Robotic trials in arthroplasty surgery.

Total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) are largely successful procedures; however, both have variable outcomes, resulting in some patients being dissatisfied with the outcome. Surgeons are turning to technologies such as robotic-assisted surgery in an attempt to improve outcomes. Robust studies are needed to find out if these innovations are really benefitting patients. The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and Cost Effectiveness Randomised Controlled Trials (RACER) trials are multicentre, patient-blinded randomized controlled trials. The patients have primary osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. The operation is Mako-assisted THA or TKA and the control groups have operations using conventional instruments. The primary clinical outcome is the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months, and there is a built-in analysis of cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes include early pain, the alignment of the components, and medium- to long-term outcomes. This annotation outlines the need to assess these technologies and discusses the design and challenges when conducting such trials, including surgical workflows, isolating the effect of the operation, blinding, and assessing the learning curve. Finally, the future of robotic surgery is discussed, including the need to contemporaneously introduce and evaluate such technologies.

UK robotic arthroplasty clinical and cost effectiveness randomised controlled trial for hips (RACER-Hip): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The number of robotic-assisted hip replacement procedures has expanded globally with the intended aim of improving outcomes. Intraoperative robotic-arm systems add additional costs to total hip replacement (THR) surgery but may improve surgical precision and could contribute to diminished pain and improved function. Additionally, these systems may reduce the need for expensive revision surgery. Surgery with conventional instruments may be just as successful, quick and affordable. There is timely demand for a robust evaluation of this technology. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial for Hips (RACER-Hip) is a multicentre (minimum of six UK sites), participant-assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial. 378 participants with hip osteoarthritis requiring THR will be randomised (1:1) to receive robotic-assisted THR, or THR using conventional surgical instruments. The primary outcome is the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months post-randomisation; a patient-reported outcome measure assessing participants' awareness of their joint when undertaking daily activities. Secondary outcomes will be collected post-operatively (pain, blood loss and opioid usage) and at 3, 6, 12, 24 months, then 5 and 10 years postrandomisation (including function, pain, health-related quality of life, reoperations and satisfaction). Allocation concealment will be accomplished using a computer-based randomisation procedure on the day of surgery. Blinding methods include the use of sham incisions for marker clusters and blinded operation notes. The primary analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle. Results will adhere to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statements. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by an ethics committee (Solihull Research Ethics Committee, 30 June 2021, IRAS: 295831). Participants will provide informed consent before agreeing to participate. Results will be disseminated using peer-reviewed journal publications, presentations at international conferences and through the use of social media. We will develop plans to disseminate to patients and public with our patient partners. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13374625.

Birmingham Royal Orthopaedic Hospital (BROH) Femoral Offset-An Ancillary Measure of Adult Dysplasia of the Hip.

Introduction Adult dysplasia of the hip (ADH) is a disorder of abnormal development of the hip joint resulting in a shallow acetabulum and uncovering of the femoral head. Several radiological measurements such as the Tönnis angle (acetabular index), lateral center edge angle of Wiberg, and cross-sectional imaging parameters exist to calculate hip dysplasia. Aims The aim of this article was to describe a new ancillary linear measure of ADH on cross-sectional imaging, the Birmingham Royal Orthopaedic Hospital (BROH) Femoral offset. Patients and Methods Anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis and computed tomography imaging of 100 consecutive patients with suspected hip dysplasia were reviewed. Demographic details and clinical indications were recorded. Tönnis angle was utilized to measure hip slope on radiographs and the BROH femoral offset was calculated for each patient. Student's t -test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed. Intraclass correlation coefficient analysis was evaluated to assess the reliability between observers. Results There was a total of 100 patients (128 hips) included in the study (60 with normal Tönnis angle, 53 had dysplasia, and 15 had decreased Tönnis angle). The average BROH femoral offset in the dysplastic cohort was increased in comparison to the normal cohort with a statistically significant p -Value of 0.0001. The p -value was 0.00031 on ANOVA. The BROH femoral offset calculation revealed good intra- and interobserver reliability of 0.9 and 0.9, respectively. Conclusion The BROH femoral offset can be an additional index for measuring ADH that is easier to calculate, and reproducible with good intra- and inter-observer reliability on cross-sectional imaging.

Arthroscopic hip surgery compared with personalised hip therapy in people over 16 years old with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: UK FASHIoN RCT.

