dual-mobility THA used to treat hip fractures increased in each registry over time and constituted 21% (2438 of 11,874) of all THA procedures in 2019. CONCLUSION: The proportion of dual-mobility THAs in patients with hip fractures increased over time, but there was large variation in use across countries represented here. Dual-mobility cups were not associated with a reduction in the overall risk of revision surgery in patients with hip fractures. A randomized controlled trial powered to detect the incidence of dislocation and subsequent revision surgery is required to clarify the efficacy of dual-mobility cups to treat hip fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Adherence by orthopaedic surgeons to AHPRA and Australian Orthopaedic Association advertising guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To examine adherence to Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA) advertising guidelines by AOA members. DESIGN, SETTING: Cross-sectional survey, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Two samples of AOA member orthopaedic surgeons: 81 randomly selected from a list of AOA members with publicly available contact details (AOA random sample); and a sample obtained by searching with Google for "orthopaedic surgeon" and the name of the major city in each of the eight Australian states and territories in turn; the top eight results for each search were considered for inclusion (AOA Google sample). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Non-compliance of advertising material, by surgeon sample, with the AHPRA and AOA guidelines; associations between non-compliance and sample, state, location (metropolitan, regional), and subspecialty. RESULTS: Of the 81 surgeons in the AOA random sample, 52 (64%) were non-compliant with at least one aspect of the AHPRA guidelines, and 53 (65%) were non-compliant with at least one aspect of the AOA guidelines. Of the 59 surgeons in the AOA Google sample, 48 were non-compliant with the AHPRA guidelines (81%) and 46 with the AOA guidelines (78%). Incidence of non-compliance with the AHPRA guidelines was influenced by sample source (AOA Google v AOA random: incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.87), but not non-compliance with the AOA guidelines (IRR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.77-1.55). CONCLUSION: A large proportion of AOA members who advertise online do not comply with AHPRA and AOA advertising guidelines.