Including Modifiable and Nonmodifiable Factors Improves Injury Risk Assessment in Professional Baseball Pitchers.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) evaluate an injury risk model that included modifiable and nonmodifiable factors into an arm injury risk prediction model in Minor League Baseball (MiLB) pitchers and (2) compare model performance separately for predicting the incidence of elbow and shoulder injuries. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. METHODS: A 10-year MiLB injury risk study was conducted. Pitchers were evaluated during preseason, and pitches and arm injuries were documented prospectively. Nonmodifiable variables included arm injury history, professional experience, arm dominance, year, and humeral torsion. Modifiable variables included BMI, pitch count, total range of motion, and horizontal adduction. We compared modifiable, nonmodifiable, and combined model performance by R2, calibration (best = 1.00), and discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]; higher number is better). Sensitivity analysis included only arm injuries sustained in the first 90 days. RESULTS: In this study, 407 MiLB pitchers (141 arm injuries) were included. Arm injury incidence was 0.27 injuries per 1000 pitches. The arm injury model (calibration 1.05 [0.81-1.30]; AUC: 0.74 [0.69-0.80]) had improved performance compared to only using modifiable predictors (calibration: 0.91 [0.68-1.14]; AUC: 0.67 [0.62-0.73]) and only shoulder range of motion (calibration: 0.52 [0.29, 0.75]; AUC: 0.52 [0.46, 58]). Elbow injury model demonstrated improved performance (calibration: 1.03 [0.76-1.33]; AUC: 0.76 [0.69-0.83]) compared to the shoulder injury model (calibration: 0.46 [0.22-0.69]; AUC: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.69]). The sensitivity analysis demonstrated improved model performance compared to the arm injury model. CONCLUSION: Arm injury risk is influenced by modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors. The most accurate way to identify professional pitchers who are at risk for arm injury is to use a model that includes modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(9):630-640. Epub: 9 July 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11072.

Progression of chronic pain and associated health-related quality of life and healthcare resource use over 5 years after total knee replacement: evidence from a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: As part of the STAR Programme, a comprehensive study exploring long-term pain after surgery, we investigated how pain and function, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and healthcare resource use evolved over 5 years after total knee replacement (TKR) for those with and without chronic pain 1 year after their primary surgery. METHODS: We used data from the Clinical Outcomes in Arthroplasty Study prospective cohort study, which followed patients undergoing TKR from two English hospitals for 5 years. Chronic pain was defined using the Oxford Knee Score Pain Subscale (OKS-PS) where participants reporting a score of 14 or lower were classified as having chronic pain 1-year postsurgery. Pain and function were measured with the OKS, HRQL using the EuroQoL-5 Dimension, resource use from yearly questionnaires, and costs estimated from a healthcare system perspective. We analysed the changes in OKS-PS, HRQL and resource use over a 5-year follow-up period. Multiple imputation accounted for missing data. RESULTS: Chronic pain was reported in 70/552 operated knees (12.7%) 1 year after surgery. The chronic pain group had worse pain, function and HRQL presurgery and postsurgery than the non-chronic pain group. Those without chronic pain markedly improved right after surgery, then plateaued. Those with chronic pain improved slowly but steadily. Participants with chronic pain reported greater healthcare resource use and costs than those without, especially 1 year after surgery, and mostly from hospital readmissions. 64.7% of those in chronic pain recovered during the following 4 years, while 30.9% fluctuated in and out of chronic pain. CONCLUSION: Although TKR is often highly beneficial, some patients experienced chronic pain postsurgery. Although many fluctuated in their pain levels and most recovered over time, identifying people most likely to have chronic pain and supporting their recovery would benefit patients and healthcare systems.

Unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement for patients with multimorbidities: a cohort study using propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting.

BACKGROUND: Although routine NHS data potentially include all patients, confounding limits their use for causal inference. Methods to minimise confounding in observational studies of implantable devices are required to enable the evaluation of patients with severe systemic morbidity who are excluded from many randomised controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: Stage 1 - replicate the Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT), a surgical randomised controlled trial comparing unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. Stage 2 - compare the risk benefits and cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement surgery in patients with severe systemic morbidity who would have been ineligible for TOPKAT using the validated methods from stage 1. DESIGN: This was a cohort study. SETTING: Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry database and linked to hospital inpatient (Hospital Episode Statistics) and patient-reported outcome data. PARTICIPANTS: Stage 1 - people undergoing unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery who met the TOPKAT eligibility criteria. Stage 2 - participants with an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of ≥ 3. INTERVENTION: The patients were exposed to either unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the postoperative Oxford Knee Score. The secondary outcome measures were 90-day postoperative complications (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction and prosthetic joint infection) and 5-year revision risk and mortality. The main outcome measures for the health economic analysis were health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions) and NHS hospital costs. RESULTS: In stage 1, propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting replicated the results of TOPKAT. Propensity score adjustment, propensity score matching and instrumental variables did not. Stage 2 included 2256 unicompartmental knee replacement patients and 57,682 total knee replacement patients who had severe comorbidities, of whom 145 and 23,344 had linked Oxford Knee Scores, respectively. A statistically significant but clinically irrelevant difference favouring unicompartmental knee replacement was observed, with a mean postoperative Oxford Knee Score difference of < 2 points using propensity score stratification; no significant difference was observed using inverse probability weighting. Unicompartmental knee replacement more than halved the risk of venous thromboembolism [relative risk 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.74) using propensity score stratification; relative risk 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.96) using inverse probability weighting]. Unicompartmental knee replacement was not associated with myocardial infarction or prosthetic joint infection using either method. In the long term, unicompartmental knee replacement had double the revision risk of total knee replacement [hazard ratio 2.70 (95% confidence interval 2.15 to 3.38) using propensity score stratification; hazard ratio 2.60 (95% confidence interval 1.94 to 3.47) using inverse probability weighting], but half of the mortality [hazard ratio 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.74) using propensity score stratification; insignificant effect using inverse probability weighting]. Unicompartmental knee replacement had lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-year gains than total knee replacement for stage 2 participants. LIMITATIONS: Although some propensity score methods successfully replicated TOPKAT, unresolved confounding may have affected stage 2. Missing Oxford Knee Scores may have led to information bias. CONCLUSIONS: Propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting successfully replicated TOPKAT, implying that some (but not all) propensity score methods can be used to evaluate surgical innovations and implantable medical devices using routine NHS data. Unicompartmental knee replacement was safer and more cost-effective than total knee replacement for patients with severe comorbidity and should be considered the first option for suitable patients. FUTURE WORK: Further research is required to understand the performance of propensity score methods for evaluating surgical innovations and implantable devices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as EUPAS17435. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

