Cost-effectiveness of craniotomy versus decompressive craniectomy for UK patients with traumatic acute subdural haematoma.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of craniotomy, compared with decompressive craniectomy (DC) in UK patients undergoing evacuation of acute subdural haematoma (ASDH). DESIGN: Economic evaluation undertaken using health resource use and outcome data from the 12-month multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised, Randomised Evaluation of Surgery with Craniectomy for Patients Undergoing Evacuation-ASDH trial. SETTING: UK secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: 248 UK patients undergoing surgery for traumatic ASDH were randomised to craniotomy (N=126) or DC (N=122). INTERVENTIONS: Surgical evacuation via craniotomy (bone flap replaced) or DC (bone flap left out with a view to replace later: cranioplasty surgery). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In the base-case analysis, costs were estimated from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Outcomes were assessed via the quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) derived from the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire (cost-utility analysis) and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) (cost-effectiveness analysis). Multiple imputation and regression analyses were conducted to estimate the mean incremental cost and effect of craniotomy compared with DC. The most cost-effective option was selected, irrespective of the level of statistical significance as is argued by economists. RESULTS: In the cost-utility analysis, the mean incremental cost of craniotomy compared with DC was estimated to be -£5520 (95% CI -£18 060 to £7020) with a mean QALY gain of 0.093 (95% CI 0.029 to 0.156). In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the mean incremental cost was estimated to be -£4536 (95% CI -£17 374 to £8301) with an OR of 1.682 (95% CI 0.995 to 2.842) for a favourable outcome on the GOSE. CONCLUSIONS: In a UK population with traumatic ASDH, craniotomy was estimated to be cost-effective compared with DC: craniotomy was estimated to have a lower mean cost, higher mean QALY gain and higher probability of a more favourable outcome on the GOSE (though not all estimated differences between the two approaches were statistically significant). ETHICS: Ethical approval for the trial was obtained from the North West-Haydock Research Ethics Committee in the UK on 17 July 2014 (14/NW/1076). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN87370545.

Evaluating patient factors, operative management and postoperative outcomes in trauma laparotomy patients worldwide: a protocol for a global observational multicentre trauma study.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma contributes to the greatest loss of disability-adjusted life-years for adolescents and young adults worldwide. In the context of global abdominal trauma, the trauma laparotomy is the most commonly performed operation. Variation likely exists in how these patients are managed and their subsequent outcomes, yet very little global data on the topic currently exists. The objective of the GOAL-Trauma study is to evaluate both patient and injury factors for those undergoing trauma laparotomy, their clinical management and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We describe a planned prospective multicentre observational cohort study of patients undergoing trauma laparotomy. We will include patients of all ages who present to hospital with a blunt or penetrating injury and undergo a trauma laparotomy within 5 days of presentation to the treating centre. The study will collect system, patient, process and outcome data, following patients up until 30 days postoperatively (or until discharge or death, whichever is first). Our sample size calculation suggests we will need to recruit 552 patients from approximately 150 recruiting centres. DISCUSSION: The GOAL-Trauma study will provide a global snapshot of the current management and outcomes for patients undergoing a trauma laparotomy. It will also provide insight into the variation seen in the time delays for receiving care, the disease and patient factors present, and patient outcomes. For current standards of trauma care to be improved worldwide, a greater understanding of the current state of trauma laparotomy care is paramount if appropriate interventions and targets are to be identified and implemented.

Secondary analysis of a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership to facilitate knowledge translation in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM): insights from AO Spine RECODE-DCM.

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership could provide insights on knowledge translation within the field of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process for DCM. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: DCM stake holders, including spinal surgeons, people with myelopathy and other healthcare professionals, were surveyed internationally. Research suggestions submitted by stakeholders but considered answered were identified. Sampling characteristics of respondents were compared with the overall cohort to identify subgroups underserved by current knowledge translation. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 423 individuals from 68 different countries. A total of 22% of participants submitted research suggestions that were considered 'answered'. There was a significant difference between responses from different stakeholder groups (p<0.005). Spinal surgeons were the group which was most likely to submit an 'answered' research question. Respondents from South America were also most likely to submit 'answered' questions, when compared with other regions. However, there was no significant difference between responses from different stakeholder regions (p=0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge translation challenges exist within DCM. This practical approach to measuring knowledge translation may offer a more responsive assessment to guide interventions, complementing existing metrics.

Targeting patient recovery priorities in degenerative cervical myelopathy: design and rationale for the RECEDE-Myelopathy trial-study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition of symptomatic cervical spinal cord compression secondary to degenerative changes in spinal structures leading to a mechanical stress injury of the spinal cord. RECEDE-Myelopathy aims to test the disease-modulating activity of the phosphodiesterase 3/phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor Ibudilast as an adjuvant to surgical decompression in DCM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RECEDE-Myelopathy is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Participants will be randomised to receive either 60-100 mg Ibudilast or placebo starting within 10 weeks prior to surgery and continuing for 24 weeks after surgery for a maximum of 34 weeks. Adults with DCM, who have a modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score 8-14 inclusive and are scheduled for their first decompressive surgery are eligible for inclusion. The coprimary endpoints are pain measured on a visual analogue scale and physical function measured by the mJOA score at 6 months after surgery. Clinical assessments will be undertaken preoperatively, postoperatively and 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. We hypothesise that adjuvant therapy with Ibudilast leads to a meaningful and additional improvement in either pain or function, as compared with standard routine care. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical trial protocol V.2.2 October 2020. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from HRA-Wales.The results will be presented at an international and national scientific conferences and in a peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN16682024.

Drains result in greater reduction of subdural width and midline shift in burr hole evacuation of chronic subdural haematoma.

BACKGROUND: Drain insertion following chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) evacuation reduces recurrence and improves outcomes. The mechanism of this improvement is uncertain. We assessed whether drains result in improved postoperative imaging, and which radiological factors are associated with recurrence and functional outcome. METHODS: A multi-centre, prospective cohort study of CSDH patients was performed between May 2013 and January 2014. Patients aged > 16 years undergoing burr hole evacuation of primary CSDH with pre- and postoperative imaging were included in this subgroup analysis. Baseline and clinical details were collected. Pre- and postoperative maximal subdural width and midline shift (MLS) along with clot density were recorded. Primary outcomes comprised mRS at discharge and symptomatic recurrence requiring re-drainage. Comparisons were made using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Three hundred nineteen patients were identified for inclusion. Two hundred seventy-two of 319 (85%) patients underwent drain insertion at the time of surgery versus 45/319 (14%) who did not. Twenty-nine of 272 patients who underwent drain insertion experienced recurrence (10.9%) versus 9 of 45 patients without drain insertion (20.5%; p = 0.07). Overall change in median subdural width was significantly greater in the drain versus 'no drain' groups (11 mm versus 6 mm, p < 0.01). Overall change in median midline shift (MLS) was also significantly greater in the drain group (4 mm versus 3 mm, p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, change in maximal width and MLS were significant predictors of recurrence, although only the former remained a significant predictor for functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The use of subdural drains results in significantly improved postoperative imaging in burr hole evacuation of CSDH, thus providing radiological corroboration for their recommended use.