PERI-operative biologic DMARD management: Stoppage or COntinuation during orthoPaEdic operations (the PERISCOPE trial) - a study protocol for a pragmatic, UK multicentre, superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic evaluation and nested qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have revolutionised the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (IA). However, many people with IA still require planned orthopaedic surgery to reduce pain and improve function. Currently, bDMARDs are withheld during the perioperative period due to potential infection risk. However, this predisposes patients to IA flares and loss of disease control. The question of whether to stop or continue bDMARDs in the perioperative period has not been adequately addressed in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PERISCOPE is a multicentre, superiority, pragmatic RCT investigating the stoppage or continuation of bDMARDs. Participants will be assigned 1:1 to either stop or continue their bDMARDs during the perioperative period. We aim to recruit 394 adult participants with IA. Potential participants will be identified in secondary care hospitals in the UK, screened by a delegated clinician. If eligible and consenting, baseline data will be collected and randomisation completed. The primary outcome will be the self-reported PROMIS-29 (Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) over the first 12 weeks postsurgery. Secondary outcome measures are as follows: PROMIS - Health Assessment Questionnaire (PROMIS-HAQ), EQ-5D-5L, Disease activity: generic global Numeric Rating Scale (patient and clinician), Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction scale, Health care resource use and costs, Medication use, Surgical site infection, delayed wound healing, Adverse events (including systemic infections) and disease-specific outcomes (according to IA diagnosis). The costs associated with stopping and continuing bDMARDs will be assessed. A qualitative study will explore the patients' and clinicians' acceptability and experience of continuation/stoppage of bDMARDs in the perioperative period and the impact postoperatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was received from the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee on 25 April 2023 (REC Ref: 23/WS/0049). The findings from PERISCOPE will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and feed directly into practice guidelines for the use of bDMARDs in the perioperative period. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17691638.

Mixed Methods EvAluation of the high-volume low-complexity Surgical hUb pRogrammE (MEASURE): a mixed methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The waiting list for elective surgery in England recently reached over 7.8 million people and waiting time targets have been missed since 2010. The high-volume low complexity (HVLC) surgical hubs programme aims to tackle the backlog of patients awaiting elective surgery treatment in England. This study will evaluate the impact of HVLC surgical hubs on productivity, patient care and the workforce. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This 4-year project consists of six interlinked work packages (WPs) and is informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. WP1: Mapping current and future HVLC provision in England through document analysis, quantitative data sets (eg, Hospital Episodes Statistics) and interviews with national service leaders. WP2: Exploring the effects of HVLC hubs on key performance outcomes, primarily the volume of low-complexity patients treated, using quasi-experimental methods. WP3: Exploring the impact and implementation of HVLC hubs on patients, health professionals and the local NHS through approximately nine longitudinal, multimethod qualitative case studies. WP4: Assessing the productivity of HVLC surgical hubs using the Centre for Health Economics NHS productivity measure and Lord Carter's operational productivity measure. WP5: Conducting a mixed-methods appraisal will assess the influence of HVLC surgical hubs on the workforce using: qualitative data (WP3) and quantitative data (eg, National Health Service (NHS) England's workforce statistics and intelligence from WP2). WP6: Analysing the costs and consequences of HVLC surgical hubs will assess their achievements in relation to their resource use to establish value for money. A patient and public involvement group will contribute to the study design and materials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the East Midlands-Nottingham Research Ethics Committee 23/EM/0231. Participants will provide informed consent for qualitative study components. Dissemination plans include multiple academic and non-academic outputs (eg, Peer-reviewed journals, conferences, social media) and a continuous, feedback-loop of findings to key stakeholders (eg, NHS England) to influence policy development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Research registry: Researchregistry9364 (https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry%23home/registrationdetails/64cb6c795cbef8002a46f115/).

A protocol for the conduct of a multicentre, prospective, randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures.

Aims: Fractures of the humeral shaft represent 3% to 5% of all fractures. The most common treatment for isolated humeral diaphysis fractures in the UK is non-operative using functional bracing, which carries a low risk of complications, but is associated with a longer healing time and a greater risk of nonunion than surgery. There is an increasing trend to surgical treatment, which may lead to quicker functional recovery and lower rates of fracture nonunion than functional bracing. However, surgery carries inherent risk, including infection, bleeding, and nerve damage. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of functional bracing compared to surgical fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Methods: The HUmeral SHaft (HUSH) fracture study is a multicentre, prospective randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures in adult patients. Participants will be randomized to receive either functional bracing or surgery. With 334 participants, the trial will have 90% power to detect a clinically important difference for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score, assuming 20% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include function, pain, quality of life, complications, cost-effectiveness, time off work, and ability to drive. Discussion: The results of this trial will provide evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness between surgical and non-surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Ethical approval has been obtained from East of England - Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee. Publication is anticipated to occur in 2024.