BACKGROUND: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care. DESIGN: The UK FASHIoN (full trial of arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement compared with non-operative care) trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial that was carried out at 23 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were included if they had femoroacetabular impingement, were aged ≥ 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology (but no osteoarthritis) and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to receive hip arthroscopy followed by postoperative physiotherapy, or personalised hip therapy (i.e. an individualised physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre using a central telephone randomisation service. Outcome assessment and analysis were masked. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between July 2012 and July 2016, 648 eligible patients were identified and 348 participants were recruited. In total, 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 participants were allocated to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (N = 319; hip arthroscopy, n = 157; personalised hip therapy, n = 162). At 12 months, mean International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) score had improved from 39.2 (standard deviation 20.9) points to 58.8 (standard deviation 27.2) points for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35.6 (standard deviation 18.2) points to 49.7 (standard deviation 25.5) points for participants in personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in International Hip Outcome Tool scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline International Hip Outcome Tool score and centre, was 6.8 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 12.0) points in favour of hip arthroscopy (p = 0.0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6.1 points). Five (83%) of six serious adverse events in the hip arthroscopy group were related to treatment and one serious adverse event in the personalised hip therapy group was not. Thirty-eight (24%) personalised hip therapy patients chose to have hip arthroscopy between 1 and 3 years after randomisation. Nineteen (12%) hip arthroscopy patients had a revision arthroscopy. Eleven (7%) personalised hip therapy patients and three (2%) hip arthroscopy patients had a hip replacement within 3 years. LIMITATIONS: Study participants and treating clinicians were not blinded to the intervention arm. Delays were encountered in participants accessing treatment, particularly surgery. Follow-up lasted for 3 years. CONCLUSION: Hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy both improved hip-related quality of life for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip arthroscopy led to a greater improvement in quality of life than personalised hip therapy, and this difference was clinically significant at 12 months. This study does not demonstrate cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy compared with personalised hip therapy within the first 12 months. Further follow-up will reveal whether or not the clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy are maintained and whether or not it is cost-effective in the long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN64081839. 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. 26, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In some people, the ball and the socket of the hip joint develop so that they do not fit together properly. This is called hip impingement, and is an important cause of hip and groin pain in young and middle-aged adults. Treatments include physiotherapy and surgery. Physiotherapy typically involves a programme of 6­10 outpatient consultations that aim to strengthen the muscles around the hip: we called this personalised hip therapy. Surgery can be carried out by a keyhole operation, called a hip arthroscopy, which aims to reshape the hip to prevent impingement. Surgery is normally followed by some physiotherapy. We performed a research study to compare the results of hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy in people with hip impingement. A total of 348 people with painful hip impingement in 23 hospitals in the UK agreed to take part. About half were treated with hip arthroscopy and half with personalised hip therapy. We used questionnaires to ask participants about pain in the hip and their ability to do everyday things at 6 months and 1 year after entering the study. At 2 and 3 years, we asked if patients required any additional treatments. We found that both groups improved, but those treated with hip arthroscopy improved a moderate amount more than those treated with personalised hip therapy. However, these improvements were not cost-effective compared with personalised hip therapy at 1 year. We need to see whether or not this difference continues after several years, but the results, so far, suggest that if a person has painful hip impingement, then hip arthroscopy offers greater improvements than personalised hip therapy.

Effect of tourniquet use on the risk of revision in total knee replacement surgery: an analysis of the National Joint Registry Data Set.

OBJECTIVE: Tourniquet use in total knee replacement (TKR) is believed to improve the bone-cement interface by reducing bleeding, potentially prolonging implant survival. This study aimed to compare the risk of revision for primary cemented TKR performed with or without a tourniquet. DESIGN: We analysed data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for all primary cemented TKRs performed in England and Wales between April 2003 and December 2003. Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression were used to assess the influence of tourniquet use, age at time of surgery, sex and American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification on risk of revision for all-causes. RESULTS: Data were available for 16 974 cases of primary cemented TKR, of which 16 132 had surgery with a tourniquet and 842 had surgery without a tourniquet. At 10 years, 3.8% had undergone revision (95% CI 2.6% to 5.5%) in the no-tourniquet group and 3.1% in the tourniquet group (95% CI 2.8% to 3.4%). After adjusting for age at primary surgery, gender and primary ASA score, the HR for all-cause revision for cemented TKR without a tourniquet was 0.82 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.18). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that using a tourniquet for primary cemented TKR offers a clinically important or statistically significant reduction in the risk of all-cause revision up to 13 years after surgery. Surgeons should consider this evidence when deciding whether to use a tourniquet for cemented TKR.

Tourniquet use in lower limb trauma and fracture surgery.

The use of tourniquets in lower limb trauma surgery to control bleeding and improve the surgical field is a long established practice. In this article, we review the evidence relating to harms and benefits of tourniquet use in lower limb fracture fixation surgery and report the results of a survey on current tourniquet practice among trauma surgeons in the UK.

