Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL SNNAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common debilitating injury that can cause instability of the knee. We aimed to investigate the best management strategy between reconstructive surgery and non-surgical treatment for patients with a non-acute ACL injury and persistent symptoms of instability. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial in 29 secondary care National Health Service orthopaedic units in the UK. Patients with symptomatic knee problems (instability) consistent with an ACL injury were eligible. We excluded patients with meniscal pathology with characteristics that indicate immediate surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either surgery (reconstruction) or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment), stratified by site and baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-4 domain version (KOOS4). This management design represented normal practice. The primary outcome was KOOS4 at 18 months after randomisation. The principal analyses were intention-to-treat based, with KOOS4 results analysed using linear regression. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10110685, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02980367. FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, 2017, and April 12, 2020, we recruited 316 patients. 156 (49%) participants were randomly assigned to the surgical reconstruction group and 160 (51%) to the rehabilitation group. Mean KOOS4 at 18 months was 73·0 (SD 18·3) in the surgical group and 64·6 (21·6) in the rehabilitation group. The adjusted mean difference was 7·9 (95% CI 2·5-13·2; p=0·0053) in favour of surgical management. 65 (41%) of 160 patients allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent surgery according to protocol within 18 months. 43 (28%) of 156 patients allocated to surgery did not receive their allocated treatment. We found no differences between groups in the proportion of intervention-related complications. INTERPRETATION: Surgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with non-acute ACL injury with persistent symptoms of instability was clinically superior and more cost-effective in comparison with rehabilitation management. FUNDING: The UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Effectiveness of nail bed repair in children with or without replacing the fingernail: NINJA multicentre randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for nail bed injuries in children is common. One of the key surgical decisions is whether to replace the nail plate following nail bed repair. The aim of this RCT was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nail bed repair with fingernail replacement/substitution compared with repair without fingernail replacement. METHODS: A two-arm 1 : 1 parallel-group open multicentre superiority RCT was performed across 20 secondary-care hospitals in the UK. The co-primary outcomes were surgical-site infection at around 7 days after surgery and cosmetic appearance summary score at a minimum of 4 months. RESULTS: Some 451 children presenting with a suspected nail bed injury were recruited between July 2018 and July 2019; 224 were allocated to the nail-discarded arm, and 227 to the nail-replaced arm. There was no difference in the number of surgical-site infections at around 7 days between the two interventions or in cosmetic appearance. The mean total healthcare cost over the 4 months after surgery was €84 (95 per cent c.i. 34 to 140) lower for the nail-discarded arm than the nail-replaced arm (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: After nail bed repair, discarding the fingernail was associated with similar rates of infection and cosmesis ratings as replacement of the finger nail, but was cost saving. Registration number: ISRCTN44551796 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

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

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

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.

Cost-effectiveness of replacing versus discarding the nail in children with nail bed injury.

Every year in the UK, around 10 000 children need to have operations to mend injuries to the bed of their fingernails. Currently, most children have their fingernail placed back on the injured nail bed after the operation. The NINJA trial found that children were slightly less likely to have an infection if the nail was thrown away rather than being put back, but the difference between groups was small and could have be due to chance. This study looked at whether replacing the nail is cost-effective compared with throwing it away. Using data from the NINJA trial, we compared costs, healthcare use, and quality of life and assessed the cost-effectiveness of replacing the nail. It was found that throwing the nail away after surgery would save the National Health Service (NHS) £75 (€85) per operation compared with placing the nail back on the nail bed. Changing clinical practice could save the NHS in England £720 000 (€819 000) per year.

Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating anterior cruciate ligament injuries.