Revision rate in metal compared to ceramic humeral head total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty.

Aims: Metal and ceramic humeral head bearing surfaces are available choices in anatomical shoulder arthroplasties. Wear studies have shown superior performance of ceramic heads, however comparison of clinical outcomes according to bearing surface in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) is limited. This study aimed to compare the rates of revision and reoperation following metal and ceramic humeral head TSA and HA using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR), which collects data from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey. Methods: NJR shoulder arthroplasty records were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and the National Mortality Register. TSA and HA performed for osteoarthritis (OA) in patients with an intact rotator cuff were included. Metal and ceramic humeral head prostheses were matched within separate TSA and HA groups using propensity scores based on 12 and 11 characteristics, respectively. The primary outcome was time to first revision and the secondary outcome was non-revision reoperation. Results: A total of 4,799 TSAs (3,578 metal, 1,221 ceramic) and 1,363 HAs (1,020 metal, 343 ceramic) were included. The rate of revision was higher for metal compared with ceramic TSA, hazard ratio (HR) 3.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 6.58). At eight years, prosthesis survival for ceramic TSA was 98.7% (95% CI 97.3 to 99.4) compared with 96.4% (95% CI 95.2 to 97.3) for metal TSA. The majority of revision TSAs were for cuff insufficiency or instability/dislocation. There was no significant difference in the revision rate for ceramic compared with metal head HA (HR 1.33 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.34)). For ceramic HA, eight-year prosthetic survival was 92.8% (95% CI 86.9 to 96.1), compared with 91.6% (95% CI 89.3 to 93.5) for metal HA. The majority of revision HAs were for cuff failure. Conclusion: The rate of all-cause revision was higher following metal compared with ceramic humeral head TSA in patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff. There was no difference in the revision rate for HA according to bearing surface.

Patient-reported outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty: an analysis of data from the National Joint Registry.

BACKGROUND: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) are used in the management of end-stage glenohumeral arthritis. Improvement in shoulder function and resolution of symptoms are high priorities for patients. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following TSA and HA. METHODS: Records from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man were linked to the PROMs data set. The study included anatomic shoulder arthroplasties performed for osteoarthritis in patients with an intact rotator cuff. Patients with preoperative and postoperative Oxford Shoulder Scores (OSSs) were included. The improvement in OSS at 6 months and 5 years and the trend in scores over time were analyzed for each prosthesis. A cohort of 2002 patients were matched on 10 variables using propensity scores. OSSs at 6 months following TSA vs. HA were compared in the matched sample. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in the OSS in both groups (P < .001). At 6 months, the OSSs were superior following TSA compared with HA (median 42 vs. 36, P < .001). The median score at 5 years was 44 following TSA and 35 following HA. Score distributions were skewed toward the maximum score. The highest possible score (48) was achieved in 28% (134 of 478) of TSAs and 9% (20 of 235) of HAs at 5 years. The improvement in the preoperative to 6-month OSS reached the minimal clinically important difference of 5.5 in 92% (1653 of 1792) of TSAs and in 80% (416 of 523) of HAs. At 5 years, this improvement was maintained in 91% (339 of 374) of TSAs and 78% (136 of 174) of HAs. CONCLUSION: TSA resulted in superior OSSs at 6 months in patients with osteoarthritis. The median OSS improved from 6 months to 5 years following TSA; however, there was a small decline in scores following HA. A ceiling effect was shown in the OSS following TSA at 5 years.

