The SEE-IT Trial: emergency medical services Streaming Enabled Evaluation In Trauma: a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of bystander video livestreaming from scene to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is becoming increasingly common to aid decision making about the resources required. Possible benefits include earlier, more appropriate dispatch and clinical and financial gains, but evidence is sparse. METHODS: A feasibility randomised controlled trial with an embedded process evaluation and exploratory economic evaluation where working shifts during six trial weeks were randomised 1:1 to use video livestreaming during eligible trauma incidents (using GoodSAM Instant-On-Scene) or standard care only. Pre-defined progression criteria were: (1) ≥ 70% callers (bystanders) with smartphones agreeing and able to activate live stream; (2) ≥ 50% requests to activate resulting in footage being viewed; (3) Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) stand-down rate reducing by ≥ 10% as a result of live footage; (4) no evidence of psychological harm in callers or staff/dispatchers. Observational sub-studies included (i) an inner-city EMS who routinely use video livestreaming to explore acceptability in a diverse population; and (ii) staff wellbeing in an EMS not using video livestreaming for comparison to the trial site. RESULTS: Sixty-two shifts were randomised, including 240 incidents (132 control; 108 intervention). Livestreaming was successful in 53 incidents in the intervention arm. Patient recruitment (to determine appropriateness of dispatch), and caller recruitment (to measure potential harm) were low (58/269, 22% of patients; 4/244, 2% of callers). Two progression criteria were met: (1) 86% of callers with smartphones agreed and were able to activate livestreaming; (2) 85% of requests to activate livestreaming resulted in footage being obtained; and two were indeterminate due to insufficient data: (3) 2/6 (33%) HEMS stand down due to livestreaming; (4) no evidence of psychological harm from survey, observations or interviews, but insufficient survey data from callers or comparison EMS site to be confident. Language barriers and older age were reported in interviews as potential challenges to video livestreaming by dispatchers in the inner-city EMS. CONCLUSIONS: Progression to a definitive RCT is supported by these findings. Bystander video livestreaming from scene is feasible to implement, acceptable to both 999 callers and dispatchers, and may aid dispatch decision-making. Further assessment of unintended consequences, benefits and harm is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 11449333 (22 March 2022). https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11449333.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Total Ankle Replacement Compared with Ankle Arthrodesis for Patients Aged 50-85 Years with End-Stage Ankle Osteoarthritis: The TARVA Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis suffer from reduced mobility and quality of life and the main surgical treatments are total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle fusion (AF). OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to calculate the mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of TAR compared with AF in patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis, over 52 weeks and over the patients' lifetime. METHOD: We conducted a cost-utility analysis of 282 participants from 17 UK centres recruited to a randomised controlled trial (TARVA). QALYs were calculated using index values from EQ-5D-5L. Resource use information was collected from case report forms and self-completed questionnaires. Primary analysis was within-trial analysis from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective, while secondary analyses were within-trial analysis from wider perspective and long-term economic modelling. Adjustments were made for baseline resource use and index values. RESULTS: Total cost at 52 weeks was higher in the TAR group compared with the AF group, from the NHS and PSS perspective (mean adjusted difference £2539, 95% confidence interval [CI] £1142, £3897). The difference became very small from the wider perspective (£155, 95% CI -  £1947, £2331). There was no significant difference between TAR and AF in terms of QALYs (mean adjusted difference 0.02, 95% CI -  0.015, 0.05) at 52 weeks post-operation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £131,999 per QALY gained 52 weeks post-operation. Long-term economic modelling resulted in an ICER of £4200 per QALY gained, and there is a 69% probability of TAR being cost effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: TAR does not appear to be cost effective over AF 52 weeks post-operation. A decision model suggests that TAR can be cost effective over the patients' lifetime but there is a need for longer-term prospectively collected data. Clinical trial registration ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555.

Total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis for patients aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis: the TARVA RCT.