BACKGROUND: Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a common injury, mainly affecting young, physically active individuals. The injury is characterised by joint instability, leading to decreased activity, which can lead to poor knee-related quality of life. It is also associated with increased risk of secondary osteoarthritis of the knee. It is unclear whether stabilising the knee surgically via ACL reconstruction produces a better overall outcome than non-surgical (conservative) treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of surgical versus conservative interventions for treating ACL injuries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (18 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to January Week 1 2016), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (18 January 2016), EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2016), trial registers (February 2016) and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the use of surgical and conservative interventions in participants with an ACL rupture. We included any trial that evaluated surgery for ACL reconstruction using any method of reconstruction, type of reconstruction technique, graft fixation or type of graft. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts for potentially eligible studies, for which we then obtained full-text reports. Two authors then independently confirmed eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one study in which 141 young, active adults with acute ACL injury were randomised to either ACL reconstruction followed by structured rehabilitation (results reported for 62 participants) or conservative treatment comprising structured rehabilitation alone (results reported for 59 participants). Built into the study design was a formal option for subsequent (delayed) ACL reconstruction in the conservative treatment group, if the participant requested surgery and met pre-specified criteria.This study was deemed at low risk of selection and reporting biases, at high risk of performance and detection biases because of the lack of blinding and at unclear risk of attrition bias because of an imbalance in the post-randomisation exclusions. According to GRADE methodology, the overall quality of the evidence was low across different outcomes.This study identified no difference in subjective knee score (measured using the average score on four of the five sub-scales of the KOOS score (range from 0 (extreme symptoms) to 100 (no symptoms)) between ACL reconstruction and conservative treatment at two years (difference in KOOS-4 change from baseline scores: MD -0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.78 to 6.38; N = 121 participants; low-quality evidence), or at five years (difference in KOOS-4 final scores: MD -2.0, 95% CI -8.27 to 4.27; N = 120 participants; low-quality evidence). The total number of participants incurring one or more complications in each group was not reported; serious events reported in the surgery group were predominantly surgery-related, while those in conservative treatment group were predominantly knee instability. There were also incomplete data for total participants with treatment failure, including subsequent surgery. In the surgical group at two years, there was low-quality evidence of far fewer ACL-related treatment failures, when defined as either graft rupture or subsequent ACL reconstruction. This result is dominated by the uptake by 39% (23/59) of the participants in the conservative treatment group of ACL reconstruction for knee instability at two years and by 51% (30/59) of the participants at five years. There was low-quality evidence of little difference between the two groups in participants who had undergone meniscal surgery at anytime up to five years. There was low-quality evidence of no clinically important between-group differences in SF-36 physical component scores at two years. There was low-quality evidence of a higher return to the same or greater level of sport activity at two years in the ACL reconstruction group, but the wide 95% CI also included the potential for a higher return in the conservative treatment group. Based on an illustrative return to sport activities of 382 per 1000 conservatively treated patients, this amounts to an extra 84 returns per 1000 ACL-reconstruction patients (95% CI 84 fewer to 348 more). There was very low-quality evidence of a higher incidence of radiographically-detected osteoarthritis in the surgery group (19/58 (35%) versus 10/55 (18%)). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For adults with acute ACL injuries, we found low-quality evidence that there was no difference between surgical management (ACL reconstruction followed by structured rehabilitation) and conservative treatment (structured rehabilitation only) in patient-reported outcomes of knee function at two and five years after injury. However, these findings need to be viewed in the context that many participants with an ACL rupture remained symptomatic following rehabilitation and later opted for ACL reconstruction surgery. Further research, including the two identified ongoing trials, will help to address the limitations in the current evidence, which is from one small trial in a young, active, adult population.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial evaluating surgical reconstruction versus rehabilitation in patients with long-standing anterior cruciate ligament injury.

Aims: The aim of this study was to estimate the incremental use of resources, costs, and quality of life outcomes associated with surgical reconstruction compared to rehabilitation for long-standing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury in the NHS, and to estimate its cost-effectiveness. Methods: A total of 316 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to either surgical reconstruction or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment). Healthcare resource use and health-related quality of life data (EuroQol five-dimension five-level health questionnaire) were collected in the trial at six, 12, and 18 months using self-reported questionnaires and medical records. Using intention-to-treat analysis, differences in costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between treatment arms were estimated adjusting for baseline differences and following multiple imputation of missing data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in QALYs between reconstruction and rehabilitation. Results: At 18 months, patients in the surgical reconstruction arm reported higher QALYs (0.052 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.012 to 0.117); p = 0.177) and higher NHS costs (£1,017 (95% CI 557 to 1,476); p < 0.001) compared to rehabilitation. This resulted in an ICER of £19,346 per QALY with the probability of surgical reconstruction being cost-effective of 51% and 72% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY, respectively. Conclusion: Surgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with long-standing ACL injury is more effective, but more expensive, at 18 months compared to rehabilitation management. In the UK setting, surgical reconstruction is cost-effective.