We compared the risks and benefits of partial and total knee replacements in NHS patients with a complex medical history who would normally be excluded from randomised trials on this topic. We used information that was collected during hospital appointments for people who had a knee replacement between 2009 and 2016. It is difficult to directly compare the two groups because each individual patient has a different medical history. We tested advanced statistical methods to account for these differences. In stage 1, we showed that some of these advanced statistical methods could replicate the results of a recently published surgical trial using routine data from the NHS. We compared patients in the trial with similar patients who were operated on in the NHS. Three of the proposed methods showed results similar to those obtained from the Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT). In stage 2, we used the successful methods from stage 1 to study the risks, benefits and costs of partial and total knee replacement surgery in patients with complex medical histories. Two of the statistical methods found that patients who had a partial knee replacement had less self-reported pain and better function after surgery than patients who had a total knee replacement. All three methods found that partial knee replacement was safer, was associated with a lower risk of blood clots (a known complication of knee surgery) and had lower mortality over 5 years. However, patients who had a partial knee replacement were twice as likely as those with a total knee replacement to need a second surgery within 5 years. We found that partial knee replacements were less costly to the NHS and were associated with better overall quality of life for patients than total knee replacement.

Bisphosphonates to reduce bone fractures in stage 3B+ chronic kidney disease: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates are contraindicated in patients with stage 4+ chronic kidney disease. However, they are widely used to prevent fragility fractures in stage 3 chronic kidney disease, despite a lack of good-quality data on their effects. OBJECTIVES: The aims of each work package were as follows. Work package 1: to study the relationship between bisphosphonate use and chronic kidney disease progression. Work package 2: to study the association between using bisphosphonates and fracture risk. Work package 3: to determine the risks of hypocalcaemia, hypophosphataemia, acute kidney injury and upper gastrointestinal events associated with using bisphosphonates. Work package 4: to investigate the association between using bisphosphonates and changes in bone mineral density over time. DESIGN: This was a new-user cohort study design with propensity score matching. SETTING AND DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from UK NHS primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database) and linked hospital inpatient records (Hospital Episode Statistics) for work packages 1-3 and from the Danish Odense University Hospital Databases for work package 4. PARTICIPANTS: Patients registered in the data sources who had at least one measurement of estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 45 ml/minute/1.73 m2 were eligible. A second estimated glomerular filtration rate value of < 45 ml/minute/1.73 m2 within 1 year after the first was requested for work packages 1 and 3. Patients with no Hospital Episode Statistics linkage were excluded from work packages 1-3. Patients with < 1 year of run-in data before index estimated glomerular filtration rate and previous users of anti-osteoporosis medications were excluded from work packages 1-4. INTERVENTIONS/EXPOSURE: Bisphosphonate use, identified from primary care prescriptions (for work packages 1-3) or pharmacy dispensations (for work package 4), was the main exposure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Work package 1: chronic kidney disease progression, defined as stage worsening or starting renal replacement. Work package 2: hip fracture. Work package 3: acute kidney injury, hypocalcaemia and hypophosphataemia identified from Hospital Episode Statistics, and gastrointestinal events identified from Clinical Practice Research Datalink or Hospital Episode Statistics. Work package 4: annualised femoral neck bone mineral density percentage change. RESULTS: Bisphosphonate use was associated with an excess risk of chronic kidney disease progression (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.24) in work package 1, but did not increase the probability of other safety outcomes in work package 3. The results from work package 2 suggested that bisphosphonate use increased fracture risk (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.39) for hip fractures, but sensitivity analyses suggested that this was related to unresolved confounding. Conversely, work package 4 suggested that bisphosphonates improved bone mineral density, with an average 2.65% (95% confidence interval 1.32% to 3.99%) greater gain in femoral neck bone mineral density per year in bisphosphonate users than in matched non-users. LIMITATIONS: Confounding by indication was a concern for the clinical effectiveness (i.e. work package 2) data. Bias analyses suggested that these findings were due to inappropriate adjustment for pre-treatment risk. work packages 3 and 4 were based on small numbers of events and participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bisphosphonates were associated with a 12% excess risk of chronic kidney disease progression in participants with stage 3B+ chronic kidney disease. No other safety concerns were identified. Bisphosphonate therapy increased bone mineral density, but the research team failed to demonstrate antifracture effectiveness. FUTURE WORK: Randomised controlled trial data are needed to demonstrate antifracture efficacy in patients with stage 3B+ chronic kidney disease. More safety analyses are needed to characterise the renal toxicity of bisphosphonates in stage 3A chronic kidney disease, possibly using observational data. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as EUPAS10029. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The project was also supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford.