Background: We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and complication rates of total ankle replacement with those of arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion) in the treatment of end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. Methods: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis who were aged 50-85 years and were suitable for both procedures were recruited from 17 UK hospitals and randomised using minimisation. The primary outcome was the change in the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain scores between the preoperative baseline and 52 weeks post surgery. Results: Between March 2015 and January 2019, 303 participants were randomised using a minimisation algorithm: 152 to total ankle replacement and 151 to ankle fusion. At 52 weeks, the mean (standard deviation) Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score was 31.4 (30.4) in the total ankle replacement arm (n = 136) and 36.8 (30.6) in the ankle fusion arm (n = 140); the adjusted difference in the change was -5.6 (95% confidence interval -12.5 to 1.4; p = 0.12) in the intention-to-treat analysis. By week 52, one patient in the total ankle replacement arm required revision. Rates of wound-healing issues (13.4% vs. 5.7%) and nerve injuries (4.2% vs. < 1%) were higher and the rate of thromboembolic events was lower (2.9% vs. 4.9%) in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. The bone non-union rate (based on plain radiographs) in the ankle fusion arm was 12.1%, but only 7.1% of patients had symptoms. A post hoc analysis of fixed-bearing total ankle replacement showed a statistically significant improvement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score (-11.1, 95% confidence interval -19.3 to -2.9; p = 0.008). We estimate a 69% likelihood that total ankle replacement is cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime. Limitations: This initial report contains only 52-week data, which must therefore be interpreted with caution. In addition, the pragmatic nature of the study means that there was heterogeneity between surgical implants and techniques. The trial was run across 17 NHS centres to ensure that decision-making streams reflected the standard of care in the NHS as closely as possible. Conclusions: Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' quality of life at 1 year, and both appear to be safe. When total ankle replacement was compared with ankle fusion overall, we were unable to show a statistically significant difference between the two arms in terms of our primary outcome measure. The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial is inconclusive in terms of superiority of total ankle replacement, as the 95% confidence interval for the adjusted treatment effect includes both a difference of zero and the minimal important difference of 12, but it can rule out the superiority of ankle fusion. A post hoc analysis comparing fixed-bearing total ankle replacement with ankle fusion showed a statistically significant improvement of total ankle replacement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score. Total ankle replacement appears to be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime based on long-term economic modelling. Future work: We recommend long-term follow-up of this important cohort, in particular radiological and clinical progress. We also recommend studies to explore the sensitivity of clinical scores to detect clinically important differences between arms when both have already achieved a significant improvement from baseline. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Each year, over 29,000 patients with ankle osteoarthritis seek a specialist opinion, of whom 4000 undergo NHS surgical treatment. The main surgical treatments for severe ankle osteoarthritis are total ankle replacement or arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion). Both are known to be good treatments to relieve pain, and each has its advantages. Total ankle replacement is a more popular patient choice than ankle fusion. When deciding whether to undergo ankle replacement or fusion, patients consult various sources, but the majority of them rely on the advice of their surgeon to make a final decision. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been a high-quality randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatments and there are no published guidelines on the most suitable management. In this study, 303 patients were randomised to a type of ankle surgery: 138 in the total ankle replacement arm and 144 in the ankle fusion arm received surgery. We found that both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' walking ability, but we did not find a statistically significant difference between the treatment arms based on our primary outcome measure at 1 year. When we considered the type of total ankle replacement implant, we found that the implant most commonly used in the NHS (a fixed-bearing two-component implant) had better outcomes at 1 year than ankle fusion. Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion appear to be safe. However, there were more wound-healing issues and nerve injuries in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. Twelve per cent of patients experienced bone non-union in the ankle fusion arm, but only 7.1% experienced symptoms. We estimate that there is a 69% chance that total ankle replacement would be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime. This study provides the NHS with important information that could help to obtain the best possible outcome for patients with severe ankle arthritis.

Total Ankle Replacement Versus Arthrodesis for End-Stage Ankle Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: End-stage ankle osteoarthritis causes severe pain and disability. There are no randomized trials comparing the 2 main surgical treatments: total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle fusion (AF). OBJECTIVE: To determine which treatment is superior in terms of clinical scores and adverse events. DESIGN: A multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized trial. (ISRCTN registry number: 60672307). SETTING: 17 National Health Service trusts across the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis, aged 50 to 85 years, and suitable for either procedure. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to TAR or AF surgical treatment. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was change in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing (MOXFQ-W/S) domain scores between baseline and 52 weeks after surgery. No blinding was possible. RESULTS: Between 6 March 2015 and 10 January 2019, a total of 303 patients were randomly assigned; mean age was 68 years, and 71% were men. Twenty-one patients withdrew before surgery, and 281 clinical scores were analyzed. At 52 weeks, the mean MOXFQ-W/S scores improved for both groups. The adjusted difference in the change in MOXFQ-W/S scores from baseline was -5.6 (95% CI, -12.5 to 1.4), showing that TAR improved more than AF, but the difference was not considered clinically or statistically significant. The number of adverse events was similar between groups (109 vs. 104), but there were more wound healing issues in the TAR group and more thromboembolic events and nonunion in the AF group. The symptomatic nonunion rate for AF was 7%. A post hoc analysis suggested superiority of fixed-bearing TAR over AF (-11.1 [CI, -19.3 to -2.9]). LIMITATION: Only 52-week data; pragmatic design creates heterogeneity of implants and surgical techniques. CONCLUSION: Both TAR and AF improve MOXFQ-W/S and had similar clinical scores and number of harms. Total ankle replacement had greater wound healing complications and nerve injuries, whereas AF had greater thromboembolism and nonunion, with a symptomatic nonunion rate of 7%. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute for Health and Care Research Heath Technology Assessment Programme.