Association between surgeon volume and patient outcomes after elective shoulder replacement surgery using data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between surgeon volume and patient outcomes after elective shoulder replacement surgery to improve patient outcomes and inform future resource planning for joint replacement surgery. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Public and private hospitals in the United Kingdom, 2012-20. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older who had shoulder replacement surgery, identified in the National Joint Registry, with linkage of participants in England to Hospital Episode Statistics data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was revision surgery. Secondary outcome measures were reoperation within 12 months, serious adverse events, and prolonged hospital stay (>3 nights) after shoulder replacement surgery. RESULTS: 39 281 shoulder replacement procedures undertaken by 638 consultant surgeons at 416 surgical units met the inclusion criteria and were available for analysis. Multilevel mixed effects models and restricted cubic splines were fit to examine the association between a surgeon's mean annual volume and risk of adverse patient outcomes, with a minimum volume threshold of 10.4 procedures yearly identified. Below this threshold the risk of revision surgery was significantly increased, as much as twice that of surgeons with the lowest risk (hazard ratio 1.94, 95% confidence interval 1.27 to 2.97). A greater mean annual surgical volume was also associated with a significantly lower risk of reoperations, fewer serious adverse events, and shorter hospital stay, with no thresholds identified. Annual variation in surgeon volume was not associated with any of the outcomes assessed. CONCLUSIONS: In the healthcare system represented by these registry data, an association was found between surgeons who averaged more than 10.4 shoulder replacements yearly and lower rates of revision surgery and reoperation, lower risk of serious adverse events, and shorter hospital stays. These findings should inform resource planning for surgical services and joint replacement surgery waiting lists and improve patient outcomes after shoulder replacement surgery.

Examination of early treatment effects and related biases during the conduct of two UK-wide pragmatic orthopaedic surgical trials: ProFHER and UK FROST.

Early large treatment effects can arise in small studies, which lessen as more data accumulate. This study aimed to retrospectively examine whether early treatment effects occurred for two multicentre orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and explore biases related to this. Included RCTs were ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation), a two-arm study of surgery versus non-surgical treatment for proximal humerus fractures, and UK FROST (United Kingdom Frozen Shoulder Trial), a three-arm study of two surgical and one non-surgical treatment for frozen shoulder. To determine whether early treatment effects were present, the primary outcome of Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) was compared on forest plots for: the chief investigator's (CI) site to the remaining sites, the first five sites opened to the other sites, and patients grouped in quintiles by randomization date. Potential for bias was assessed by comparing mean age and proportion of patients with indicators of poor outcome between included and excluded/non-consenting participants. No bias in treatment effect was observed overall for the CI site, or the first five sites, compared with the remaining sites in either trial. An early treatment effect on the OSS was observed for the first quintile of participants recruited to ProFHER only (clinically relevant difference of seven points). Selection bias for age was observed in the ProFHER trial only, with slightly younger patients being recruited into the study. Both trials showed some selection bias for markers of poor prognosis, although these did not appear to change over time. No bias in treatment effects overall were found at the CI or early sites set-up. An early treatment effect was found in one of the two trials, which was likely a chance effect as this did not continue during the study. Selection bias was observed in both RCTs, however this was minimal and did not impact on outcome.

Inequalities in provision of hip and knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis by age, sex, and social deprivation in England between 2007-2017: A population-based cohort study of the National Joint Registry.

BACKGROUND: While the United Kingdom National Health Service aimed to reduce social inequalities in the provision of joint replacement, it is unclear whether these gaps have reduced. We describe secular trends in the provision of primary hip and knee replacement surgery between social deprivation groups. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used the National Joint Registry to identify all hip and knee replacements performed for osteoarthritis from 2007 to 2017 in England. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015 was used to identify the relative level of deprivation of the patient living area. Multilevel negative binomial regression models were used to model the differences in rates of joint replacement. Choropleth maps of hip and knee replacement provision were produced to identify the geographical variation in provision by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). A total of 675,342 primary hip and 834,146 primary knee replacements were studied. The mean age was 70 years old (standard deviation: 9) with 60% and 56% of women undergoing hip and knee replacements, respectively. The overall rate of hip replacement increased from 27 to 36 per 10,000 person-years and knee replacement from 33 to 46. Inequalities of provision between the most (reference) and least affluent areas have remained constant for both joints (hip: rate ratio (RR) = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [0.56, 0.60] in 2007, RR = 0.59 [0.58, 0.61] in 2017; knee: RR = 0.82 [0.80, 0.85] in 2007, RR = 0.81 [0.80, 0.83] in 2017). For hip replacement, CCGs with the highest concentration of deprived areas had lower overall provision rates, and CCGs with very few deprived areas had higher provision rates. There was no clear pattern of provision inequalities between CCGs and deprivation concentration for knee replacement. Study limitations include the lack of publicly available information to explore these inequalities beyond age, sex, and geographical area. Information on clinical need for surgery or patient willingness to access care were unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that there were inequalities, which remained constant over time, especially in the provision of hip replacement, by degree of social deprivation. Providers of healthcare need to take action to reduce this unwarranted variation in provision of surgery.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty versus non-surgical treatment for older adults with acute 3- or 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PROFHER-2: PROximal Fracture of Humerus Evaluation by Randomisation - Trial Number 2).

