What recovery domains are important following a total knee replacement? A qualitative, interview-based study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore people's views of recovery from total knee replacement (TKR) and which recovery domains they felt were important. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews exploring the views of individuals about to undergo or who have undergone TKR. A constant-comparative approach with thematic analysis was used to identify themes. The process of sampling, collecting data and analysis were continuous and iterative throughout the study, with interviews ceasing once thematic saturation was achieved. SETTING: Tertiary care centre. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample was used to account for variables including pre, early or late postoperative status. RESULTS: 12 participants were interviewed, 4 who were preoperative, 4 early postoperative and 4 late postoperative. Themes of pain, function, fear of complications, awareness of the artificial knee joint and return to work were identified. Subthemes of balancing acute and chronic pain were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this interview-based study identify pain and function, in particular mobility, that were universally important to those undergoing TKR. Surgeons should consider exploring these domains when taking informed consent to enhance shared decision-making. Researchers should consider these recovery domains when designing interventional studies.

A tailored psychological intervention for anxiety and depression management in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: TANDEM RCT and process evaluation.

Background: People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have high levels of anxiety and depression, which is associated with increased morbidity and poor uptake of effective treatments, such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Cognitive-behavioural therapy improves mental health of people with long-term conditions and could potentially increase uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation, enabling synergies that could enhance the mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Aim: Our aim was to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, which links into, and optimises the benefits of, routine pulmonary rehabilitation. Design: We carried out a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial using a 1.25 : 1 ratio (intervention : control) with a parallel process evaluation, including assessment of fidelity. Setting: Twelve NHS trusts and five Clinical Commissioning Groups in England were recruited into the study. The intervention was delivered in participant's own home or at a local NHS facility, and by telephone. Participants: Between July 2017 and March 2020 we recruited adults with moderate/very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mild/moderate anxiety and/or depression, meeting eligibility criteria for assessment for pulmonary rehabilitation. Carers of participants were invited to participate. Intervention: The cognitive-behavioural approach intervention (i.e. six to eight 40- to 60-minute sessions plus telephone support throughout pulmonary rehabilitation) was delivered by 31 trained respiratory healthcare professionals to participants prior to commencing pulmonary rehabilitation. Usual care included routine pulmonary rehabilitation referral. Main outcome measures: Co-primary outcomes were Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression at 6 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months included health-related quality of life, smoking status, uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use. Results: We analysed results from 423 randomised participants (intervention, n = 242; control, n = 181). Forty-three carers participated. Follow-up at 6 and 12 months was 93% and 82%, respectively. Despite good fidelity for intervention delivery, mean between-group differences in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months ruled out clinically important effects (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety mean difference -0.60, 95% confidence interval -1.40 to 0.21; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression mean difference -0.66, 95% confidence interval -1.39 to 0.07), with similar results at 12 months. There were no between-group differences in any of the secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses did not alter these conclusions. More adverse events were reported for intervention participants than for control participants, but none related to the trial. The intervention did not generate quality-of-life improvements to justify the additional cost (adjusted mean difference £770.24, 95% confidence interval -£27.91 to £1568.39) to the NHS. The intervention was well received and many participants described positive affects on their quality of life. Facilitators highlighted the complexity of participants' lives and considered the intervention to be of potential valuable; however, the intervention would be difficult to integrate within routine clinical services. Our well-powered trial delivered a theoretically designed intervention with good fidelity. The respiratory-experienced facilitators were trained to deliver a low-intensity cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, but high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy might have been more effective. Our broad inclusion criteria specified objectively assessed anxiety and/or depression, but participants were likely to favour talking therapies. Randomisation was concealed and blinding of outcome assessment was breached in only 15 participants. Conclusions: The tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention delivered with fidelity by trained respiratory healthcare professionals to people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Alternative approaches that are integrated with routine long-term condition care are needed to address the unmet, complex clinical and psychosocial needs of this group of patients. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN59537391. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/146/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People with long-standing lung problems, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, often also have anxiety and depression, which further reduces their quality of life. Two existing treatments could help. Pulmonary rehabilitation (a programme of exercise and education) improves both the physical and mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cognitive­behavioural therapy (a talking therapy) may reduce anxiety and depression. The TANDEM [Tailored intervention for Anxiety and Depression Management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)] intervention linked these two treatments by providing talking therapy based on cognitive­behavioural therapy during the waiting time following referral for pulmonary rehabilitation. The TANDEM treatment was delivered by respiratory healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses or physiotherapists) trained to deliver the talking therapy in six to eight weekly sessions. The sessions were conducted in the participant's home (or another convenient location), with brief telephone support during the pulmonary rehabilitation. Of 423 participants recruited to the study, 242 participants received TANDEM talking therapy and 181 participants received usual care (including a referral to pulmonary rehabilitation). We measured mental health, quality of life, social life, attendance at pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use in both groups at 6 and 12 months. Forty-three carers joined the study and we assessed their mental well-being. We interviewed patients, carers and health professionals to find out their views and experience of the TANDEM treatment. We also examined whether or not the TANDEM treatment was good value for money. The TANDEM treatment did not improve the mental or the physical health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In addition, the TANDEM treatment cost the NHS an extra £770 per patient, which was not good value for money. The TANDEM treatment was well received, and many participants told us how it had helped them. Heath-care professionals noted how participants did not just have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but were coping with many physical, mental and social problems. The TANDEM intervention was not effective and, therefore, other strategies will be needed to help people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mental health problems live with their condition.