The risks associated with tourniquet use in lower limb trauma surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Tourniquet use in lower limb fracture surgery may reduce intra-operative bleeding, improve surgical field of view and reduce length of procedure. However, tourniquets may result in pain and the production of harmful metabolites cause complications or affect functional outcomes. This systematic review aimed to compare outcomes following lower limb fracture surgery performed with or without tourniquet. METHODS: We searched databases for RCTs comparing lower limb fracture surgery performed with versus without tourniquet reporting on outcomes pain, physical function, health-related quality of life, complications, cognitive function, blood loss, length of stay, length of procedure, swelling, time to union, surgical field of view, volume of anaesthetic agent, biochemical markers of inflammation and injury, and electrolyte and acid-base balance. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. PROSPERO ID CRD42020209310. RESULTS: Six RCTs enabled inclusion of 552 procedures. Pooled analysis demonstrated that tourniquet use reduced length of procedure by 6 minutes (95% CI -10.12 to -1.87; p < 0.010). We were unable to exclude increased harms from tourniquet use. Pooled analysis showed post-operative pain score was higher in tourniquet group by 12.88 on 100-point scale (95% CI -1.25-27.02; p = 0.070). Risk differences for wound infection, deep venous thrombosis and re-operation were 0.06 (95% CI -0.00-0.12; p = 0.070), 0.05 (95% CI -0.02-0.11; p = 0.150) and 0.03 (95% CI -0.03-0.09; p = 0.340). CONCLUSION: Tourniquet use was associated with a reduced length of procedure. It is possible that tourniquets also increase incidence of important complications, but the data are too sparse to draw firm conclusions. Methodological weaknesses of the included RCTs prevent any solid conclusions being drawn for outcomes investigated. Further studies are required to address these limitations.

Time to reconsider the routine use of tourniquets in total knee arthroplasty surgery.

AIMS: Many surgeons choose to perform total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery with the aid of a tourniquet. A tourniquet is a device that fits around the leg and restricts blood flow to the limb. There is a need to understand whether tourniquets are safe, and if they benefit, or harm, patients. The aim of this study was to determine the benefits and harms of tourniquet use in TKA surgery. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, and trial registries up to 26 March 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing TKA with a tourniquet versus without a tourniquet. Outcomes included: pain, function, serious adverse events (SAEs), blood loss, implant stability, duration of surgery, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: We included 41 RCTs with 2,819 participants. SAEs were significantly more common in the tourniquet group (53/901 vs 26/898, tourniquet vs no tourniquet respectively) (risk ratio 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.73). The mean pain score on the first postoperative day was 1.25 points higher (95% CI 0.32 to 2.19) in the tourniquet group. Overall blood loss did not differ between groups (mean difference 8.61 ml; 95% CI -83.76 to 100.97). The mean length of hospital stay was 0.34 days longer in the group that had surgery with a tourniquet (95% CI 0.03 to 0.64) and the mean duration of surgery was 3.7 minutes shorter (95% CI -5.53 to -1.87). CONCLUSION: TKA with a tourniquet is associated with an increased risk of SAEs, pain, and a marginally longer hospital stay. The only finding in favour of tourniquet use was a shorter time in theatre. The results make it difficult to justify the routine use of a tourniquet in TKA surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):830-839.

Tourniquet use in total knee replacement surgery: a feasibility study and pilot randomised controlled trial (SAFE-TKR study).

INTRODUCTION: Tourniquets are routinely used during total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. They could increase the risk of thromboembolic events including cerebral emboli, cognitive decline, pain and other adverse events (AEs). A randomised controlled trial to assess whether tourniquet use might safely be avoided is therefore warranted but it is unclear whether such a trial would be feasible. METHODS: In a single-site feasibility study and pilot randomised controlled trial, adults having a TKR were randomised to surgery with an inflated tourniquet versus a non-inflated tourniquet. Participants underwent brain MRI preoperatively and within 2 days postoperatively. We assessed cognition using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) and thigh pain using a Visual Analogue Scale at baseline and days 1 and 2, and 1 week postsurgery. AEs related to surgery were recorded up to 12 months. RESULTS: We randomised 53 participants (27 tourniquet inflated and 26 tourniquet not inflated). Fifty-one participants received care per-protocol (96%) and 48 (91%) were followed up at 12 months. One new ischaemic brain lesion was detected. Of the cognitive tests, MoCA was easy to summarise, sensitive to change with lower ceiling effects compared with OCS and MMSE. There was a trend towards more thigh pain (mean 49.6 SD 30.4 vs 36.2 SD 28 at day 1) and more AEs related to surgery (21 vs 9) in participants with an inflated tourniquet compared with those with a tourniquet not inflated. CONCLUSION: A full trial is feasible, but using MRI as a primary outcome is unlikely to be appropriate or feasible. Suitable primary outcomes would be cognition measured using MoCA, pain and AEs, all of which warrant investigation in a large multicentre trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20873088.

Tourniquet use for knee replacement surgery.