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fractures (PHF) are common and painful injuries, with the majority resulting from falls from a standing height. As with other fragility fractures, its age-specific incidence is increasing. Surgical treatment with hemiarthroplasty (HA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been increasingly used for displaced 3- and 4-part fractures despite a lack of good quality evidence as to whether one type of arthroplasty is superior to the other, and whether surgery is better than non-surgical management. The PROFHER-2 trial has been designed as a pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of RSA vs HA vs Non-Surgical (NS) treatment in patients with 3- and 4-part PHF. METHODS: Adults over 65 years of age presenting with acute radiographically confirmed 3- or 4-part fractures, with or without associated glenohumeral joint dislocation, who consent for trial participation will be recruited from around 40 National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals in the UK. Patients with polytrauma, open fractures, presence of axillary nerve palsy, pathological (other than osteoporotic) fractures, and those who are unable to adhere to trial procedures will be excluded. We will aim to recruit 380 participants (152 RSA, 152 HA, 76 NS) using 2:2:1 (HA:RSA:NS) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fractures without joint dislocation, and 1:1 (HA:RSA) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fracture dislocations. The primary outcome is the Oxford Shoulder Score at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), pain, range of shoulder motion, fracture healing and implant position on X-rays, further procedures, and complications. Independent Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee will oversee the trial conduct, including the reporting of adverse events and harms. DISCUSSION: The PROFHER-2 trial is designed to provide a robust answer to guide the treatment of patients aged 65 years or over who sustain 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures. The pragmatic design and recruitment from around 40 UK NHS hospitals will ensure immediate applicability and generalisability of the trial findings. The full trial results will be made available in a relevant open-access peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN76296703. Prospectively registered on 5th April 2018.

One-year outcome of surgery compared with immobilization in a cast for adults with an undisplaced or minimally displaced scaphoid fracture : a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: There has been an increasing use of early operative fixation for scaphoid fractures, despite uncertain evidence. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate up-to-date evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing the effectiveness of the operative and nonoperative treatment of undisplaced and minimally displaced (≤ 2 mm displacement) scaphoid fractures. METHODS: A systematic review of seven databases was performed from the dates of their inception until the end of March 2021 to identify eligible RCTs. Reference lists of the included studies were screened. No language restrictions were applied. The primary outcome was the patient-reported outcome measure of wrist function at 12 months after injury. A meta-analysis was performed for function, pain, range of motion, grip strength, and union. Complications were reported narratively. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included. There was no significant difference in function between the groups at 12 months (Hedges' g 0.15 (95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.32); p = 0.082). The complication rate was higher in the operative group and involved more serious complications. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in functional outcome at 12 months for fractures of the waist of the scaphoid with ≤ 2 mm displacement treated operatively or nonoperatively. The complication rate was higher with operative treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):953-962.

Costs of Joint Replacement in Osteoarthritis: A Study Using the National Joint Registry and Clinical Practice Research Datalink Data Sets.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs of primary hip and knee replacement in individuals with osteoarthritis up to 2 years postsurgery, compare costs before and after the surgery, and identify predictors of hospital costs. METHODS: Patients age ≥18 years with primary planned hip or knee replacements and osteoarthritis in England between 2008 and 2016 were identified from the National Joint Registry and linked with Hospital Episode Statistics data containing inpatient episodes. Primary care data linked with hospital outpatient records were also used to identify patients age ≥18 years with primary hip or knee replacements between 2008 and 2016. All health care resource use was valued using 2016/2017 costs, and nonparametric censoring methods were used to estimate total 1-year and 2-year costs. RESULTS: We identified 854,866 individuals undergoing hip or knee replacement. The mean censor-adjusted 1-year hospitalization costs for hip and knee replacement were £7,827 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 7,813, 7,842) and £7,805 (95% CI 7,790, 7,818), respectively. Complications and revisions were associated with up to a 3-fold increase in 1-year hospitalization costs. The censor-adjusted 2-year costs were £9,258 (95% CI 9,233, 9,280) and £9,452 (95% CI 9,430, 9,475) for hip and knee replacement, respectively. Adding primary and outpatient care, the mean total hip and knee replacement 2-year costs were £11,987 and £12,578, respectively. CONCLUSION: There are significant costs following joint replacement. Revisions and complications accounted for considerable costs and there is a significant incentive to identify best approaches to reduce these.