Comparison of surgical or non-surgical management for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury: the ACL SNNAP RCT.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament injury of the knee is common and leads to decreased activity and risk of secondary osteoarthritis of the knee. Management of patients with a non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury can be non-surgical (rehabilitation) or surgical (reconstruction). However, insufficient evidence exists to guide treatment. Objective(s): To determine in patients with non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury and symptoms of instability whether a strategy of surgical management (reconstruction) without prior rehabilitation was more clinically and cost-effective than non-surgical management (rehabilitation). Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with two-arm parallel groups and 1:1 allocation. Due to the nature of the interventions, no blinding could be carried out. Setting: Twenty-nine NHS orthopaedic units in the United Kingdom. Participants: Participants with a symptomatic (instability) non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. Interventions: Patients in the surgical management arm underwent surgical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction as soon as possible and without any further rehabilitation. Patients in the rehabilitation arm attended physiotherapy sessions and only were listed for reconstructive surgery on continued instability following rehabilitation. Surgery following initial rehabilitation was an expected outcome for many patients and within protocol. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 4 at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included return to sport/activity, intervention-related complications, patient satisfaction, expectations of activity, generic health quality of life, knee-specific quality of life and resource usage. Results: Three hundred and sixteen participants were recruited between February 2017 and April 2020 with 156 randomised to surgical management and 160 to rehabilitation. Forty-one per cent (n = 65) of those allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent reconstruction within 18 months with 38% (n = 61) completing rehabilitation and not undergoing surgery. Seventy-two per cent (n = 113) of those allocated to surgery underwent reconstruction within 18 months. Follow-up at the primary outcome time point was 78% (n = 248; surgical, n = 128; rehabilitation, n = 120). Both groups improved over time. Adjusted mean Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 4 scores at 18 months had increased to 73.0 in the surgical arm and to 64.6 in the rehabilitation arm. The adjusted mean difference was 7.9 (95% confidence interval 2.5 to 13.2; p = 0.005) in favour of surgical management. The per-protocol analyses supported the intention-to-treat results, with all treatment effects favouring surgical management at a level reaching statistical significance. There was a significant difference in Tegner Activity Score at 18 months. Sixty-eight per cent (n = 65) of surgery patients did not reach their expected activity level compared to 73% (n = 63) in the rehabilitation arm. There were no differences between groups in surgical complications (n = 1 surgery, n = 2 rehab) or clinical events (n = 11 surgery, n = 12 rehab). Of surgery patients, 82.9% were satisfied compared to 68.1% of rehabilitation patients. Health economic analysis found that surgical management led to improved health-related quality of life compared to non-surgical management (0.052 quality-adjusted life-years, p = 0.177), but with higher NHS healthcare costs (£1107, p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the surgical management programme versus rehabilitation was £19,346 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Using £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year thresholds, surgical management is cost-effective in the UK setting with a probability of being the most cost-effective option at 51% and 72%, respectively. Limitations: Not all surgical patients underwent reconstruction, but this did not affect trial interpretation. The adherence to physiotherapy was patchy, but the trial was designed as pragmatic. Conclusions: Surgical management (reconstruction) for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients was superior to non-surgical management (rehabilitation). Although physiotherapy can still provide benefit, later-presenting non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients benefit more from surgical reconstruction without delaying for a prior period of rehabilitation. Future work: Confirmatory studies and those to explore the influence of fidelity and compliance will be useful. Trial registration: This trial is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10110685; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02980367. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/140/63) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 27. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The study aimed to find out whether it is better to offer surgical reconstruction or rehabilitation first to patients with a more long-standing injury of their anterior cruciate ligament in their knee. This injury causes physical giving way of the knee and/or sensations of it being wobbly (instability). The instability can affect daily activities, work, sport and can lead to arthritis. There are two main treatment options for this problem: non-surgical rehabilitation (prescribed exercises and advice from physiotherapists) or an operation by a surgeon to replace the damaged ligament (anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction). Although studies have highlighted the best option for a recently injured knee, the best management was not known for patients with a long-standing injury, perhaps occurring several months previously. Because the surgery is expensive to the NHS (around £100 million per year), it was also important to look at the costs involved. We carried out a study recruiting 316 non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients from 29 different hospitals and allocated each patient to either surgery or rehabilitation as their treatment option. We measured how well they did with special function and activity scores, patient satisfaction and costs of treatment. Patients in both groups improved substantially. It was expected that some patients in the rehabilitation group would want surgery if non-surgical management was unsuccessful. Forty-one per cent of patients who initially underwent rehabilitation subsequently elected to have reconstructive surgery. Overall, the patients allocated to the surgical reconstruction group had better results in terms of knee function and stability, activity level and satisfaction with treatment than patients allocated to the non-operative rehabilitation group. There were few problems or complications with either treatment option. Although the surgery was a more expensive treatment option, it was found to be cost-effective in the UK setting. The evidence can be discussed in shared decision-making with anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients. Both strategies of management led to improvement. Although a rehabilitation strategy can be beneficial, especially for recently injured patients, it is advised that later-presenting non-acute and more long-standing anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients undergo surgical reconstruction without necessarily delaying for a period of rehabilitation.

