REST: a preoperative tailored sleep intervention for patients undergoing total knee replacement - feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a novel preoperative tailored sleep intervention for patients undergoing total knee replacement. DESIGN: Feasibility two-arm two-centre RCT using 1:1 randomisation with an embedded qualitative study. SETTING: Two National Health Service (NHS) secondary care hospitals in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Preoperative adult patients identified from total knee replacement waiting lists with disturbed sleep, defined as a score of 0-28 on the Sleep Condition Indicator questionnaire. INTERVENTION: The REST intervention is a preoperative tailored sleep assessment and behavioural intervention package delivered by an Extended Scope Practitioner (ESP), with a follow-up phone call 4 weeks postintervention. All participants received usual care as provided by the participating NHS hospitals. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary aim was to assess the feasibility of conducting a full trial. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, 1-week presurgery, and 3 months postsurgery. Data collected to determine feasibility included the number of eligible patients, recruitment rates and intervention adherence. Qualitative work explored the acceptability of the study processes and intervention delivery through interviews with ESPs and patients. RESULTS: Screening packs were posted to 378 patients and 57 patients were randomised. Of those randomised, 20 had surgery within the study timelines. An appointment was attended by 25/28 (89%) of participants randomised to the intervention. Follow-up outcomes measures were completed by 40/57 (70%) of participants presurgery and 15/57 (26%) postsurgery. Where outcome measures were completed, data completion rates were 80% or higher for outcomes at all time points, apart from the painDETECT: 86% complete at baseline, 72% at presurgery and 67% postsurgery. Interviews indicated that most participants found the study processes and intervention acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study has demonstrated that with some amendments to processes and design, an RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the REST intervention is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14233189.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patient reported outcomes improve after single stage versus two stage revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection of the hip, and to determine the cost effectiveness of these procedures. DESIGN: Pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: High volume tertiary referral centres or orthopaedic units in the UK (n=12) and in Sweden (n=3), recruiting from 1 March 2015 to 19 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 140 adults (aged ≥18 years) with a prosthetic joint infection of the hip who required revision (65 randomly assigned to single stage and 75 to two stage revision). INTERVENTIONS: A computer generated 1:1 randomisation list stratified by hospital was used to allocate participants with prosthetic joint infection of the hip to a single stage or a two stage revision procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary intention-to-treat outcome was pain, stiffness, and functional limitations 18 months after randomisation, measured by the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and joint infection. The economic evaluation (only assessed in UK participants) compared quality adjusted life years and costs between the randomised groups. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 71 years (standard deviation 9) and 51 (36%) were women. WOMAC scores did not differ between groups at 18 months (mean difference 0.13 (95% confidence interval -8.20 to 8.46), P=0.98); however, the single stage procedure was better at three months (11.53 (3.89 to 19.17), P=0.003), but not from six months onwards. Intraoperative events occurred in five (8%) participants in the single stage group and 20 (27%) in the two stage group (P=0.01). At 18 months, nine (14%) participants in the single stage group and eight (11%) in the two stage group had at least one marker of possible ongoing infection (P=0.62). From the perspective of healthcare providers and personal social services, single stage revision was cost effective with an incremental net monetary benefit of £11 167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21 696) at a £20 000 per quality adjusted life years threshold (£1.0; $1.1; €1.4). CONCLUSIONS: At 18 months, single stage revision compared with two stage revision for prosthetic joint infection of the hip showed no superiority by patient reported outcome. Single stage revision had a better outcome at three months, fewer intraoperative complications, and was cost effective. Patients prefer early restoration of function, therefore, when deciding treatment, surgeons should consider patient preferences and the cost effectiveness of single stage surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN10956306.

Choice between implants in knee replacement: protocol for a Bayesian network meta-analysis, analysis of joint registries and economic decision model to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of knee implants for NHS patients-The KNee Implant Prostheses Study (KNIPS).