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.

Opioid analgesics for nociceptive cancer pain: A comprehensive review.

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo-controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate-certainty to low-certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals.

What's important for recovery after a total knee replacement? A systematic review of mixed methods studies.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how patients perceive and prioritise various aspects of recovery following total knee replacement, including pain, function and return to activity, will help clinicians in pre-operative consultations by ensuring they effectively address patient concerns and managing their expectations. AIMS: The aim of this study is to identify aspects of recovery that are important to people after a total knee replacement. METHODS: Studies were identified from Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. This mixed methods review included all original study types (quantitative, qualitative, discrete choice experiments and mixed methods design). Reviews and non-peer-reviewed publications were excluded. Studies with participants (age ≥ 18 years) who had a primary TKR for osteoarthritis were included. Studies of people with unicompartmental knee, patella-femoral or revision knee replacement were excluded. Recovery attributes were extracted from individual papers and grouped into recovery themes. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies with 8404 participants and 18 recovery themes were developed. The most frequently identified overarching theme was pain, followed by activities of daily living, mobility (walking), recreational activities, specific functional movements of the knee, use of walking aids, sexual activity and range of motion of the knee. Medical complications were an infrequently reported theme, however, was deemed to be high importance. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing pain, returning of activities and daily living and mobility are the three most frequently reported recovery domains for people after TKR. Clinicians should be aware of recovery themes, to ensure they are explored sufficiently when consenting for a TKR. Future research should aim to determine the relative importance of these attributes compared to each other. Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021253699.

Preconceptual administration of doxycycline in women with recurrent miscarriage and chronic endometritis: protocol for the Chronic Endometritis and Recurrent Miscarriage (CERM) trial, a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive randomised trial with an embedded translational substudy.

INTRODUCTION: Recurrent miscarriage is a common condition with a substantial associated morbidity. A hypothesised cause of recurrent miscarriage is chronic endometritis (CE). The aetiology of CE remains uncertain. An association between CE and recurrent miscarriage has been shown. This study will aim to determine if preconceptual administration of doxycycline, in women with recurrent miscarriages, and CE, reduces first trimester miscarriages, increasing live births. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Chronic Endometritis and Recurrent Miscarriage is a multicentre, double-blind adaptive trial with an embedded translational substudy. Women with a history of two or more consecutive first trimester losses with evidence of CE on endometrial biopsy (defined as ≥5 CD138 positive cells per 10 mm2) will be randomised to oral doxycycline or placebo for 14 days. A subset will be recruited to a mechanistic substudy in which microbial swabs and preintervention/postintervention endometrial samples will be collected. Up to 3062 women recruited from 29 National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites across the UK are expected to be screened with up to 1500 women randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Women with a negative endometrial biopsy (defined as <5 CD138 positive cells per 10 mm2) will also be followed up to test validity of the tool. The primary outcome is live births plus pregnancies ≥24 + 0 weeks gestation at the end of the trial, in the first or subsequent pregnancy. Secondary clinical outcomes will also be assessed. Exploratory outcomes will assess the effect of doxycycline treatment on the endometrial microbiota, the differentiation capacity of the endometrium and the senescent profile of the endometrium with CE. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the NHS Research Ethics Committee Northwest-Haydock (19/NW/0462). Written informed consent will be gained from all participants. The results will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal and reported in the National Institute for Health and Care Research journals library. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23947730.