RATIONALE AND AIMS: Bisphosphonates are used to prevent fractures in people with fragile bones. People with chronic kidney disease have a high risk of fracturing, but the safety and effectiveness of bisphosphonates in severe chronic kidney disease is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the benefits (e.g. bone strength improvement and fracture prevention) and the risks of unwanted effects associated with bisphosphonates for people with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease. METHODS: Anonymised primary and secondary care electronic medical records data from the UK NHS were used, as well as a Danish equivalent that included bone density scans. Anyone in these databases with a measure of reduced kidney function that suggested moderate to severe chronic kidney disease was eligible, which was > 220,000 people from the UK. Over 20,000 of them used bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonate users were matched to non-users with similar age, sex and other characteristics. RESULTS: Bisphosphonate users had a 12% higher risk of their chronic kidney disease getting worse than non-users. Their risks of other side effects, such as acute kidney injuries and gastrointestinal problems, did not change. Bisphosphonate users had a 25% higher risk of fractures than non-users in the UK database, probably because the matching methods did not create similar-enough groups of users and non-users. However, it was found that bisphosphonate improved bone density in the Danish database. Bone density is a proxy for bone strength, so better bone density should mean fewer fractures. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that bisphosphonate therapy may make moderate to severe chronic kidney disease worse. More studies are needed on how bisphosphonates affect milder chronic kidney disease. Bisphosphonates were associated with better bone strength, but it could not be demonstrated that they reduced fracture risk. More data are required, probably from a placebo-controlled trial, to determine whether or not bisphosphonates prevent fractures in people with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease and whether or not this is worth the risk of their chronic kidney disease worsening.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of splints for thumb base osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effectiveness, efficacy and cost effectiveness of splints (orthoses) in people with symptomatic basal thumb joint OA (BTOA). METHODS: A pragmatic, multicentre parallel group randomized controlled trial at 17 National Health Service (NHS) hospital departments recruited adults with symptomatic BTOA and at least moderate hand pain and dysfunction. We randomized participants (1:1:1) using a computer-based minimization system to one of three treatment groups: a therapist supported self-management programme (SSM), a therapist supported self-management programme plus a verum thumb splint (SSM+S), or a therapist supported self-management programme plus a placebo thumb splint (SSM+PS). Participants were blinded to group allocation, received 90 min therapy over 8 weeks and were followed up for 12 weeks from baseline. Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) hand pain at 8 weeks was the primary outcome, using intention to treat analysis. We calculated costs of treatment. RESULTS: We randomized 349 participants to SSM (n = 116), SSM+S (n = 116) or SSM+PS (n = 117) and 292 (84%) provided AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index hand pain scores at the primary end point (8 weeks). All groups improved, with no mean treatment difference between groups: SSM+S vs SSM -0.5 (95% CI: -1.4, 0.4), P = 0.255; SSM+PS vs SSM -0.1 (95% CI: -1.0, 0.8), P = 0.829; and SSM+S vs SSM+PS -0.4 (95% CI: -1.4, 0.5), P = 0.378. The average 12-week costs were: SSM £586; SSM+S £738; and SSM+PS £685. CONCLUSION: There was no additional benefit of adding a thumb splint to a high-quality evidence-based, supported self-management programme for thumb OA delivered by therapists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 54744256 (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN54744256).

Quantitative and semi-quantitative assessment of synovitis on MRI and the relationship with symptoms in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Synovitis in symptomatic knee OA (KOA) is common and is associated with joint symptoms. Optimal synovial measurement on MRI is, however, unclear. Our aims were to examine the relationship between MRI measures of synovitis and knee symptoms in symptomatic KOA. METHODS: Data from a randomized, multicentre, placebo-controlled trial (UK-VIDEO) of vitamin-D therapy in symptomatic KOA were utilized. Participants reported knee symptoms using WOMAC at baseline and annually. On contrast-enhanced (CE) MRI, synovial thickness was measured using established, semi-quantitative methods whilst synovial tissue volume (STV) was assessed as absolute STV (aSTV) and relative to the width of femoral condyle (rSTV). STV of the infrapatellar region was also assessed. Associations between synovial measures and symptoms were analysed using multiple linear regression modelling. RESULTS: No linear association was observed between knee symptoms and synovitis thickness scores. Whole-joint aSTV (0.88, 95% CI: 0.17, 1.59) and infrapatellar aSTV (5.96, 95% CI: 1.22, 10.7) were positively associated with knee pain. Whole-joint rSTV had a stronger association with pain (7.96, 95% CI: 2.60, 13.33) and total scores (5.63, 95% CI: 0.32, 10.94). Even stronger associations were found for infrapatellar rSTV with pain (55.47, 95% CI: 19.99, 90.96), function (38.59, 95% CI: 2.1, 75.07) and total scores (41.64, 95% CI: 6.56, 76.72). CONCLUSIONS: Whole-joint and site-specific infrapatellar STV measures on CE-MRI were associated with knee pain, respectively. Volumes relative to the size of the femoral condyle may be promising outcome measures in KOA trials.

Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT.