BACKGROUND: Many surgeons prefer to perform total knee replacement surgery with the aid of a tourniquet. A tourniquet is an occlusive device that restricts distal blood flow to help create a bloodless field during the procedure. A tourniquet may be associated with increased risk of pain and complications. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of tourniquet use in knee replacement surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to 26 March 2020. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization trials portal, and several international registries and joint registries up to March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing knee replacement with use of a tourniquet versus without use of a tourniquet and non-randomised studies with more than 1000 participants. Major outcomes included pain, function, global assessment of success, health-related quality of life, serious adverse events (including venous thromboembolism, infection, re-operation, and mortality), cognitive function, and survival of the implant. Minor outcomes included blood loss, economic outcomes, implant stability, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full texts, extracted data, performed risk of bias assessments, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 RCTs with 2819 participants. Trials included from 20 to 199 participants. Mean age ranged between 58 and 84 years. More than half of the RCTs had unclear risk of selection bias and unclear risk of performance and detection bias due to absence of blinding of participants and surgeons. Major outcomes Pain: at postoperative day 1, pain (on a scale from zero to 10, with higher scores indicating worse pain) was ranked at 4.56 points after surgery without a tourniquet and at 1.25 points (MD) higher (95% CI 0.32 higher to 2.19 higher) with a tourniquet (8 studies; 577 participants), for an absolute difference of 12.5% higher pain scores (95% CI 3.2% higher to 21.9% higher) and a relative difference of 19% higher pain scores (95% CI 3.4% higher to 49% higher) with a tourniquet. Evidence for these findings was of moderate certainty, downgraded due to risk of bias. Knee replacement with a tourniquet probably led to higher postoperative pain scores at day 1, although this difference may or may not be noticeable to patients (based on a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 1.0). Function: at 12 months, tourniquet use probably makes little or no difference to function, based on an MCID of 5.3 for Knee Society Score (KSS) and 5.0 for Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Mean function (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes) was 90.03 points after surgery without a tourniquet and was 0.29 points worse (95% CI 1.06 worse to 0.48 better) on a 0 to 100 scale, absolute difference was 0.29% worse (1.06% worse to 0.48% better), with a tourniquet (5 studies; 611 participants). This evidence was downgraded to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. Global assessment of success: low-certainty evidence (downgraded due to bias and imprecision) indicates that tourniquet use may have little or no effect on success. At six months, 47 of 50 (or 940 per 1000) reported overall successful treatment after surgery without a tourniquet and 47 of 50 (or 940 per 1000) with a tourniquet (risk ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10) based on one study with 100 participants. Health-related quality of life: at six months, tourniquet may have little or no effect on quality of life. The 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) score (mental component from zero to 100 (100 is best)) was 54.64 after surgery without a tourniquet and 1.53 (MD) better (95% CI 0.85 worse to 3.91 better) with a tourniquet (1 study; 199 participants); absolute difference was 1.53% better (0.85% worse to 3.91% better). Evidence was of low certainty, downgraded due to risk of bias and small number of participants. Serious adverse events: the risk of serious adverse events was probably higher with tourniquet; 26 of 898 (29 per 1000) reported events following surgery without a tourniquet compared to 53 of 901 (59 per 1000) with a tourniquet (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73) in 21 studies (1799 participants). Twenty-nine more per 1000 patients (95% CI 3 to 50 more per 1000 patients) had a serious adverse event with a tourniquet. Forty-eight (95% CI 20 to 345) participants would need to have surgery without a tourniquet to avoid one serious adverse event. This evidence was downgraded to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. Cognitive function: one study reported cognitive function as an outcome; however the data were incompletely reported and could not be extracted for analysis. Survival of implant: it is uncertain if tourniquet has an effect on implant survival due to very low certainty evidence (downgraded for bias, and twice due to very low event rates); 2 of 107 (19 per 1000) required revision surgery in the surgery with a tourniquet group compared to 1 of 107 (9 per 1000) without a tourniquet group at up to two years' follow-up (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 8.92). This equates to a 0.4% (0.7% lower to 7% more) increased absolute risk in surgery with a tourniquet. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence shows that knee replacement surgery with a tourniquet is probably associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events. Surgery with a tourniquet is also probably associated with higher postoperative pain, although this difference may or may not be noticeable to patients. Surgery with a tourniquet does not appear to confer any clinically meaningful benefit on function, treatment success or quality of life. Further research is required to explore the effects of tourniquet use on cognitive function and implant survival, to identify any additional harms or benefits. If a tourniquet continues to be used in knee replacement surgery, patients should be informed about the potential increased risk of serious adverse events and postoperative pain.