'It was a joint plan we worked out together'. How the I-WOTCH programme enabled people with chronic non-malignant pain to taper their opioids: a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Improving the Wellbeing of people with Opioid Treated CHronic pain (I-WOTCH) randomised controlled trial found that a group-based educational intervention to support people using strong opioids for chronic non-malignant pain helped a significant proportion of people to stop or decrease opioid use with no increase in pain-related disability. We report a linked process evaluation of the group-based intervention evaluated in comparison to a usual-care control group that received a self-help booklet and relaxation CD. METHODS: We interviewed 18 intervention facilitators, and 20 intervention and 20 control participants who had chronic non-malignant pain and were recruited from general (family) practices in the UK. Quantitative data included change mechanism questions on the trial questionnaires which explored motivation, expectations and self-efficacy. Fidelity was assessed by listening to a sample of audio-recorded group sessions and nurse consultations. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated using 'follow a thread' and a mixed-methods matrix. FINDINGS: Four overarching themes emerged: (1) the right time to taper, (2) the backdrop of a life with chronic pain, (3) needing support and (4) the benefits of being in a group. Delivery fidelity was good, adherence (83%) and competence (79%) across a range of intervention groups. Staff delivering the intervention found three typical responses to the intervention: resistance, open to trying and feeling it was not the right time. The group experience was important to those in the intervention arm. It provided people with a forum in which to learn about the current thinking about opioid usage and its effects. It also gave them examples of how feasible or personally relevant coming off opioids might be. CONCLUSION: The process evaluation data showed that the I-WOTCH intervention was well delivered, well received and useful for most interviewees. Being 'the right time' to taper and having support throughout tapering, emerged as important factors within the context of living with chronic pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49470934.

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.

Tailored psychological intervention for anxiety or depression in COPD (TANDEM): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The TANDEM multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial evaluated whether a tailored psychological intervention based on a cognitive behavioural approach for people with COPD and symptoms of anxiety and/or depression improved anxiety or depression compared with usual care (control). METHODS: People with COPD and moderate to very severe airways obstruction and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscale scores indicating mild to moderate anxiety (HADS-A) and/or depression (HADS-D) were randomised 1.25:1 (242 intervention and 181 control). Respiratory health professionals delivered the intervention face-to-face over 6-8 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were HADS-A and HADS-D measured 6 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months included: HADS-A and HADS-D (12 months), Beck Depression Inventory II, Beck Anxiety Inventory, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, social engagement, the EuroQol instrument five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), smoking status, completion of pulmonary rehabilitation, and health and social care resource use. RESULTS: The intervention did not improve anxiety (HADS-A mean difference -0.60, 95% CI -1.40-0.21) or depression (HADS-D mean difference -0.66, 95% CI -1.39-0.07) at 6 months. The intervention did not improve any secondary outcomes at either time-point, nor did it influence completion of pulmonary rehabilitation or healthcare resource use. Deaths in the intervention arm (13/242; 5%) exceeded those in the control arm (3/181; 2%), but none were associated with the intervention. Health economic analysis found the intervention highly unlikely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: This trial has shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that this cognitive behavioural intervention delivered by trained and supervised respiratory health professionals does not improve psychological comorbidity in people with advanced COPD and depression or anxiety.

Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted knee replacement systems have been introduced to healthcare services worldwide in an effort to improve clinical outcomes for people, although high-quality evidence that they are clinically, or cost-effective remains sparse. Robotic-arm systems may improve surgical accuracy and could contribute to reduced pain, improved function and lower overall cost of total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. However, TKR with conventional instruments may be just as effective and may be quicker and cheaper. There is a need for a robust evaluation of this technology, including cost-effectiveness analyses using both within-trial and modelling approaches. This trial will compare robotic-assisted against conventional TKR to provide high-quality evidence on whether robotic-assisted knee replacement is beneficial to patients and cost-effective for healthcare systems. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial-Knee is a multicentre, participant-assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted TKR compared with TKR using conventional instruments. A total of 332 participants will be randomised (1:1) to provide 90% power for a 12-point difference in the primary outcome measure; the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months postrandomisation. Allocation concealment will be achieved using computer-based randomisation performed on the day of surgery and methods for blinding will include sham incisions for marker clusters and blinded operation notes. The primary analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle. Results will be reported in line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. A parallel study will collect data on the learning effects associated with robotic-arm systems. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by an ethics committee for patient participation (East Midlands-Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee, 29 July 2020. NRES number: 20/EM/0159). All results from the study will be disseminated using peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, lay summaries and social media as appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27624068.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain in adults: overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain according to condition. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 20 June 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic reviews comparing any antidepressant with placebo for any pain condition in adults. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data. The main outcome measure was pain; for headache disorders it was frequency of headaches. Continuous pain outcomes were converted into a scale of 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain) and were presented as mean differences (95% confidence intervals). Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratios (95% confidence intervals). Data were extracted from the time point closest to the end of treatment. When end of treatment was too variable across trials in a review, data were extracted from the outcome or time point with the largest number of trials and participants. Secondary outcomes were safety and tolerability (withdrawals because of adverse events). Findings were classified from each comparison as efficacious, not efficacious, or inconclusive. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation framework. RESULTS: 26 reviews (156 unique trials and >25 000 participants) were included. These reviews reported on the efficacy of eight antidepressant classes covering 22 pain conditions (42 distinct comparisons). No review provided high certainty evidence on the efficacy of antidepressants for pain for any condition. 11 comparisons (nine conditions) were found where antidepressants were efficacious, four with moderate certainty evidence: serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for back pain (mean difference -5.3, 95% confidence interval -7.3 to -3.3), postoperative pain (-7.3, -12.9 to -1.7), neuropathic pain (-6.8, -8.7 to -4.8), and fibromyalgia (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.6). For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either not efficacious (five comparisons) or the evidence was inconclusive (26 comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of efficacy of antidepressants was found in 11 of the 42 comparisons included in this overview of systematic reviews-seven of the 11 comparisons investigated the efficacy of SNRIs. For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either inefficacious or evidence on efficacy was inconclusive. The findings suggest that a more nuanced approach is needed when prescribing antidepressants for pain conditions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022311073.

Group sequential designs in pragmatic trials: feasibility and assessment of utility using data from a number of recent surgical RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the long term effects of many surgical interventions tested in pragmatic RCTs may require extended periods of participant follow-up to assess effectiveness and use patient-reported outcomes that require large sample sizes. Consequently the RCTs are often perceived as being expensive and time-consuming, particularly if the results show the test intervention is not effective. Adaptive, and particularly group sequential, designs have great potential to improve the efficiency and cost of testing new and existing surgical interventions. As a means to assess the potential utility of group sequential designs, we re-analyse data from a number of recent high-profile RCTs and assess whether using such a design would have caused the trial to stop early. METHODS: Many pragmatic RCTs monitor participants at a number of occasions (e.g. at 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery) during follow-up as a means to assess recovery and also to keep participants engaged with the trial process. Conventionally one of the outcomes is selected as the primary (final) outcome, for clinical reasons, with others designated as either early or late outcomes. In such settings, novel group sequential designs that use data from not only the final outcome but also from early outcomes at interim analyses can be used to inform stopping decisions. We describe data from seven recent surgical RCTs (WAT, DRAFFT, WOLLF, FASHION, CSAW, FIXDT, TOPKAT), and outline possible group sequential designs that could plausibly have been proposed at the design stage. We then simulate how these group sequential designs could have proceeded, by using the observed data and dates to replicate how information could have accumulated and decisions been made for each RCT. RESULTS: The results of the simulated group sequential designs showed that for two of the RCTs it was highly likely that they would have stopped for futility at interim analyses, potentially saving considerable time (15 and 23 months) and costs and avoiding patients being exposed to interventions that were either ineffective or no better than standard care. We discuss the characteristics of RCTs that are important in order to use the methodology we describe, particularly the value of early outcomes and the window of opportunity when early stopping decisions can be made and how it is related to the length of recruitment period and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results for five of the RCTs tested showed that group sequential designs using early outcome data would have been feasible and likely to provide designs that were at least as efficient, and possibly more efficient, than the original fixed sample size designs. In general, the amount of information provided by the early outcomes was surprisingly large, due to the strength of correlations with the primary outcome. This suggests that the methods described here are likely to provide benefits more generally across the range of surgical trials and more widely in other application areas where trial designs, outcomes and follow-up patterns are structured and behave similarly.