Pain assessment tools in paediatric palliative care: A systematic review of psychometric properties and recommendations for clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Assessing pain in infants, children and young people with life-limiting conditions remains a challenge due to diverse patient conditions, types of pain and often a reduced ability or inability of patients to communicate verbally. AIM: To systematically identify pain assessment tools that are currently used in paediatric palliative care and examine their psychometric properties and feasibility and make recommendations for clinical practice. DESIGN: A systematic literature review and evaluation of psychometric properties of pain assessment tools of original peer-reviewed research published from inception of data sources to April 2021. DATA SOURCES: PsycINFO via ProQuest, Web of Science Core, Medline via Ovid, EMBASE, BIOSIS and CINAHL were searched from inception to April 2021. Hand searches of reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were performed. RESULTS: From 1168 articles identified, 201 papers were selected for full-text assessment. Thirty-four articles met the eligibility criteria and we examined the psychometric properties of 22 pain assessment tools. Overall, the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) had high cross-cultural validity, construct validity (hypothesis testing) and responsiveness; while the Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale and Paediatric Pain Profile (PPP) had high internal consistency, criterion validity, reliability and responsiveness. The number of studies per psychometric property of each pain assessment tool was limited and the methodological quality of included studies was low. CONCLUSION: Balancing aspects of feasibility and psychometric properties, the FPS-R is recommended for self-assessment, and the FLACC scale/FLACC Revised and PPP are the recommended observational tools in their respective age groups.

Healthcare professionals' views of the use of oral morphine and transmucosal diamorphine in the management of paediatric breakthrough pain and the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial: A focus group study (DIPPER).

BACKGROUND: Oral morphine is frequently used for breakthrough pain but the oral route is not always available and absorption is slow. Transmucosal diamorphine is administered by buccal, sublingual or intranasal routes, and rapidly absorbed. AIM: To explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals in the UK caring for children with life-limiting conditions concerning the assessment and management of breakthrough pain; prescribing and administration of transmucosal diamorphine compared with oral morphine; and the feasibility of a comparative clinical trial. DESIGN/ PARTICIPANTS: Three focus groups, analysed using a Framework approach. Doctors, nurses and pharmacists (n = 28), caring for children with life-limiting illnesses receiving palliative care, participated. RESULTS: Oral morphine is frequently used for breakthrough pain across all settings; with transmucosal diamorphine largely limited to use in hospices or given by community nurses, predominantly buccally. Perceived advantages of oral morphine included confidence in its use with no requirement for specific training; disadvantages included tolerability issues, slow onset, unpredictable response and unsuitability for patients with gastrointestinal failure. Perceived advantages of transmucosal diamorphine were quick onset and easy administration; barriers included lack of licensed preparations and prescribing guidance with fears over accountability of prescribers, and potential issues with availability, preparation and palatability. Factors potentially affecting recruitment to a trial were patient suitability and onerousness for families, trial design and logistics, staff time and clinician engagement. CONCLUSIONS: There were perceived advantages to transmucosal diamorphine, but there is a need for access to a safe preparation. A clinical trial would be feasible provided barriers were overcome.

Total ankle replacement versus arthrodesis (TARVA): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Total ankle replacement (TAR) or ankle arthrodesis (fusion) is the main surgical treatments for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis (OA). The popularity of ankle replacement is increasing while ankle fusion rates remain static. Both treatments have efficacy but to date all studies comparing the 2 have been observational without randomisation, and there are no published guidelines as to the most appropriate management. The TAR versus arthrodesis (TARVA) trial aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of TAR against ankle arthrodesis in the treatment of end-stage ankle OA in patients aged 50-85 years. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: TARVA is a multicentre randomised controlled trial that will randomise 328 patients aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle arthritis. The 2 arms of the study will be TAR or ankle arthrodesis with 164 patients in each group. Up to 16 UK centres will participate. Patients will have clinical assessments and complete questionnaires before their operation and at 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks after surgery. The primary clinical outcome of the study is a validated patient-reported outcome measure, the Manchester Oxford foot questionnaire, captured preoperatively and 12 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes include quality-of-life scores, complications, revision, reoperation and a health economic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee (London, Bloomsbury 14/LO/0807). This manuscript is based on V.5.0 of the protocol. The trial findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02128555.