Prospective comparative study of quantitative X-ray (QXR) versus dual energy X-ray absorptiometry to determine the performance of QXR as a predictor of bone health for adult patients in secondary care.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a method of quantitative X-ray (QXR) for obtaining bone health information from standard radiographs aimed at identifying early signs of osteoporosis to enable improved referral and treatment. This QXR measurement is performed by postexposure analysis of standard radiographs, meaning bone health data can be acquired opportunistically, alongside routine imaging. DESIGN: The relationship between QXR and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) was demonstrated with a phantom study. A prospective clinical study was conducted to establish areal bone mineral density (aBMD) prediction model and a risk prediction model of a non-normal DEXA outcome. This was then extrapolated to a larger patient group with DEXA referral data. SETTING: Secondary care National Health Service Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 126 consenting adult patients from a DEXA clinic. INTERVENTIONS: All participants underwent a DEXA scan to determine BMD at the lumbar spine (L2-L4) and both hips. An additional Antero-Posterior pelvis X-ray on a Siemens Ysio, fixed digital radiograph system was performed for the study. OUTCOME: Performance of QXR as a risk predictor for non-normal (osteoporotic) BMD. RESULTS: Interim clinical study data from 78 patients confirmed a receiver operator curve (area under the ROC curve) of 0.893 (95% CI 0.843 to 0.942) for a risk prediction model of non-normal DEXA outcome. Extrapolation of these results to a larger patient group of 11 029 patients indicated a positive predictive value of 0.98 (sensitivity of 0.8) for a population of patients referred to DEXA under current clinical referral criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that the novel QXR method provides accurate prediction of a DEXA outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN98160454; Pre-results.

Surgery versus conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fracture: the PRESTO feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is informal consensus that simple compression fractures of the body of the thoracolumbar vertebrae between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra without neurological complications can be managed conservatively and that obvious unstable fractures require surgical fixation. However, there is a zone of uncertainty about whether surgical or conservative management is best for stable fractures. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing surgical fixation with initial conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fractures without spinal cord injury. DESIGN: External randomised feasibility study, qualitative study and national survey. SETTING: Three NHS hospitals. METHODS: A feasibility randomised controlled trial using block randomisation, stratified by centre and type of injury (high- or low-energy trauma) to allocate participants 1 : 1 to surgery or conservative treatment; a costing analysis; a national survey of spine surgeons; and a qualitative study with clinicians, recruiting staff and patients. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years with a high- or low-energy fracture of the body of a thoracolumbar vertebra between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra, confirmed by radiography, computerised tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, with at least one of the following: kyphotic angle > 20° on weight-bearing radiographs or > 15° on a supine radiograph or on computerised tomography; reduction in vertebral body height of 25%; a fracture line propagating through the posterior wall of the vertebra; involvement of two contiguous vertebrae; or injury to the posterior longitudinal ligament or annulus in addition to the body fracture. INTERVENTIONS: Surgical fixation: open spinal surgery (with or without spinal fusion) or minimally invasive stabilisation surgery. Conservative management: mobilisation with or without a brace. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Recruitment rate (proportion of eligible participants randomised). RESULTS: Twelve patients were randomised (surgery, n = 8; conservative, n = 4). The proportion of eligible patients recruited was 0.43 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.63) over a combined total of 30.7 recruitment months. Of 211 patients screened, 28 (13.3%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Patients in the qualitative study (n = 5) expressed strong preferences for surgical treatment, and identified provision of information about treatment and recovery and when and how they are approached for consent as important. Nineteen surgeons and site staff participated in the qualitative study. Key themes were the lack of clinical consensus regarding the implementation of the eligibility criteria in practice and what constitutes a stable fracture, alongside lack of equipoise regarding treatment. Based on the feasibility study eligibility criteria, 77% (50/65) and 70% (46/66) of surgeons participating in the survey were willing to randomise for high- and low-energy fractures, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the small number of participants, there is substantial uncertainty around the recruitment rate. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive trial is unlikely to be feasible currently, mainly because of the small number of patients meeting the eligibility criteria. The recruitment and follow-up rates were slightly lower than anticipated; however, there is room to increase these based on information gathered and the support within the surgical community for a future trial. FUTURE WORK: Development of consensus regarding the population of interest for a trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12094890. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Fractures occurring in the mid- to low back region (or thoracolumbar fractures) are the most common back fractures. When the fracture is stable with no spinal nerve injury, there is uncertainty whether treatment with surgery or non-surgical treatment (e.g. stabilising the spine with a brace) results in the best outcome for patients. The Pragmatic Randomised Evaluation of Stable Thoracolumbar fracture treatment Outcomes (PRESTO) study aimed to explore whether or not it would be feasible to carry out a full-scale study to find out which of these two treatments works best. Adults aged ≥ 16 years being treated for these fractures in three hospitals were invited to take part in the study. Over the course of 1 year, we assessed how many patients were treated, the number who met the study entry criteria and the proportion of eligible patients who agreed to take part. Staff and patients were interviewed about the study processes and their experiences of taking part. Spine surgeons from around the UK were also asked to complete an online survey, which asked questions about the treatment of patients with this fracture. There were fewer patients than expected who met the study entry criteria and, of these, fewer patients who agreed to take part. There were differences among surgeons about the definition of a stable fracture, and we found that surgeons have strong views about whether or not surgery is appropriate when fractures are stable. We also found that more support would be required for the staff involved in inviting patients to take part in a bigger study, and that the format and content of information provided to patients needs to be improved. The findings of the PRESTO study showed that a large trial is unlikely to be successful at this time; however, we have provided important information for future research into the treatment of these fractures.

Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop.

BACKGROUND: The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. OBJECTIVES: To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. DESIGN: To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. SETTING: A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. RESULTS: To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. CONCLUSIONS: The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. LIMITATIONS: Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. FUTURE WORK: Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space. FUNDING: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

WHAT WAS THE RESEARCH ABOUT?: One of the best ways to prove that a new medicine really works is to use a scientific test called a 'placebo-controlled trial'. In this type of test, half of the participants are given a new pill and the other half are given a 'placebo', which is a dummy pill (usually a sugar pill) that is made to taste and look the same as the active pill, but has no active ingredients. The results are then compared. Just like medicines, new surgical procedures need to be tested to show that they are safe and benefit patients. Ideally, they would also be tested using the 'placebo-controlled trial' approach, but asking patients to have 'dummy' surgery is not the same as asking people to take a dummy pill. Placebo surgery raises lots of ethics questions and is controversial. As it is controversial, guidelines are needed to recommend when placebo surgery studies can be used (if at all) and what special considerations need to be taken into account. Our research team was commissioned to develop these guidelines. WHAT DID WE DO?: We summarised, to the best of our knowledge, all previous research that had used placebo surgery and reviewed all the ethics literature on this topic. We also looked at the latest scientific understanding of how placebos work. We then held a workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. This involved an international team of patients, surgeons, researchers, ethicists, psychologists, physiologists and funders. We published the guidelines [i.e. the ASPIRE (Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations) guidelines] in an influential medical journal and also wrote several other publications. This report provides a slightly more detailed version of our findings and recommendations. WHO WILL THIS HELP?: The guidelines will help researchers and doctors know when, and how, to best design placebo surgery studies in the future.

Findings from the patch augmented rotator cuff surgery (PARCS) feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: A rotator cuff tear is a common disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms include pain, weakness, lack of mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a pressing need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery. The use of patch augmentation to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds new promise. Different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or intestine tissue, and completely synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or a mesh) have been used to produce patches. However, clinical evidence on their use is limited. The patch augmented rotator cuff surgery (PARCS) feasibility study aimed to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. METHODS: A mixed methods feasibility study of conducing a subsequent RCT. The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence; a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society's (BESS) surgical membership; a survey of surgeon trialists; focus groups and interviews with stakeholders; a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. RESULTS: The BESS surgeons' survey identified a variety of patches in use (105 (21%) responses received). Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the trialist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted involving 24 stakeholders. Twenty-nine (67% of invited) individuals took part in the Delphi. Differing views were held on a number of aspects including the appropriate patient population for trial participation. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential RCTs were achieved through the Delphi study and the consensus meeting. CONCLUSIONS: Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs, and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who might not necessarily reflect all stakeholders.

Cost-effectiveness of surgery versus cast immobilization for adults with a bicortical fracture of the scaphoid waist : an economic evaluation of the SWIFFT trial.

AIMS: The aim of the Scaphoid Waist Internal Fixation for Fractures Trial (SWIFFT) was to determine the optimal treatment for adults with a bicortical undisplaced or minimally displaced fracture of the waist of the scaphoid, comparing early surgical fixation with initial cast immobilization, with immediate fixation being offered to patients with nonunion. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to assess the relative merits of these forms of treatment. The differences in costs to the healthcare system and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of the patients over the one-year follow-up of the trial in the two treatment arms were estimated using regression analysis. RESULTS: Our base case analysis found that patients randomized to early surgical fixation had statistically significantly higher mean costs to the NHS of £1,295 more than for the cast immobilization arm (p < 0.001), primarily due to the cost of surgery. They also had a marginally better quality of life, over the period, of 0.0158 QALYs; however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.379). The mean combined cost per additional QALY was £81,962, well above the accepted threshold for cost-effectiveness used in the UK and internationally. The probability of early surgery being cost-effective in this setting was only 5.6%. CONCLUSION: Consistent with the clinical findings of SWIFFT, these results indicate that initial cast immobilization of minimally displaced scaphoid fractures, with immediate fixation only offered to patients with nonunion, is the optimal form of treatment, resulting in comparable outcomes with less cost to the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1277-1283.