INTRODUCTION: Knee replacements are highly successful for many people, but if a knee replacement fails, revision surgery is generally required. Surgeons and patients may choose from a range of implant components and combinations that make up knee replacement constructs, all with potential implications for how long a knee replacement will last. To inform surgeon and patient decisions, a comprehensive synthesis of data from randomised controlled trials is needed to evaluate the effects of different knee replacement implants on overall construct survival. Due to limited follow-up in trials, joint registry analyses are also needed to assess the long-term survival of constructs. Finally, economic modelling can identify cost-effective knee replacement constructs for different patient groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this protocol, we describe systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of knee replacement constructs used in total and unicompartmental knee replacement and analyses of two national joint registries to assess long-term outcomes. Knee replacement constructs are defined by bearing materials and mobility, constraint, fixation and patella resurfacing. For men and women in different age groups, we will compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of knee replacement constructs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Systematic reviews are secondary analyses of published data with no ethical approval required. We will design a common joint registry analysis plan and provide registry representatives with information for submission to research or ethics committees. The project has been assessed by the National Health Service (NHS) REC committee and does not require ethical review.Study findings will be disseminated to clinicians, researchers and administrators through open access articles, presentations and websites. Specific UK-based groups will be informed of results including National Institute for Health Research and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as well as international orthopaedic associations and charities. Effective dissemination to patients will be guided by our patient-public involvement group and include written lay summaries and infographics. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019134059 and CRD42019138015.

Choice of Prosthetic Implant Combinations in Total Hip Replacement: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using UK and Swedish Hip Joint Registries Data.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic implants used in total hip replacements (THR) have a range of bearing surface combinations (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, and metal-on-metal), head sizes (small [<36 mm in diameter] and large [≥36 mm in diameter]), and fixation techniques (cemented, uncemented, hybrid, and reverse hybrid). These can influence prosthesis survival, patients' quality of life, and healthcare costs. OBJECTIVES: To compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of implants for patients of different age and sex profiles. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of various implants against small-head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants. The probability that patients required 1 or more revision surgeries was estimated from analyses of more than 1 million patients in the UK and Swedish hip joint registries, for men and women younger than 55, 55 to 64, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and 85 years and older. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices, national tariffs, and the literature. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THR in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Small-head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants were the most cost-effective for men and women older than 65 years. These findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. Small-head cemented ceramic-on-polyethylene implants were most cost-effective in men and women younger than 65 years, but these results were more uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: The older the patient group, the more likely that the cheapest implants, small-head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants, were cost-effective. We found no evidence that uncemented, hybrid, or reverse hybrid implants were the most cost-effective option for any patient group. Our findings can influence clinical practice and procurement decisions for healthcare payers worldwide.

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the STAR care pathway compared to usual care for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: study protocol for a UK randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of patients experience chronic pain after total knee replacement. There is little evidence for effective interventions for the management of this pain, and current healthcare provision is patchy and inconsistent. Given the complexity of this condition, multimodal and individualised interventions matched to pain characteristics are needed. We have undertaken a comprehensive programme of work to develop a care pathway for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement. This protocol describes the design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention care pathway compared with usual care. METHODS: This is a pragmatic two-armed, open, multi-centred randomised controlled trial conducted within secondary care in the UK. Patients will be screened at 2 months after total knee replacement and 381 patients with chronic pain at 3 months postoperatively will be recruited. Recruitment processes will be optimised through qualitative research during a 6-month internal pilot phase. Patients are randomised using a 2:1 intervention:control allocation ratio. All participants receive usual care as provided by their hospital. The intervention comprises an assessment clinic appointment at 3 months postoperatively with an Extended Scope Practitioner and up to six telephone follow-up calls over 12 months. In the assessment clinic, a standardised protocol is followed to identify potential underlying causes for the chronic pain and enable appropriate onward referrals to existing services for targeted and individualised treatment. Outcomes are assessed by questionnaires at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The co-primary outcomes are pain severity and pain interference assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes relate to resource use, function, neuropathic pain, mental well-being, use of pain medications, satisfaction with pain relief, pain frequency, capability, health-related quality of life and bodily pain. After trial completion, up to 30 patients in the intervention group will be interviewed about their experiences of the care pathway. DISCUSSION: If shown to be clinically and cost-effective, this care pathway intervention could improve the management of chronic pain after total knee replacement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN92545361 ), prospectively registered on 30 August 2016.