Subacromial balloon spacer for irreparable rotator cuff tears of the shoulder (START:REACTS): a group-sequential, double-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: New surgical procedures can expose patients to harm and should be carefully evaluated before widespread use. The InSpace balloon (Stryker, USA) is an innovative surgical device used to treat people with rotator cuff tears that cannot be repaired. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the InSpace balloon for people with irreparable rotator cuff tears. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, group-sequential, adaptive randomised controlled trial in 24 hospitals in the UK, comparing arthroscopic debridement of the subacromial space with biceps tenotomy (debridement only group) with the same procedure but including insertion of the InSpace balloon (debridement with device group). Participants had an irreparable rotator cuff tear, which had not resolved with conservative treatment, and they had symptoms warranting surgery. Eligibility was confirmed intraoperatively before randomly assigning (1:1) participants to a treatment group using a remote computer system. Participants and assessors were masked to group assignment. Masking was achieved by using identical incisions for both procedures, blinding the operation note, and a consistent rehabilitation programme was offered regardless of group allocation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score at 12 months. Pre-trial simulations using data from early and late timepoints informed stopping boundaries for two interim analyses. The primary analysis was on a modified intention-to-treat basis, adjusted for the planned interim analysis. The trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17825590. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2018, and July 30, 2020, we assessed 385 people for eligibility, of which 317 were eligible. 249 (79%) people consented for inclusion in the study. 117 participants were randomly allocated to a treatment group, 61 participants to the debridement only group and 56 to the debridement with device group. A predefined stopping boundary was met at the first interim analysis and recruitment stopped with 117 participants randomised. 43% of participants were female, 57% were male. We obtained primary outcome data for 114 (97%) participants. The mean Oxford Shoulder Score at 12 months was 34·3 (SD 11·1) in the debridement only group and 30·3 (10·9) in the debridement with device group (mean difference adjusted for adaptive design -4·2 [95% CI -8·2 to -0·26];p=0·037) favouring control. There was no difference in adverse events between the two groups. INTERPRETATION: In an efficient, adaptive trial design, our results favoured the debridement only group. We do not recommend the InSpace balloon for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research partnership.

Development and testing of an opioid tapering self-management intervention for chronic pain: I-WOTCH.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the design, development and pilot of a multicomponent intervention aimed at supporting withdrawal of opioids for people with chronic non-malignant pain for future evaluation in the Improving the Wellbeing of people with Opioid Treated CHronic pain (I-WOTCH) randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: The I-WOTCH intervention draws on previous literature and collaboration with stakeholders (patient and public involvement). Intervention mapping and development activities of Behaviour Change Taxonomy are described. SETTING: The intervention development was conducted by a multidisciplinary team with clinical, academic and service user perspectives. The team had expertise in the development and testing of complex health behaviour interventions, opioid tapering and pain management in primary and secondary care, I.T programming, and software development-to develop an opioid tapering App. PARTICIPANTS: The I-WOTCH trial participants are adults (18 years and over) with chronic non-malignant pain using strong opioids for at least 3 months and on most days in the preceding month. OUTCOMES: A multicomponent self-management support package to help people using opioids for chronic non-malignant pain reduce opioid use. INTERVENTIONS AND RESULTS: Receiving information on the impact of long-term opioid use, and potential adverse effects were highlighted as important facilitators in making the decision to reduce opioids. Case studies of those who have successfully stopped taking opioids were also favoured as a facilitator to reduce opioid use. Barriers included the need for a 'trade-off to fill the deficit of the effect of the drug'. The final I-WOTCH intervention consists of an 8-10 week programme incorporating: education; problem-solving; motivation; group and one to one tailored planning; reflection and monitoring. A detailed facilitator manual was developed to promote consistent delivery of the intervention across the UK. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the development of an opioid reduction intervention package suitable for testing in the I-WOTCH randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49470934.

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.

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.