BACKGROUND: Late-stage medial compartment knee osteoarthritis can be treated using total knee replacement or partial (unicompartmental) knee replacement. There is high variation in treatment choice and insufficient evidence to guide selection. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The findings are intended to guide surgical decision-making for patients, surgeons and health-care providers. DESIGN: This was a randomised, multicentre, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial that included an expertise component. The target sample size was 500 patients. A web-based randomisation system was used to allocate treatments. SETTING: Twenty-seven NHS hospitals (68 surgeons). PARTICIPANTS: Patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. INTERVENTIONS: The trial compared the overall management strategy of partial knee replacement treatment with total knee replacement treatment. No specified brand or subtype of implant was investigated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Oxford Knee Score at 5 years was the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, global health measures, transition items, patient satisfaction (Lund Score) and complications (including reoperation, revision and composite 'failure' - defined by minimal Oxford Knee Score improvement and/or reoperation). Cost-effectiveness was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 528 patients were randomised (partial knee replacement, n = 264; total knee replacement, n = 264). The follow-up primary outcome response rate at 5 years was 88% and both operations had good outcomes. There was no significant difference between groups in mean Oxford Knee Score at 5 years (difference 1.04, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 2.50). An area under the curve analysis of the Oxford Knee Score at 5 years showed benefit in favour of partial knee replacement over total knee replacement, but the difference was within the minimal clinically important difference [mean 36.6 (standard deviation 8.3) (n = 233), mean 35.1 (standard deviation 9.1) (n = 231), respectively]. Secondary outcome measures showed consistent patterns of benefit in the direction of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement although most differences were small and non-significant. Patient-reported improvement (transition) and reflection (would you have the operation again?) showed statistically significant superiority for partial knee replacement only, but both of these variables could be influenced by the lack of blinding. The frequency of reoperation (including revision) by treatment received was similar for both groups: 22 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 28 out of 269 for total knee replacement patients. Revision rates at 5 years were 10 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 8 out of 269 for total knee replacement. There were 28 'failures' of partial knee replacement and 38 'failures' of total knee replacement (as defined by composite outcome). Beyond 1 year, partial knee replacement was cost-effective compared with total knee replacement, being associated with greater health benefits (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and lower health-care costs, reflecting lower costs of the index surgery and subsequent health-care use. LIMITATIONS: It was not possible to blind patients in this study and there was some non-compliance with the allocated treatment interventions. Surgeons providing partial knee replacement were relatively experienced with the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Both total knee replacement and partial knee replacement are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes and have similar reoperation and complication rates. Some patient-reported measures of treatment approval were significantly higher for partial knee replacement than for total knee replacement. Partial knee replacement was more cost-effective (more effective and cost saving) than total knee replacement at 5 years. FUTURE WORK: Further (10-year) follow-up is in progress to assess the longer-term stability of these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01352247. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?: Two types of knee replacement are available for patients with arthritis of the inner part of their knee: a partial knee replacement or a total knee replacement. It is not known which replacement offers most benefit for the patient or for the health-care system. WHAT DID WE DO?: We performed a large study involving 528 patients at 27 hospitals with 68 experienced surgeons, in which half of the patients underwent partial knee replacement and the other half underwent total knee replacement. We took yearly scores and measures, including pain, function, whether or not the operation was successful, and the costs of each patient for 5 years. Comparison between treatments was assessed at 5 years post operation. WHAT DID WE FIND?: Good outcomes and relatively few complications were observed after both operations. The measurements taken to assess the clinical benefit were largely very similar between the two groups. Where differences did occur at 5 years, there were only small differences between the two knee replacements and partial knee replacement was generally favoured. Some measurements, however, did show a larger difference between the two groups, including whether or not the operation addressed the patients' problems and whether or not the patient would have the operation again. These measurements were also in favour of partial knee replacement, but caution is required not to overstate importance, as patients in the study knew which device they had had implanted. The number of patients requiring further operations or revision surgery was similar in the two groups. This last finding contrasts with information from previously obtained, mainly non-randomised, studies and is of high relevance. The cost of each operation in relation to the benefit obtained was clearly in favour of partial knee replacement. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: Both operations are effective for use in the NHS. There appear to be some modest clinical advantages for patients to undergo partial knee replacement over total knee replacement but, importantly, the study casts doubt over previous concerns on high reoperation rates for partial knee replacement. The study has shown that reoperation rates recorded from different sources (cohort or trials) can be conflicting.

Assessment on patient outcomes of primary hip replacement: an interrupted time series analysis from 'The National Joint Registry of England and Wales'.

OBJECTIVES: Effects of the UK Department of Health's national Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Programme on outcomes after primary hip replacement. DESIGN: Natural experimental study using interrupted time series to assess the changes in trends before, during and after ERAS implementation (April 2009 to March 2011). SETTING: Surgeries in the UK National Joint Registry were linked with Hospital Episode Statistics containing inpatient episodes from National Health Service trusts in England and patient reported outcome measures. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years from 2008 to 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Regression coefficients of monthly means of length of hospital stay, bed day cost, change in Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) 6 months post-surgery, complications 6 months post-surgery and revision rates 5 years post-surgery. RESULTS: 438 921 primary hip replacements were identified. Hospital stays shortened from 5.6 days in April 2008 to 3.6 in December 2016. There were also improvements in bed day costs (£7573 in April 2008 to £5239 in December 2016), positive change in self-reported OHS from baseline to 6 months post-surgery (17.7 points in April 2008 to 22.9 points in December 2016), complication rates (4.1% in April 2008 to 1.7% March 2016) and 5 year revision rates (5.9 per 1000 implant-years (95% CI 4.8 to 7.2) in April 2008 to 2.9 (95% CI 2.2 to 3.9) in December 2011). The positive trends in all outcomes started before ERAS was implemented and continued during and after the programme. CONCLUSIONS: Patient outcomes after hip replacement have improved over the last decade. A national ERAS programme maintained this improvement but did not alter the existing rate of change.

Relationship between cricket participation, health and well-being: scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Cricket is a popular sport played by 2.5 billion people of all ages and abilities. However, cricket participation is decreasing in the UK, despite an increased focus of governments on increasing sport participation to enhance public health. Understanding the health benefits and mitigating the health risks of cricket participation may help cricket organisations promote cricket participation while optimising the long-term health of cricket participants. Currently, there is no literature review on the relationship between cricket participation, health and well-being; thus, this relationship remains unclear. Therefore, the aims of this scoping review were (1) to investigate the relationship between cricket participation, health and well-being and (ii) to identify the research gaps related to cricket, health and well-being. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Due to the broad nature of our research question and the large number of health outcomes assessed within the cricket literature and to facilitate identification of research gaps, a scoping review methodology was used. The methodology of this paper was informed by previous scoping review protocols and best practice methodological frameworks. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Web of Science and PEDro and grey literature sources (Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry and ProQuest) will be systematically searched. Studies that assess a construct related to health and/or well-being in current and/or former cricketers from all ages and standards of play will be eligible. Two reviewers will independently screen full texts of identified studies for eligibility and will perform data extraction. Results will be presented in tabular and graphical forms and will be reported descriptively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research is exempt from ethics approval due to the data being available through published and public available resources. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed sports and exercise medicine journal regardless of positive or negative findings. In addition, results will be disseminated through multiple platforms, including conference presentations and social media using multimedia resources (eg, infographics, animations, videos, podcasts and blogs), to engage stakeholder groups, including cricketers, cricket coaches, sporting bodies, sports medicine professionals and policy makers. There findings will inform clinical decision making, policy changes and future research agendas.