ACL Surgery Necessity in Non-Acute Patients (ACL SNNAP): a statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a common injury, primarily affecting young, active individuals. Despite surgical intervention being the more common treatment for patients suffering ACL ruptures, current management is based on limited and generally low-quality evidence. We describe a statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the ACL SNNAP randomised controlled trial, which aims to investigate the necessity of surgical management in patients with ACL injuries. METHODS/DESIGN: ACL SNNAP is a pragmatic, multi-centre, superiority, parallel-group randomised controlled trial in participants with a symptomatic non-acute ACL deficient knee. Participants are allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either non-surgical management (rehabilitation) or surgical management (reconstruction) with the aim of assessing the efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The primary outcome of the study is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) at 18 months post-randomisation. The KOOS4 score at 18 months will be evaluated using a linear regression model adjusting for recruitment centre and baseline KOOS4 scores, allowing for intra-centre correlation. A secondary analysis of the primary outcome will be carried out using an area under the curve (AUC) approach using treatment estimates obtained from a mixed model using baseline, 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months post-randomisation outcome data. Secondary outcomes will be measured at 18 months and will include return to activity/level of sport participation, intervention-related complications, the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, all 5 individual subscales of the KOOS questionnaire, the ACL-QOL score, expectations of return to activity and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Missing primary outcome data will be investigated through a sensitivity analysis. Full details of the planned methods for the statistical analysis of clinical outcomes are presented in this paper. The study protocol for the ACL SNNAP trial has been published previously. DISCUSSION: The methods of analysis for the ACL SNNAP trial have been described here to minimise the risk of data-driven results and reporting bias. Any deviations from the analysis methods described in this paper will be described in full and justified in the publications of the trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN10110685 . Registered on 16 November 2016.

Barriers and enablers to the effective implementation of robotic assisted surgery.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS) is complex as it requires adjustments to associated physical infrastructure, but also changes to processes and behaviours. With the global objective of optimising and improving RAS implementation, this study aimed to: 1) Explore the barriers and enablers to RAS service adoption, incorporating an assessment of behavioural influences; 2) Provide an optimised plan for effective RAS implementation, with the incorporation of theory-informed implementation strategies that have been adapted to address the barriers/enablers that affect RAS service adoption. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with RAS personnel and stakeholders, including: surgeons, theatre staff, managers, industry representatives, and policy-makers/commissioners. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to identify barriers and enablers that represent individual behaviours, capabilities, attitudes, beliefs, and external organisational factors that influence the implementation of RAS. RESULTS: Findings suggest that implementation planning has three separate phases-pre-, early, and late implementation. For pre-implementation, barriers and enablers identified included the cost of RAS equipment and issues of economic viability, weak outcome evidence for RAS, a preponderance of an eminence driven model, the clinician/manager relationship, and views around the uptake and expansion of RAS in the future. Early implementation findings revealed role changes for theatre personnel and an enhanced team approach, reliance on industry for training provision, and changes in skill sets and attentional processes. Late implementation factors included equipment maintenance costs, technological limitations, changes to cognition during RAS routine use, and benefits to institutions/healthcare professionals (such as ergonomic improvement). CONCLUSION: Together, findings suggest the factors that affect RAS implementation are multi-faceted and change across the life-cycle of intervention adoption. Theory-informed strategies are suggested which can optimise implementation of RAS. Optimisation strategies need planning from the outset.