Patch augmentation surgery for rotator cuff repair: the PARCS mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh). OBJECTIVES: The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. DESIGN: A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018. METHODS: The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society's surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2-6. RESULTS: The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5-152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION: The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available. FUTURE WORK: Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study. STUDY REGISTRATION: The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Shoulder muscles and tendons allow us to move our arms to carry out daily activities, work and play sports. Disease and injury of these tendons can cause significant long-term disability. Early treatment of these tendon problems usually involves painkillers, injections and physiotherapy. However, many patients whose symptoms do not improve may need surgery to repair these tendons. Unfortunately, around 40% of surgical tendon repairs fail within 12 months. As such, these operations need to be improved. A promising approach is to use a patch to support the repair while the tendon heals; this patch is often used in a similar way to a plaster. However, it is not yet clear whether or not using a patch improves patient health and, if so, whether or not it makes enough of a difference to justify the additional cost to the NHS. A scientific study called a randomised controlled trial is needed to fairly assess the value of surgery with a patch in people requiring a tendon repair. This study must be carefully designed so that it is acceptable to patients and surgeons, among others, and feasible to run. We conducted a multistage study to explore whether or not a potential trial design could be achieved. We searched the scientific literature for previous research that had studied using patches for repairing shoulder tendons. We surveyed shoulder surgeons, including those who had previously been involved shoulder randomised controlled trials. We conducted four focus groups with stakeholders. Initial agreement on the best way to run a randomised controlled trial of patches in shoulder surgery was achieved using online questionnaires. Finally, we held a 2-day meeting to scrutinise the study findings and the relevant issues. Two potential studies were recommended, as was the need for closer monitoring of patch safety.

Protocol for a multi-site pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial: Surgery versus PhysiothErapist-leD exercise for traumatic tears of the rotator cuff (the SPeEDy study).

BACKGROUND: Clinically, a distinction is made between types of rotator cuff tear, traumatic and non-traumatic, and this sub-classification currently informs the treatment pathway. It is currently recommended that patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears are fast tracked for surgical opinion. However, there is uncertainty about the most clinically and cost-effective intervention for patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears and further research is required. SPeEDy will assess the feasibility of a fully powered, multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the hypothesis that, compared to surgical repair (and usual post-operative rehabilitation), a programme of physiotherapist-led exercise is not clinically inferior, but is more cost-effective for patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears. METHODS: SPeEDy is a two-arm, multi-centre pilot and feasibility RCT with integrated Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI) and further qualitative investigation of patient experience. A total of 76 patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears will be recruited from approximately eight UK NHS hospitals and randomly allocated to either surgical repair and usual post-operative rehabilitation or a programme of physiotherapist-led exercise. The QRI is a mixed-methods approach that includes data collection and analysis of screening logs, audio recordings of recruitment consultations, interviews with patients and clinicians involved in recruitment, and review of study documentation as a basis for developing action plans to address identified difficulties whilst recruitment to the RCT is underway. A further sample of patient participants will be purposively sampled from both intervention groups and interviewed to explore reasons for initial participation, treatment acceptability, reasons for non-completion of treatment, where relevant, and any reasons for treatment crossover. DISCUSSION: Research to date suggests that there is uncertainty regarding the most clinically and cost-effective interventions for patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears. There is a clear need for a high-quality, fully powered, RCT to better inform clinical practice. Prior to this, we first need to undertake a pilot and feasibility RCT to address current uncertainties about recruitment, retention and number of and reasons for treatment crossover. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04027205 ) - Registered on 19 July 2019. Available via.