The Osteoarthritis Thumb Therapy (OTTER) II Trial: a study protocol for a three-arm multi-centre randomised placebo controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and efficacy and cost-effectiveness of splints for symptomatic thumb base osteoarthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The economic cost of osteoarthritis (OA) is high. At least 4.4 million people have hand OA in the UK. Symptomatic thumb base OA affects 20% of people over 55 years, causing more pain, work and functional disability than OA elsewhere in the hand. Most evidence-based guidelines recommend splinting for hand OA. Splints that support or immobilise the thumb base are routinely used despite there being limited evidence on their effectiveness. The potential effects of placebo interventions in OA are acknowledged, but few studies investigate the clinical efficacy of rehabilitation interventions nor the impact of any placebo effects associated with splints. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants aged 30 years and over with symptomatic thumb base OA will be recruited into the trial from secondary care occupational therapy and physiotherapy centres. Following informed consent, participants will complete a baseline questionnaire and then be randomised into one of three treatment arms: a self-management programme, a self-management programme plus a verum thumb splint or a self-management programme plus a placebo thumb splint. The primary outcome is the Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) hand pain scale. The study endpoint is 8 weeks after baseline. Baseline assessments will be carried out prior to randomisation and outcomes collected at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted and individual qualitative interviews conducted with up to 40 participants after 8 weeks to explore perceptions and outcome expectations of verum and placebo splints and exercise. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee approved this study (16/SC/0188). The findings will be disseminated to health professional conferences, journals and lay publications for patient organisations. The research will contribute to improving the management of thumb base OA and help clinicians and patients make informed decisions about the value of different interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN54744256.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Late-stage isolated medial knee osteoarthritis can be treated with total knee replacement (TKR) or partial knee replacement (PKR). There is high variation in treatment choice and little robust evidence to guide selection. The Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT) therefore aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TKR versus PKR in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee, and this represents an analysis of the main endpoints at 5 years. METHODS: Our multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was done at 27 UK sites. We used a combined expertise-based and equipoise-based approach, in which patients with isolated osteoarthritis of the medial compartment of the knee and who satisfied general requirements for a medial PKR were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PKR or TKR by surgeons who were either expert in and willing to perform both surgeries or by a surgeon with particular expertise in the allocated procedure. The primary endpoint was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 5 years after randomisation in all patients assigned to groups. Health-care costs (in UK 2017 prices) and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN03013488) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01352247). FINDINGS: Between Jan 18, 2010, and Sept 30, 2013, we assessed 962 patients for their eligibility, of whom 431 (45%) patients were excluded (121 [13%] patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 310 [32%] patients declined to participate) and 528 (55%) patients were randomly assigned to groups. 94% of participants responded to the follow-up survey 5 years after their operation. At the 5-year follow-up, we found no difference in OKS between groups (mean difference 1·04, 95% CI -0·42 to 2·50; p=0·159). In our within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis, we found that PKR was more effective (0·240 additional quality-adjusted life-years, 95% CI 0·046 to 0·434) and less expensive (-£910, 95% CI -1503 to -317) than TKR during the 5 years of follow-up. This finding was a result of slightly better outcomes, lower costs of surgery, and lower follow-up health-care costs with PKR than TKR. INTERPRETATION: Both TKR and PKR are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes, and result in a similar incidence of re-operations and complications. Based on our clinical findings, and results regarding the lower costs and better cost-effectiveness with PKR during the 5-year study period, we suggest that PKR should be considered the first choice for patients with late-stage isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

The Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine tool to select candidates for hip and knee replacement surgery: development and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: There is no good evidence to support the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in setting preoperative thresholds for referral for hip and knee replacement surgery. Despite this, the practice is widespread in the NHS. OBJECTIVES/RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Can clinical outcome tools be used to set thresholds for hip or knee replacement? What is the relationship between the choice of threshold and the cost-effectiveness of surgery? METHODS: A systematic review identified PROMs used to assess patients undergoing hip/knee replacement. Their measurement properties were compared and supplemented by analysis of existing data sets. For each candidate score, we calculated the absolute threshold (a preoperative level above which there is no potential for improvement) and relative thresholds (preoperative levels above which individuals are less likely to improve than others). Owing to their measurement properties and the availability of data from their current widespread use in the NHS, the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) were selected as the most appropriate scores to use in developing the Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine (ACHE) tool. The change in score and the probability of an improvement were then calculated and modelled using preoperative and postoperative OKS/OHSs and PROM scores, thereby creating the ACHE tool. Markov models were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of total hip/knee arthroplasty in the NHS for different preoperative values of OKS/OHSs over a 10-year period. The threshold values were used to model how the ACHE tool may change the number of referrals in a single UK musculoskeletal hub. A user group was established that included patients, members of the public and health-care representatives, to provide stakeholder feedback throughout the research process. RESULTS: From a shortlist of four scores, the OHS and OKS were selected for the ACHE tool based on their measurement properties, calculated preoperative thresholds and cost-effectiveness data. The absolute threshold was 40 for the OHS and 41 for the OKS using the preferred improvement criterion. A range of relative thresholds were calculated based on the relationship between a patient's preoperative score and their probability of improving after surgery. For example, a preoperative OHS of 35 or an OKS of 30 translates to a 75% probability of achieving a good outcome from surgical intervention. The economic evaluation demonstrated that hip and knee arthroplasty cost of < £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for patients with any preoperative score below the absolute thresholds (40 for the OHS and 41 for the OKS). Arthroplasty was most cost-effective for patients with lower preoperative scores. LIMITATIONS: The ACHE tool supports but does not replace the shared decision-making process required before an individual decides whether or not to undergo surgery. CONCLUSION: The OHS and OKS can be used in the ACHE tool to assess an individual patient's suitability for hip/knee replacement surgery. The system enables evidence-based and informed threshold setting in accordance with local resources and policies. At a population level, both hip and knee arthroplasty are highly cost-effective right up to the absolute threshold for intervention. Our stakeholder user group felt that the ACHE tool was a useful evidence-based clinical tool to aid referrals and that it should be trialled in NHS clinical practice to establish its feasibility. FUTURE WORK: Future work could include (1) a real-world study of the ACHE tool to determine its acceptability to patients and general practitioners and (2) a study of the role of the ACHE tool in supporting referral decisions. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Patients with severe hip and knee arthritis may require joint replacement. General practitioners make the decision to refer patients to hospital based on an assessment of their symptoms. Pain and function can be measured using patient questionnaires and the questionnaire scores can indicate whether or not the severity of disease warrants referral (i.e. whether or not the patient is a candidate for joint replacement based on their 'capacity to benefit'). However, we do not know whether or not basing treatment decisions on such scores is correct, nor do we know what exact pain score thresholds should be used for referral. After a thorough search, we found that the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores were the best instruments. A high score (i.e. a maximum score of 48) indicates less pain and better function. The threshold values for referral for surgery were scores of 40 for hips and 41 for knees. The process of evaluating scoring systems, the choice of scoring systems and the threshold values were discussed and agreed by a panel of patients and by doctors throughout the study. Most patients with severe joint pain benefit from joint replacement, and these operations are cost-effective. However, above a certain level (a score of 40 for hips and 41 for knees), patients are not thought to typically benefit from surgery. Below these values, lower presurgery scores indicate a steadily increasing likelihood of benefit in terms of reduced pain and better function. This information provides the basis for a tool to help doctors decide who to refer for joint replacement: the Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine (ACHE). Use of the ACHE tool prevents patients who are unlikely to benefit from joint replacement being referred unnecessarily and allows the NHS to concentrate resources on those who will benefit most from arthroplasty treatment.