ANTECEDENTES: Muchos cirujanos prefieren realizar una cirugía de reemplazo total de rodilla con la ayuda de un torniquete. Un torniquete es un dispositivo oclusivo que restringe el flujo sanguíneo distal para ayudar a crear un campo sin sangre durante el procedimiento. El torniquete se puede asociar con un mayor riesgo de dolor y complicaciones. OBJETIVOS: Determinar los efectos beneficiosos y perjudiciales del uso de torniquetes en la cirugía de reemplazo de rodilla. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se hicieron búsquedas en MEDLINE, Embase y en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (CENTRAL) hasta el 26 de marzo de 2020. Se realizaron búsquedas en clinicaltrials.gov, el portal de ensayos de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, y en varios registros internacionales y registros conjuntos hasta marzo de 2020. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) que compararon el reemplazo de rodilla con el uso de un torniquete versus sin el uso de un torniquete y los estudios no aleatorizados con más de 1000 participantes. Los desenlaces principales fueron el dolor, la funcionalidad, la evaluación general del éxito, la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud, los eventos adversos graves (incluido el tromboembolismo venoso, la infección, la reintervención y la mortalidad), la función cognitiva y la supervivencia del implante. Los desenlaces secundarios incluyeron la pérdida de sangre, los desenlaces económicos, la estabilidad del implante y los eventos adversos. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión examinaron los resúmenes y los textos completos, extrajeron los datos, realizaron las evaluaciones del riesgo de sesgo y evaluaron la certeza de la evidencia utilizando el enfoque GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 41 ECA con 2819 participantes. Los ensayos incluyeron de 20 a 199 participantes. La media de edad varió entre 58 y 84 años. Más de la mitad de los ECA tenían riesgo incierto de sesgo de selección y riesgo incierto de sesgo de realización y detección debido a la falta de cegamiento de los participantes y los cirujanos. Desenlaces principales Dolor: en el primer día después de la cirugía, el dolor (en una escala de 0 a 10, con puntuaciones mayores que indican un peor dolor) se clasificó en 4,56 puntos después de la cirugía sin torniquete y en 1,25 puntos (DM) mayor (IC del 95%: 0,32 mayor a 2,19 mayor) con un torniquete (ocho estudios; 577 participantes), para una diferencia absoluta de 12,5% de puntuaciones mayores de dolor (IC del 95%: 3,2% mayor a 21,9% mayor) y una diferencia relativa de 19% de puntuaciones mayores de dolor (IC del 95%: 3,4% mayor a 49% mayor) con un torniquete. La evidencia de estos hallazgos fue de certeza moderada, disminuida debido al riesgo de sesgo. El reemplazo de rodilla con un torniquete probablemente dio lugar a mayores puntuaciones de dolor en el primer día después de la cirugía, aunque esta diferencia puede o no ser perceptible para los pacientes (sobre la base de una diferencia mínima clínicamente importante [DMCI] de 1,0). Funcionalidad: a los 12 meses el uso de torniquetes probablemente da lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la funcionalidad, según una DMCI de 5,3 en la Knee Society Score (KSS) y de 5,0 en la Oxford Knee Score (OKS). La funcionalidad media (en una escala de 0 a 100, con puntuaciones más altas que indican mejores desenlaces) fue de 90,03 puntos después de la cirugía sin torniquete y fue 0,29 puntos peor (IC del 95%: 1,06 peor a 0,48 mejor) en una escala de 0 a 100, la diferencia absoluta fue 0,29% peor (1,06% peor a 0,48% mejor), con un torniquete (cinco estudios; 611 participantes). Esta evidencia se disminuyó a certeza moderada debido al riesgo de sesgo. Evaluación general del éxito: evidencia de certeza baja (disminuida debido al sesgo y la imprecisión) indica que el uso de torniquetes puede tener poco o ningún efecto en el éxito. A los seis meses, 47 de 50 (o 940 por 1000) informaron de un tratamiento general exitoso después de la cirugía sin torniquete y 47 de 50 (o 940 por 1000) con torniquete (razón de riesgos [RR] 1,0; IC del 95%: 0,91 a 1,10), según un estudio con 100 participantes. Calidad de vida relacionada con la salud: a los seis meses, el torniquete puede tener poco o ningún efecto en la calidad de vida. La puntuación de la 12­Item Short Form Survey (SF­12) (componente mental de 0 a 100 [100 es mejor]) fue de 54,64 después de la cirugía sin torniquete y 1,53 (DM) mejor (IC del 95%: 0,85 peor a 3,91 mejor) con torniquete (un estudio; 199 participantes); la diferencia absoluta fue 1,53% mejor (0,85% peor a 3,91% mejor). La evidencia fue de certeza baja, y se disminuyó debido al riesgo de sesgo y al escaso número de participantes. Eventos adversos graves: el riesgo de eventos adversos graves probablemente fue mayor con el uso de un torniquete; 26 de 898 (29 por 1000) notificaron eventos después de la cirugía sin torniquete en comparación con 53 de 901 (59 por 1000) con un torniquete (RR 1,73; IC del 95%: 1,10 a 2,73) en 21 estudios (1799 participantes). Veintinueve más por cada 1000 pacientes (95% CI 3 a 50 más por 1000 pacientes) presentaron un evento adverso grave con un torniquete. Cuarenta y ocho (IC del 95%: 20 a 345) participantes tendrían que ser operados sin torniquete para evitar un evento adverso grave. Esta evidencia se disminuyó a certeza moderada debido al riesgo de sesgo. Función cognitiva: un estudio informó de la función cognitiva como un desenlace; sin embargo, los datos se informaron de manera incompleta y no se pudieron extraer para el análisis. Supervivencia del implante: no está claro si el torniquete tiene un efecto sobre la supervivencia del implante debido a evidencia de certeza muy baja (disminuida por el sesgo, y dos veces debido a las tasas de eventos muy bajas); dos de 107 (19 por 1000) requirieron cirugía de revisión en el grupo de cirugía con torniquete en comparación con uno de 107 (nueve por 1000) en el grupo sin torniquete hasta los dos años de seguimiento (RR 1,44; IC del 95%: 0,23 a 8,92). Esto equivale a un 0,4% (0,7% menos a 7% más) de aumento del riesgo absoluto en la cirugía con torniquete. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Evidencia de certeza moderada muestra que la cirugía de reemplazo de rodilla con torniquete probablemente se asocia con un mayor riesgo de eventos adversos graves. La cirugía con torniquete también se asocia probablemente con un mayor dolor posoperatorio, aunque esta diferencia puede o no ser perceptible para los pacientes. La cirugía con torniquete no parece conferir efectos beneficiosos clínicamente significativos en la funcionalidad, el éxito del tratamiento o la calidad de vida. Se necesitan estudios de investigación adicionales para explorar los efectos del uso de torniquetes en la función cognitiva y la supervivencia del implante, para identificar cualquier efecto perjudicial o beneficioso adicional. Si se sigue utilizando un torniquete en la cirugía de reemplazo de rodilla, se debe informar a los pacientes sobre el posible aumento del riesgo de que se produzcan efectos adversos graves y dolor posoperatorio.