Time to take matters into your own hands.

Despite planning and public well-being campaigns, the health of the population continues to deteriorate due to lifestyle-related conditions such as diabetes, obesity, smoking-related bronchitis, and alcohol and drug misuse.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of outpatient physiotherapy after knee replacement for osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary total knee replacement is a common operation that is performed to provide pain relief and restore functional ability. Inpatient physiotherapy is routinely provided after surgery to enhance recovery prior to hospital discharge. However, international variation exists in the provision of outpatient physiotherapy after hospital discharge. While evidence indicates that outpatient physiotherapy can improve short-term function, the longer term benefits are unknown. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to evaluate the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-week group-based outpatient physiotherapy intervention following knee replacement. METHODS/DESIGN: Two hundred and fifty-six patients waiting for knee replacement because of osteoarthritis will be recruited from two orthopaedic centres. Participants randomised to the usual-care group (n = 128) will be given a booklet about exercise and referred for physiotherapy if deemed appropriate by the clinical care team. The intervention group (n = 128) will receive the same usual care and additionally be invited to attend a group-based outpatient physiotherapy class starting 6 weeks after surgery. The 1-hour class will be run on a weekly basis over 6 weeks and will involve task-orientated and individualised exercises. The primary outcome will be the Lower Extremity Functional Scale at 12 months post-operative. Secondary outcomes include: quality of life, knee pain and function, depression, anxiety and satisfaction. Data collection will be by questionnaire prior to surgery and 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery and will include a resource-use questionnaire to enable a trial-based economic evaluation. Trial participation and satisfaction with the classes will be evaluated through structured telephone interviews. The primary statistical and economic analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis with and without imputation of missing data. The primary economic result will estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained from this intervention from a National Health Services (NHS) and personal social services perspective. DISCUSSION: This research aims to benefit patients and the NHS by providing evidence on the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of outpatient physiotherapy after knee replacement. If the intervention is found to be effective and cost-effective, implementation into clinical practice could lead to improvement in patients' outcomes and improved health care resource efficiency. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN32087234 , registered on 11 February 2015.

One-stage or two-stage revision surgery for prosthetic hip joint infection--the INFORM trial: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) affects approximately 1% of patients following total hip replacement (THR) and often results in severe physical and emotional suffering. Current surgical treatment options are debridement, antibiotics and implant retention; revision THR; excision of the joint and amputation. Revision surgery can be done as either a one-stage or two-stage operation. Both types of surgery are well-established practice in the NHS and result in similar rates of re-infection, but little is known about the impact of these treatments from the patient's perspective. The main aim of this randomised controlled trial is to determine whether there is a difference in patient-reported outcome measures 18 months after randomisation for one-stage or two-stage revision surgery. METHODS/DESIGN: INFORM (INFection ORthopaedic Management) is an open, two-arm, multi-centre, randomised, superiority trial. We aim to randomise 148 patients with eligible PJI of the hip from approximately seven secondary care NHS orthopaedic units from across England and Wales. Patients will be randomised via a web-based system to receive either a one-stage revision or a two-stage revision THR. Blinding is not possible due to the nature of the intervention. All patients will be followed up for 18 months. The primary outcome is the WOMAC Index, which assesses hip pain, function and stiffness, collected by questionnaire at 18 months. Secondary outcomes include the following: cost-effectiveness, complications, re-infection rates, objective hip function assessment and quality of life. A nested qualitative study will explore patients' and surgeons' experiences, including their views about trial participation and randomisation. DISCUSSION: INFORM is the first ever randomised trial to compare two widely accepted surgical interventions for the treatment of PJI: one-stage and two-stage revision THR. The results of the trial will benefit patients in the future as the main focus is on patient-reported outcomes: pain, function and wellbeing in the long term. Patients state that these outcomes are more important than those that are clinically derived (such as re-infection) and have been commonly used in previous non-randomised studies. Results from the INFORM trial will also benefit clinicians and NHS managers by enabling the comparison of these key interventions in terms of patients' complication rates, health and social resource use and their overall cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN10956306 (registered on 29 January 2015); UKCRN ID 18159.