Recommendations for the Reporting of Harms in Manuscripts on Clinical Trials Assessing Osteoarthritis Drugs: A Consensus Statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence of under-reporting of harms in manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared with the volume of raw data retrieved from these trials. Many guidelines have been developed to tackle this, but they have failed to address some important issues that would allow for standardization and transparency. As a consequence, harms reporting in manuscripts remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) aimed to deliver accurate recommendations for better reporting of harms in clinical trials manuscripts on anti-osteoarthritis (OA) drugs. These could help to better inform clinicians on harms recorded in RCTs and further help researchers conducting meta-analyses. METHODS: Using the outcomes of several systematic reviews on the safety of anti-OA drugs, we summarized the ways in which harms have been reported in OA RCT manuscripts to date. Next, we drafted some recommendations and initiated a modified Delphi process that involved a panel of clinicians and clinical researchers to build an expert consensus on recommendations from the ESCEO for the reporting of harms in future manuscripts on RCTs assessing anti-OA drugs. RESULTS: These recommendations emphasize that all treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) should always be taken into account for harms reporting, with no frequency threshold, and describe how specific AEs should be reported; they also provide a list of the most relevant organ systems to be considered according to each class of drug for reporting of harms within the results section of a manuscript. Irrespective of the drug, the ESCEO recommends that total, severe and serious AEs and withdrawals due to AEs should always be reported; guidance on the reporting of specific events pertaining to each category is provided. The ESCEO also recommends the reporting of information on drug effect on biological parameters, with specific guidance. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations may contribute to improve transparency in the field of safety of anti-OA medications. Pharmaceutical companies developing drugs for OA, and researchers conducting clinical trials, are encouraged to comply with them when reporting harms-related results in manuscripts on RCTs. The ESCEO also encourages journals to refer to the ESCEO recommendations in their instructions to authors for the publication of manuscripts on trials of anti-OA medications.