Impact of COVID-19 on clinical outcomes for patients with fractured hip: a multicentre observational cohort study.

AIMS: There are reports of a marked increase in perioperative mortality in patients admitted to hospital with a fractured hip during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK, USA, Spain, and Italy. Our study aims to describe the risk of mortality among patients with a fractured neck of femur in England during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We completed a multicentre cohort study across ten hospitals in England. Data were collected from 1 March 2020 to 6 April 2020, during which period the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic. Patients ≥ 60 years of age admitted with hip fracture and a minimum follow-up of 30 days were included for analysis. Primary outcome of interest was mortality at 30 days post-surgery or postadmission in nonoperative patients. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay and discharge destination. RESULTS: In total, 404 patients were included for final analysis with a COVID-19 diagnosis being made in 114 (28.2%) patients. Overall, 30-day mortality stood at 14.4% (n = 58). The COVID-19 cohort experienced a mortality rate of 32.5% (37/114) compared to 7.2% (21/290) in the non-COVID cohort (p < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, 30-day mortality was greatest in patients who were confirmed to have COVID-19 (odds ratio (OR) 5.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.95 to 10.80; p < 0.001) with an adjusted excess risk of 20%, male sex (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.29; p = 0.004) and in patients with ≥ two comorbidities (OR 4.68, CI 1.5 to 14.61; p = 0.008). Length of stay was also extended in the COVID-19 cohort, on average spending 17.6 days as an inpatient versus 12.04 days in the non-COVID-19 group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that patients who sustain a neck of femur fracture in combination with COVID-19 diagnosis have a significantly higher risk of mortality than would be normally expected.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:697-705.

The prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a common risk factor for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Both PCOS and OSA are associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Hence, it is important to determine the burden of OSA in women with PCOS. METHODS: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey, CENTRAL), conference abstracts, and reference lists of relevant articles, up to January 2019. No restriction for language or publication status. Studies that examined the presence of OSA in women with PCOS using polysomnography and/or level III devices were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving 648 participants were included. Our meta-analysis showed that 35.0% (95% CI 22.2-48.9%) of women with PCOS had OSA. This prevalence was not affected by variation in PCOS definition between studies. Approximately one-tenth of the variation in OSA prevalence was related to differences in study population (higher in adults than adolescents and mixed populations), and around one-tenth was related to sample size (higher in smaller studies). OSA prevalence was markedly higher in obese versus lean women with PCOS, and in women with PCOS compared to controls (odds ratio = 3.83, 95% CI 1.43-10.24, eight studies, 957 participants (349 PCOS and 608 controls)). However, most of the studies were at high risk of selection bias, did not account for important confounders, included predominantly women with class II obesity, and were conducted in one country (USA). CONCLUSIONS: Future studies need to examine the true prevalence of OSA in a more representative sample of women with PCOS. Nevertheless, our results suggest that the prevalence of OSA in women with PCOS and obesity is high and clinicians should have a high index of suspicion of OSA in these women.

Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery, including reshaping the hip, or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care. METHODS: UK FASHIoN is a pragmatic, multicentre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial, done at 23 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. We enrolled patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome who presented at these hospitals. Eligible patients were at least 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology but no osteoarthritis, and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. Patients with bilateral femoroacetabular impingement syndrome were eligible; only the most symptomatic hip was randomly assigned to treatment and followed-up. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive hip arthroscopy or personalised hip therapy (an individualised, supervised, and progressive physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre and was done by research staff at each hospital, using a central telephone randomisation service. Patients and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but researchers who collected the outcome assessments and analysed the results were masked. The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, as measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed in all eligible participants who were allocated to treatment (the intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN64081839, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between July 20, 2012, and July 15, 2016, we identified 648 eligible patients and recruited 348 participants: 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (319 of 348 participants). At 12 months after randomisation, mean iHOT-33 scores had improved from 39·2 (SD 20·9) to 58·8 (27·2) for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35·6 (18·2) to 49·7 (25·5) in the personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in iHOT-33 scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline iHOT-33 score, and centre, was 6·8 (95% CI 1·7-12·0) in favour of hip arthroscopy (p=0·0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6·1 points). There were 147 patient-reported adverse events (in 100 [72%] of 138 patients) in the hip arthroscopy group) versus 102 events (in 88 [60%] of 146 patients) in the personalised hip therapy group, with muscle soreness being the most common of these (58 [42%] vs 69 [47%]). There were seven serious adverse events reported by participating hospitals. Five (83%) of six serious adverse events in the hip arthroscopy group were related to treatment, and the one in the personalised hip therapy group was not. There were no treatment-related deaths, but one patient in the hip arthroscopy group developed a hip joint infection after surgery. INTERPRETATION: Hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy both improved hip-related quality of life for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip arthroscopy led to a greater improvement than did personalised hip therapy, and this difference was clinically significant. Further follow-up will reveal whether the clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy are maintained and whether it is cost effective in the long term. FUNDING: The Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute of Health Research.

The association between obstructive sleep apnea and metabolic abnormalities in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Study Objectives: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to examine the relationship between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and metabolic abnormalities in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Methods: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsycInfo, Scopus, Web of Science, Opengrey, and CENTRAL), conference abstracts, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. No restriction was applied for language or publication status. Results: Six studies involving 252 participants were included. Women with PCOS and OSA had significantly higher body mass index (mean difference [MD]: 6.01 kg/m2, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 4.69-7.33), waist circumference (MD: 10.93 cm, 95% CI: 8.03-13.83), insulin resistance, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and worse lipids' profile and impaired glucose regulation compared with women with PCOS without OSA. Most studies did not adjust for weight in their between-groups analysis. Total and free testosterone levels were not significantly different between the two groups. The majority of studies were found to be at high risk of selection bias, did not account for important confounders, were conducted in one country (United States), and used different methodologies to assess testosterone levels (preventing a meta-analysis for this specific outcome). Conclusions: OSA is associated with obesity and worse metabolic profiles in women with PCOS. However, whether the effects of OSA are independent of obesity remain unclear. As OSA is a treatable condition, research focused on the independent effects of OSA on key clinical outcomes in women with PCOS, including fertility, psychological health, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular risk, is lacking and needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016048587.

Safety and feasibility evaluation of tourniquets for total knee replacement (SAFE-TKR): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: This study is designed to determine whether a full randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the clinical effectiveness and safety of total knee replacement surgery with or without a tourniquet is warranted and feasible. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: Single centre, patient-blinded and assessor-blinded RCT. A computer-generated randomisation service will allocate 50 participants into one of two trial treatments, surgery with or without a tourniquet. The primary objective is to estimate recruitment, crossovers and follow-up of patients. All patients will have an MRI scan of their brain preoperatively and day 1 or 2 postoperatively to identify ischaemic cerebral emboli (primary clinical outcome). Oxford Cognitive Screen, Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mini-Mental State Examination will be evaluated as outcome tools for measuring cognitive impairment at days 1, 2 and 7 postoperatively. Thigh pain, blood transfusion requirements, venous thromboembolism, revision surgery, surgical complications, mortality and Oxford knee and five-level EuroQol-5D scores will be collected over 12 months. Integrated qualitative research study: 30 trial patients and 20 knee surgeons will take part in semistructured interviews. Interviews will capture views regarding the pilot trial and explore barriers and potential solutions to a full trial. Multicentre cohort study: UK National Joint Registry data will be linked to Hospital Episode Statistics to estimate the relationship between tourniquet use and venous thromboembolic event, length of hospital stay, risk of revision surgery and death. The study will conclude with a multidisciplinary workshop to reach a consensus on whether a full trial is warranted and feasible. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Research Ethics Committee (West Midlands-Edgbaston) approved this study on 27 January 2016 (15/WM/0455). The study is sponsored by University of Warwick and University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire. The results will be disseminated via high-impact peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20873088; Pre-results.

Do outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials of joint replacement surgery fulfil the OMERACT 2.0 Filter? A review of the 2008 and 2013 literature.

