SPiRIT study protocol (Shoulder Pain: Randomised trial of Injectable Treatments): a randomised feasibility and pilot study of autologous protein solution (APS) vs corticosteroids for treating subacromial shoulder pain.

BACKGROUND: The management of subacromial shoulder pain represents a significant challenge and is typically managed through either physiotherapy, joint injection or surgical intervention. Recent surgical trials have questioned the efficacy and there is a need to improve the evidence base for the non-surgical management of this condition. The study aims to provide evidence of the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare the efficacy of autologous protein solution (APS) against the current standard of care, corticosteroid injection (CSI) for subacromial shoulder pain. Autologous protein solution (APS) is a blood-derived biological injection which has been shown to have anti-inflammatory effects. METHODS: A parallel-group two-arm randomised control trial will be conducted, comparing APS and CSI for shoulder pain. Fifty patients will be recruited. Feasibility will be assessed by examination of the conversion rate of eligible participants to the total number of participants recruited, whether it is possible to collect the appropriate outcome measures and the levels of retention/data compliance at follow-up dates. DISCUSSION: CSI is the mainstay of conservative management of subacromial shoulder pain. Trials and systematic reviews have reported differing conclusions, but the consensus view is that any benefits seen from CSI use are most likely to be short-term and there remains a significant number of patients who go on to have surgical intervention despite CSI. Biological injections, such as APS are being increasingly used, in the anticipation they may offer improved longer lasting outcomes for shoulder pain. However, the evidence to demonstrate the comparative efficacy of CSI versus APS does not currently exist. If feasible, a fully powered study will offer clarity to the treatment pathway of thousands of patients each year with subacromial pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research-Research for Patient Benefit, NIHR 201473, Trial Registration Number (ISRCTN12536844: SPiRIT. Shoulder pain: randomised trial of injectable treatments-date of Registration 15/9/2021). Protocol Version V1.0_30Jul2021. IRAS Project ID: 294,982.

Exercise therapy with or without other physical therapy interventions versus placebo interventions for osteoarthritis -Systematic review.

Objective: To evaluate whether exercise therapy, with or without other physical therapy interventions, is superior to placebo intervention for osteoarthritis (OA). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO were searched from inception to February 2021. Study selection: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with OA investigating an intervention involving exercise therapy with a placebo comparator. Data extraction and analysis: Data were extracted and checked for accuracy and completeness by pairs of reviewers. Primary outcomes were self-reported pain, function and quality of life (QoL). Comparative treatment effects were analysed by random effects model for short- and longer-term follow up. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Results: 13 RCTs involving 1079 patients were identified and included. Meta-analysis demonstrated improved pain (10 studies (GRADE low certainty), SMD -1.1 (95%CI -1.7 to -0.4)) and function (8 studies (GRADE low certainty), SMD -0.8 (95%CI -1.5 to -0.2)) in the short-term with exercise versus placebo, but no significant difference in the longer-term (pain 3 studies; function 3 studies). Conclusion: Current evidence demonstrates that exercise therapy is superior to placebo in the short-term for pain and function in OA. The certainty of this evidence is low to very low and further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effects.

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

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

Diagnostic and prognostic value of delayed Gadolinium Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Cartilage (dGEMRIC) in early osteoarthritis of the hip.

BACKGROUND: Delayed Gadolinium Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Cartilage (dGEMRIC) can detect glycosaminoglycan loss in the acetabular cartilage of asymptomatic individuals with cam morphology. The aims of this study were to explore the relationship between cam morphology and dGEMRIC values, and to explore whether baseline dGEMRIC can predict the development of radiographic hip osteoarthritis. METHODS: Prospective cohort (SibKids) study with clinical, radiographic, and MRI assessment at baseline and five-year follow-up (n = 34). The dGEMRIC values of cartilage regions were correlated with measures of cam morphology. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was applied to baseline variables to predict radiographic loss of joint space width. RESULTS: Superolateral acetabular cartilage dGEMRIC values were significantly lower in participants with cam morphology (P < 0.001), defined as an alpha angle greater than 60°. There was a negative correlation between alpha angle and the dGEMRIC value of adjacent acetabular cartilage. This relationship was strongest superoanteriorly (r = -0.697 P < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between baseline dGEMRIC and the magnitude of joint space width narrowing (r = 0.398 P = 0.030). ROC analysis of combined baseline variables (positive impingement test, alpha angle, dGEMRIC ratio) gave an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.75 for predicting joint space width narrowing greater than 0.5 mm within 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The size and position of cam morphology determines the severity and location of progressive cartilage damage, supporting the biomechanical aetiology of femoroacetabular impingement. Baseline dGEMRIC is able to predict the development of radiographic osteoarthritis. Compositional MRI offers the potential to identify patients who may benefit from early intervention to prevent the development of osteoarthritis.

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

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

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

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

Primary hip replacement prostheses and their evidence base: systematic review of literature.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which prostheses with no readily available evidence to support their use are being implanted in primary total hip arthroplasty. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. DATA SOURCES: The 9th annual report of the National Joint Registry of England and Wales (NJR) was analysed to identify prostheses with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel rating of "unclassified" or "pre-entry" used in primary total hip arthroplasty in 2011. A systematic review of those prostheses was carried out using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, OVID, and Google databases. STUDY SELECTION: Prostheses used in primary total hip arthroplasty as published in the NJR's 9th annual report were analysed. Only literature that included the name of the prosthesis was included. Literature yielded in the search results was excluded if it reported animal, non-orthopaedic, non-total hip arthroplasty, or non-device related studies. RESULTS: The systematic review found that 24% (57/235) of all hip replacement implants available to surgeons in the UK have no evidence for their clinical effectiveness. It also shows that 10,617 (7.8%) of the 136,593 components used in primary hip replacements in 2011 were implanted without readily identifiable evidence of clinical effectiveness. These comprised 157 cemented stems (0.5% of 34,655 implanted), 936 (2.8% of 33,367) uncemented stems, 1732 (7.1% of 24,349) cemented cups, and 7577 (17.1% of 44,222) uncemented cups. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a considerable proportion of prostheses available to orthopaedic surgeons have no readily available evidence of clinical effectiveness to support their use. Concern exists about the current system of device regulation, and the need for a revised process for introducing new orthopaedic devices is highlighted.

The feasibility of performing a randomised controlled trial for femoroacetabular impingement surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The number of surgical procedures performed each year to treat femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) continues to rise. Although there is evidence that surgery can improve symptoms in the short-term, there is no evidence that it slows the development of osteoarthritis (OA). We performed a feasibility study to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) comparing operative with non-operative treatment for FAI. METHODS: Surgeon opinion was obtained using validated questionnaires at a Specialist Hip Meeting (n = 61, 30 of whom stated that they routinely performed FAI surgery) and patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients with a new diagnosis of FAI (n = 31). RESULTS: Clinical equipoise was demonstrated when surgeons were given clinical scenarios and asked whether they would manage a patient operatively or non-operatively. A total of 23 surgeons (77%) who routinely perform FAI surgery were willing to recruit patients into a RCT, and 28 patients (90%) were willing to participate. 75% of responding surgeons believed it was appropriate to randomise patients to non-operative treatment for ≥ 12 months. Conversely, only eight patients (26%) felt this was acceptable, although 29 (94%) were willing to continue non-operative treatment for six months. More patients were concerned about their risk of developing OA than their current symptoms, although most patients felt that the two were of equal importance. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a RCT comparing operative and non-operative management of FAI is feasible and should be considered a research priority. An important finding for orthopaedic surgical trials is that patients without life-threatening pathology appear willing to trial a treatment for six months without improvement in their symptoms.