Surgical treatments compared with early structured physiotherapy in secondary care for adults with primary frozen shoulder: the UK FROST three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Frozen shoulder causes pain and stiffness. It affects around 10% of people in their fifties and is slightly more common in women. Costly and invasive surgical interventions are used, without high-quality evidence that these are effective. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three treatments in secondary care for adults with frozen shoulder; to qualitatively explore the acceptability of these treatments to patients and health-care professionals; and to update a systematic review to explore the trial findings in the context of existing evidence for the three treatments. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, three-arm, randomised superiority trial with unequal allocation (2 : 2 : 1). An economic evaluation and a nested qualitative study were also carried out. SETTING: The orthopaedic departments of 35 hospitals across the UK were recruited from April 2015, with final follow-up in December 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation in the affected shoulder to < 50% of the opposite shoulder, and with plain radiographs excluding other pathology. INTERVENTIONS: The inventions were early structured physiotherapy with a steroid injection, manipulation under anaesthesia with a steroid injection and arthroscopic capsular release followed by manipulation. Both of the surgical interventions were followed with post-procedural physiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome and end point was the Oxford Shoulder Score at 12 months post randomisation. A difference of 5 points between early structured physiotherapy and manipulation under anaesthesia or arthroscopic capsular release or of 4 points between manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release was judged clinically important. RESULTS: The mean age of the 503 participants was 54 years; 319 were female (63%) and 150 had diabetes (30%). The primary analyses comprised 473 participants (94%). At the primary end point of 12 months, participants randomised to arthroscopic capsular release had, on average, a statistically significantly higher (better) Oxford Shoulder Score than those randomised to manipulation under anaesthesia (2.01 points, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 3.91 points; p = 0.04) or early structured physiotherapy (3.06 points, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 5.41 points; p = 0.01). Manipulation under anaesthesia did not result in statistically significantly better Oxford Shoulder Score than early structured physiotherapy (1.05 points, 95% confidence interval -1.28 to 3.39 points; p = 0.38). No differences were deemed of clinical importance. Serious adverse events were rare but occurred in participants randomised to surgery (arthroscopic capsular release,n = 8; manipulation under anaesthesia,n = 2). There was, however, one serious adverse event in a participant who received non-trial physiotherapy. The base-case economic analysis showed that manipulation under anaesthesia was more expensive than early structured physiotherapy, with slightly better utilities. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for manipulation under anaesthesia was £6984 per additional quality-adjusted life-year, and this intervention was probably 86% cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Arthroscopic capsular release was more costly than early structured physiotherapy and manipulation under anaesthesia, with no statistically significant benefit in utilities. Participants in the qualitative study wanted early medical help and a quicker pathway to resolve their shoulder problem. Nine studies were identified from the updated systematic review, including UK FROST, of which only two could be pooled, and found that arthroscopic capsular release was more effective than physiotherapy in the long-term shoulder functioning of patients, but not to the clinically important magnitude used in UK FROST. LIMITATIONS: Implementing physiotherapy to the trial standard in clinical practice might prove challenging but could avoid theatre use and post-procedural physiotherapy. There are potential confounding effects of waiting times in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: None of the three interventions was clearly superior. Early structured physiotherapy with a steroid injection is an accessible and low-cost option. Manipulation under anaesthesia is the most cost-effective option. Arthroscopic capsular release carries higher risks and higher costs. FUTURE WORK: Evaluation in a randomised controlled trial is recommended to address the increasing popularity of hydrodilatation despite the paucity of high-quality evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48804508. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Frozen shoulder occurs when the soft tissue envelope around the shoulder joint becomes inflamed, scarred and contracted, making movement painful and stiff. It affects around 1 in 10 people and is more common in women. Most patients are treated in the community. Those who do not improve are offered treatments in hospital. This includes costly and invasive surgical options. It is unclear which treatment provides the best patient outcomes and is cost-effective. UK FROST (UK FROzen Shoulder Trial) comprised 503 patients (from 35 UK hospitals) who randomly received one of three commonly offered treatments for frozen shoulder: early physiotherapy to restore movement, including a steroid injection for pain reliefmanipulation under anaesthesia, to stretch and tear the tight capsule to restore movement, and a steroid injection followed by physiotherapyarthroscopic capsular release, which uses keyhole surgery, including manipulation, to restore movement, followed by physiotherapy with pain medication. No important differences were found between the three treatments in shoulder function or pain at 12 months. Fewer patients who received arthroscopic capsular release required further treatment, and patients who received arthroscopic capsular release had slightly better shoulder function and pain outcomes than those who received the manipulation procedure or early physiotherapy. This improvement, however, was unlikely to be of clinical benefit to patients. Arthroscopic capsular release had slightly higher risks and substantially higher costs. Six serious complications were reported in patients who received arthroscopic capsular release (mostly owing to co-existing health problems) and two were reported in patients who received manipulation under anaesthesia. Physiotherapy was the least expensive treatment, but patients who received manipulation under anaesthesia had slightly better general health than those who received physiotherapy. Early physiotherapy with steroid injection could be accessed quicker than the surgical alternatives. Manipulation under anaesthesia cost more than physiotherapy but provided the best value for money. Patients in the study wanted early access to medical help to improve their shoulder problems.