Treatment of first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: the UK TASH-D cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder dislocations are the most common joint dislocations seen in emergency departments. Most traumatic cases are anterior and cause recurrent dislocations. Management options include surgical and conservative treatments. There is a lack of evidence about which method is most effective after the first traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (TASD). OBJECTIVES: To produce UK age- and sex-specific incidence rates for TASD. To assess whether or not surgery within 6 months of a first-time TASD decreases re-dislocation rates compared with no surgery. To identify clinical predictors of recurrent dislocation. DESIGN: A population-based cohort study of first-time TASD patients in the UK. An initial validation study and subsequent propensity-score-matched analysis to compare re-dislocation rates between surgery and no surgery after a first-time TASD. Prediction modelling was used to identify potential predictors of recurrent dislocation. SETTING: UK primary and secondary care data. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a first-time TASD between 1997 and 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Stabilisation surgery within 6 months of a first-time TASD (compared with no surgery). Stabilisation surgery within 12 months of a first-time TASD was also carried out as a sensitivity analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Re-dislocation rate up to 2 years after the first TASD. METHODS: Eligible patients were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) (1997-2015). Accuracy of shoulder dislocation coding was internally validated using the CPRD General Practitioner questionnaire service. UK age- and sex-specific incidence rates for TASD were externally validated against rates from the USA and Canada. A propensity-score-matched analysis using linked CPRD and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data compared re-dislocation rates for patients aged 16-35 years, comparing surgery with no surgery. Multivariable Cox regression models for predicting re-dislocation were developed for the surgical and non-surgical cohorts. RESULTS: Shoulder dislocation was coded correctly for 89% of cases in the CPRD [95% confidence interval (CI) 83% to 95%], with a 'primary' dislocation confirmed for 76% of cases (95% CI 67% to 85%). Far fewer patients than expected received stabilisation surgery within 6 months of a first TASD, leading to an underpowered study. Around 20% of re-dislocation rates were observed for both surgical and non-surgical patients. The sensitivity analysis at 12 months also showed little difference in re-dislocation rates. Missing data on risk factors limited the value of the prediction modelling; however, younger age, epilepsy and sex (male) were identified as statistically significant predictors of re-dislocation. LIMITATIONS: Far fewer than the expected number of patients had surgery after a first-time TASD, resulting in an underpowered study. This and residual confounding from missing risk factors mean that it is not possible to draw valid conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides, for the first time, UK data on the age- and sex-specific incidence rates for TASD. Most TASD occurs in men, but an unexpected increased incidence was observed in women aged > 50 years. Surgery after a first-time TASD is uncommon in the NHS. Re-dislocation rates for patients receiving surgery after their first TASD are higher than previously expected; however, important residual confounding risk factors were not recorded in NHS primary and secondary care databases, thus preventing useful recommendations. FUTURE WORK: The high incidence of TASD justifies investigation into preventative measures for young men participating in contact sports, as well as investigating the risk factors in women aged > 50 years. A randomised controlled trial would account for key confounders missing from CPRD and HES data. A national TASD registry would allow for a more relevant data capture for this patient group. STUDY REGISTRATION: Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (ISAC protocol 15_0260). FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (TASD) happens when the top of the arm bone is forced frontwards out of the shoulder socket. After a TASD, the shoulder joint can become 'unstable' and keep dislocating. The main treatments are surgery or physiotherapy; however, we do not know which treatment is best at stopping more dislocations. Two large NHS computer databases were studied to assess this problem. This has allowed us to produce information on the extent of this problem in the UK. We also looked for any differences in the number of people who suffered more shoulder dislocations when treated with either surgery or no surgery. The results showed that young men aged 16­20 years and women aged > 50 years suffer the most with this problem. In young people, the cause is thought to be due to sports injuries. These findings in women aged > 50 years are new and suggest that further research is needed to discover what puts them at a greater risk of TASD. When patients who had surgery and those who did not were compared, there appeared to be no difference in the number of people suffering a re-dislocation. Although, overall, this might suggest that surgery after only one dislocation does not have any extra benefit in preventing more dislocations, this research discovered that important information used to help decide on whether or not surgical treatment is needed is not reported in the databases. Some patients may be at a greater risk of more dislocations than other patients based on risk factors, such as sport and occupation, and this information is not recorded in the NHS databases. Therefore, the research question cannot be answered by studying these NHS databases and so other methods, such as a research trial or a custom database built especially for shoulder dislocation patients, would be needed.

An updated algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

OBJECTIVES: The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) sought to revisit the 2014 algorithm recommendations for knee osteoarthritis (OA), in light of recent efficacy and safety evidence, in order to develop an updated stepwise algorithm that provides practical guidance for the prescribing physician that is applicable in Europe and internationally. METHODS: Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process, a summary of evidence document for each intervention in OA was provided to all members of an ESCEO working group, who were required to evaluate and vote on the strength of recommendation for each intervention. Based on the evidence collected, and on the strength of recommendations afforded by consensus of the working group, the final algorithm was constructed. RESULTS: An algorithm for management of knee OA comprising a stepwise approach and incorporating consensus on 15 treatment recommendations was prepared by the ESCEO working group. Both "strong" and "weak" recommendations were afforded to different interventions. The algorithm highlights the continued importance of non-pharmacological interventions throughout the management of OA. Benefits and limitations of different pharmacological treatments are explored in this article, with particular emphasis on safety issues highlighted by recent literature analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The updated ESCEO stepwise algorithm, developed by consensus from clinical experts in OA and informed by available evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatments, provides practical, current guidance that will enable clinicians to deliver patient-centric care in OA practice.

Rheumatoid factor testing in Spanish primary care: A population-based cohort study including 4.8 million subjects and almost half a million measurements.

OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid factor (RF) testing is used in primary care in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however a positive RF may occur without RA. Incorrect use of RF testing may lead to increased costs and delayed diagnoses. The aim was to assess the performance of RF as a test for RA and to estimate the costs associated with its use in a primary care setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using the Information System for the Development of Research in Primary Care database (contains primary care records and laboratory results of >80% of the Catalonian population, Spain). Participants were patients ≥18 years with ≥1 RF test performed between 01/01/2006 and 31/12/2011, without a pre-existing diagnosis of RA. Outcome measures were an incident diagnosis of RA within 1 year of testing, and the cost of testing per case of RA. RESULTS: 495,434/4,796,498 (10.3%) patients were tested at least once. 107,362 (21.7%) of those tested were sero-positive of which 2768 (2.6%) were diagnosed with RA within 1 year as were 1141/388,072 (0.3%) sero-negative participants. The sensitivity of RF was 70.8% (95% CI 69.4-72.2), specificity 78.7% (78.6-78.8), and positive and negative predictive values 2.6% (2.5-2.7) and 99.7% (99.6-99.7) respectively. Approximately €3,963,472 was spent, with a cost of €1432 per true positive case. CONCLUSIONS: Although 10% of patients were tested for RF, most did not have RA. Limiting testing to patients with a higher pre-test probability would significantly reduce the cost of testing.

Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST) Trial: a randomised controlled trial of a combined physical and psychological intervention for older adults with neurogenic claudication, a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis is common in older adults. The effectiveness of conservative interventions is not known. The aim of the study is to estimate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a physiotherapist-delivered, combined physical and psychological intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, multicentred, randomised controlled trial. Participants are randomised to a combined physical and psychological intervention (Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST) programme) or best practice advice (control). Community-dwelling adults, 65 years and over, with neurogenic claudication are identified from community and secondary care services. Recruitment is supplemented using a primary care-based cohort. Participants are registered prospectively and randomised in a 2:1 ratio (intervention:control) using a web-based service to ensure allocation concealment. The target sample size is a minimum of 402. The BOOST programme consists of an individual assessment and twelve 90 min classes, including education and discussion underpinned by cognitive behavioural techniques, exercises and walking circuit. During and after the classes, participants undertake home exercises and there are two support telephone calls to promote adherence with the exercises. Best practice advice is delivered in one to three individual sessions with a physiotherapist. The primary outcome is the Oswestry Disability Index at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include the 6 Minute Walk Test, Short Physical Performance Battery, Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Gait Self-Efficacy Scale. Outcomes are measured at 6 and 12 months by researchers who are masked to treatment allocation. The primary statistical analysis will be by 'intention to treat'. There is a parallel health economic evaluation and qualitative study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was given on 3 March 2016 (National Research Ethics Committee number: 16/LO/0349). This protocol adheres to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials checklist. The results will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines. A plain English summary will be published on the BOOST website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12698674; Pre-results.