BACKGROUND: It is not known, whether outcome reporting in trials of total joint arthroplasty in the recent years is adequate or not. Our objective was to assess whether outcomes reported in total joint replacement (TJR) trials fulfil the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0. METHODS: We systematically reviewed all TJR trials in adults, published in English in 2008 or 2013. Searches were conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Two authors independently applied the inclusion criteria for the studies, and any disagreement was resolved with a third review author. All outcome measures were abstracted using a pre-piloted standardised data extraction form and assessed for whether they mapped to one of the three OMERACT Filter 2.0 core areas: pathophysiological, life impact, and death. RESULTS: From 1635 trials identified, we included 70 trials (30 in 2008 and 40 in 2013) meeting the eligibility criteria. Twenty-two (31%) trials reported the three essential OMERACT core areas. Among the 27 hip replacement surgery trials and 39 knee replacement surgery trials included, 11 hip (41%) and nine knee (23%) trials reported all three essential OMERACT core areas. The most common outcome domains/measures were pain (20/27, 74%) and function (23/27, 85%) in hip trials and pain (26/39, 67%) and function (27/39, 69%) in knee trials. Results were similar for shoulder and hand joint replacement trials. CONCLUSIONS: We identified significant gaps in the measurement of OMERACT core outcome areas in TJR trials, despite the majority reporting outcome domains of pain and function. An international consensus of key stakeholders is needed to develop a core domain set for reporting of TJR trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009216.

Outcome Measures Used in Arthroplasty Trials: Systematic Review of the 2008 and 2013 Literature.

OBJECTIVE: Previously published literature assessing the reporting of outcome measures used in joint replacement randomized controlled trials (RCT) has revealed disappointing results. It remains unknown whether international initiatives have led to any improvement in the quality of reporting and/or a reduction in the heterogeneity of outcome measures used. Our objective was to systematically assess and compare primary outcome measures and the risk of bias in joint replacement RCT published in 2008 and 2013. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for RCT investigating adult patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. Two authors independently identified eligible trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. RESULTS: Seventy RCT (30 in 2008, 40 in 2013) met the eligibility criteria. There was no significant difference in the number of trials judged to be at low overall risk of bias (n = 6, 20%) in 2008 compared with 2013 [6 (15%); chi-square = 0.302, p = 0.75]. Significantly more trials published in 2008 did not specify a primary outcome measure (n = 25, 83%) compared with 18 trials (45%) in 2013 (chi-square = 10.6316, p = 0.001). When specified, there was significant heterogeneity in the measures used to assess primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: While less than a quarter of trials published in both 2008 and 2013 were judged to be at low overall risk of bias, significantly more trials published in 2013 specified a primary outcome. Although this might represent a temporal trend toward improvement, the overall frequency of primary outcome reporting and the wide heterogeneity in primary outcomes reported remain suboptimal.

Personalised Hip Therapy: development of a non-operative protocol to treat femoroacetabular impingement syndrome in the FASHIoN randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome is increasingly recognised as a cause of hip pain. As part of the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of arthroscopic surgery for FAI syndrome, we developed a protocol for non-operative care and evaluated its feasibility. METHODS: In phase one, we developed a protocol for non-operative care for FAI in the UK National Health Service (NHS), through a process of systematic review and consensus gathering. In phase two, the protocol was tested in an internal pilot RCT for protocol adherence and adverse events. RESULTS: The final protocol, called Personalised Hip Therapy (PHT), consists of four core components led by physiotherapists: detailed patient assessment, education and advice, help with pain relief and an exercise-based programme that is individualised, supervised and progressed over time. PHT is delivered over 12-26 weeks in 6-10 physiotherapist-patient contacts, supplemented by a home exercise programme. In the pilot RCT, 42 patients were recruited and 21 randomised to PHT. Review of treatment case report forms, completed by physiotherapists, showed that 13 patients (62%) received treatment that had closely followed the PHT protocol. 13 patients reported some muscle soreness at 6 weeks, but there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: PHT provides a structure for the non-operative care of FAI and offers guidance to clinicians and researchers in an evolving area with limited evidence. PHT was deliverable within the National Health Service, is safe, and now forms the comparator to arthroscopic surgery in the UK FASHIoN trial (ISRCTN64081839). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 09754699.

Does total hip replacement affect sexual quality of life?

BACKGROUND: Total Hip Replacement (THR) is an effective treatment for end-stage hip osteoarthritis. Since the introduction of total joint replacement, the effect on the Sexual Quality of Life (SQoL) following THR has been addressed in scant studies. The aim of our study was to systematically review the literature, to summarise effects of THR on patients' SQoL. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO between January 1970 and February 9th, 2015 with search terms including Total Hip, Osteoarthritis, SQoL, and THR. Eligible studies were identified and two independent authors extracted data including details of SQoL, study quality and risk of bias. RESULTS: There were 12 eligible studies, which included a total of 2099 patients with an age range of 20-85 years. The methodological quality of ten studies was rated as low, and of two as moderate. Amongst the majority of patients, SQoL improved after surgery, both in terms of physical-functional and psychosocial well-being. However, changes between pre-operative and postoperative SQoL ranged extensively: for example, Sexual Dysfunction Δ 8-51% and Sexual Activity (SA) Δ 0-77%. Three studies reported that some patients never resumed SA again after surgery. CONCLUSION: In over 40 years of THR treatment, scant studies have examined the effect of THR on patients' SQoL. This review suggests that SQol improves after THR, although the magnitude of effects varies highly. However, the quality of the supporting evidence was rated as low to moderate. This suggests a need for more high quality evidence about the effects of THR on SQoL.