UK podiatrists' experiences of podiatry services for people living with arthritis: a qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: Provision of podiatry services, like other therapies in the UK, is an area that lacks guidance by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Many individuals living with arthritis in the UK are not eligible to access NHS podiatry services. The primary aim of this investigation was to understand the views of podiatry clinicians on their experiences of referral, access, provision and treatment for foot problems for patients who have arthritis. METHODS: Focus groups were undertaken to explore, in-depth, individual views of podiatrists working in the UK to gain feedback on experiences of barriers and facilitators to referral, access, provision and treatment for foot problems for individuals living with arthritis. A purposive sampling strategy was adopted and two, semi-structured, focus group interviews conducted, involving 12 podiatrists from both NHS and independent sectors. To account for geographical variations one focus group took place in each of 2 predetermined 'zones' of the UK; Yorkshire and Hampshire. Thematic analysis was employed to identify key meanings and report patterns within the data. RESULTS: The key themes derived from the podiatry clinician focus groups suggest a variety of factors influencing demand for, and burden of, foot pain within the UK. Participants expressed frustration on having a service that accepts and treats patients according to their condition, rather than their complaint. Additionally, concern was conveyed over variations in the understanding of stakeholders' views of what podiatry is and what podiatrists aim to achieve for patients. CONCLUSION: Podiatrists interviewed believed that many individuals living with arthritis in the UK are not eligible to access NHS podiatry services and that this may be, in part, due to confusion over what is known about podiatry and access criteria. Essentially, podiatrists interviewed called for a timely renaissance of current systems, to newer models of care that meet the foot care needs of individual patients' circumstances and incorporate national multi-disciplinary guidance. Through this project, we have formulated key recommendations that are directed towards improving what other stakeholders (including GPs, commissioners and users of podiatry services) know about the effectiveness of podiatry and also to futureproof the profession of podiatry.

Associations between preoperative Oxford hip and knee scores and costs and quality of life of patients undergoing primary total joint replacement in the NHS England: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess how costs and quality of life (measured by EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)) before and after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) vary with age, gender and preoperative Oxford hip score (OHS) and Oxford knee score (OKS). DESIGN: Regression analyses using prospectively collected data from clinical trials, cohort studies and administrative data bases. SETTING: UK secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women undergoing primary THR or TKR. The Hospital Episode Statistics data linked to patient-reported outcome measures included 602 176 patients undergoing hip or knee replacement who were followed up for up to 6 years. The Knee Arthroplasty Trial included 2217 patients undergoing TKR who were followed up for 12 years. The Clinical Outcomes in Arthroplasty Study cohort included 806 patients undergoing THR and 484 patients undergoing TKR who were observed for 1 year. OUTCOME MEASURES: EQ-5D-3L quality of life before and after surgery, costs of primary arthroplasty, costs of revision arthroplasty and the costs of hospital readmissions and ambulatory costs in the year before and up to 12 years after joint replacement. RESULTS: Average postoperative utility for patients at the 5th percentile of the OHS/OKS distribution was 0.61/0.5 for THR/TKR and 0.89/0.85 for patients at the 95th percentile. The difference between postoperative and preoperative EQ-5D utility was highest for patients with preoperative OHS/OKS lower than 10. However, postoperative EQ-5D utility was higher than preoperative utility for all patients with OHS≤46 and those with OKS≤44. In contrast, costs were generally higher for patients with low preoperative OHS/OKS than those with high OHS/OKS. For example, costs of hospital readmissions within 12 months after primary THR/TKR were £740/£888 for patients at the 5th percentile compared with £314/£404 at the 95th percentile of the OHS/OKS distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that costs and quality of life associated with total joint replacement vary systematically with preoperative symptoms measured by OHS/OKS.

Trends and determinants of length of stay and hospital reimbursement following knee and hip replacement: evidence from linked primary care and NHS hospital records from 1997 to 2014.

OBJECTIVES: To measure changes in length of stay following total knee and hip replacement (TKR and THR) between 1997 and 2014 and estimate the impact on hospital reimbursement, all else being equal. Further, to assess the degree to which observed trends can be explained by improved efficiency or changes in patient profiles. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using routinely collected data. SETTING: National Health Service primary care records from 1995 to 2014 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink were linked to hospital inpatient data from 1997 to 2014 in Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care. PARTICIPANTS: Study participants had a diagnosis of osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. INTERVENTIONS: Primary TKR, primary THR, revision TKR and revision THR. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of stay and hospital reimbursement. RESULTS: 10 260 primary TKR, 10 961 primary THR, 505 revision TKR and 633 revision THR were included. Expected length of stay fell from 16.0 days (95% CI 14.9 to 17.2) in 1997 to 5.4 (5.2 to 5.6) in 2014 for primary TKR and from 14.4 (13.7 to 15.0) to 5.6 (5.4 to 5.8) for primary THR, leading to savings of £1537 and £1412, respectively. Length of stay fell from 29.8 (17.5 to 50.5) to 11.0 (8.3 to 14.6) for revision TKR and from 18.3 (11.6 to 28.9) to 12.5 (9.3 to 16.8) for revision THR, but no significant reduction in reimbursement was estimated. The estimated effect of year of surgery remained similar when patient characteristics were included. CONCLUSIONS: Length of stay for joint replacement fell substantially from 1997 to 2014. These reductions have translated into substantial savings. While patient characteristics affect length of stay and reimbursement, patient profiles have remained broadly stable over time. The observed reductions appear to be mostly explained by improved efficiency.