Current issues and future considerations for the wider implementation of robotic-assisted surgery: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The effective implementation of a fast-changing healthcare delivery innovation, such as robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), into a healthcare system, can be affected (both positively and negatively) by external contextual factors. As part of a wider project investigating ways to optimise the implementation of RAS, this qualitative study aimed to uncover current issues of RAS and predictions about the future of robotic surgery. We refer to 'current issues' as the topical and salient challenges and opportunities related to the introduction of RAS in the UK healthcare system, from the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the delivery and implementation of RAS. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted. A thematic analysis was conducted to summarise salient issues that were articulated by the participants. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The interview sample (n=35) comprised surgeons, wider theatre staff and other relevant personnel involved in the introduction and delivery of RAS services across the UK, including service managers and policymakers/commissioners. Two focus groups were also conducted with surgical trainees (n=7) and members of the public (n=8), respectively. RESULTS: The results revealed a largely positive attitude towards the introduction of RAS technology and an expectation of continued rapid expansion. Areas perceived to be particularly pertinent and requiring ongoing attention were also highlighted, including the need to achieve improved quality control, expertise quantification and training issues and the need to educate the public. Issues of centralisation, service organisation and equity of access were also emphasised. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has highlighted a range of issues perceived to be particularly pertinent to the current and future provision of RAS which should be addressed. The areas outlined can enable healthcare managers and surgeons to plan for the adoption and/or expansion of RAS services.

Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine Hydrochloride vs Bupivacaine Hydrochloride Alone as a Periarticular Anesthetic for Patients Undergoing Knee Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: More than half of patients who undergo knee replacement surgery report substantial acute postoperative pain. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine for recovery and pain management after knee replacement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, patient-blinded, pragmatic, randomized clinical superiority trial involved 533 participants at 11 institutions within the National Health Service in England. Adults undergoing primary unilateral knee replacement for symptomatic end-stage osteoarthritis were enrolled between March 29, 2018, and February 29, 2020, and followed up for 1 year after surgery. Follow-up was completed March 1, 2021. A per-protocol analysis for each coprimary outcome was performed in addition to the main intention-to-treat analysis. Interventions: Two hundred sixty-six milligrams of liposomal bupivacaine admixed with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride compared with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride alone (control) administered by periarticular injection at the time of surgery. Main Outcome and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) score at 72 hours and pain visual analog scale (VAS) score area under the curve (AUC) from 6 to 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included QoR-40 and mean pain VAS at days 0 (evening of surgery), 1, 2, and 3; cumulative opioid consumption for 72 hours; functional outcomes and quality of life at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year; and cost-effectiveness for 1 year. Adverse events and serious adverse events up to 12 months after randomization were also assessed. Results: Among the 533 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 69.0 (9.7) years; 287 patients were women (53.8%) and 246 were men (46.2%). Baseline characteristics were balanced between study groups. There was no difference between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups in QoR-40 score at 72 hours (adjusted mean difference, 0.54 [97.5% CI, -2.05 to 3.13]; P = .64) or the pain VAS score AUC at 6 to 72 hours (-21.5 [97.5% CI, -46.8 to 3.8]; P = .06). Analyses of pain VAS and QoR-40 scores demonstrated only 1 statistically significant difference, with the liposomal bupivacaine arm having lower pain scores the evening of surgery (adjusted difference -0.54 [97.5% CI, -1.07 to -0.02]; P = .02). No difference in cumulative opioid consumption and functional outcomes was detected. Liposomal bupivacaine was not cost-effective compared with the control treatment. No difference in adverse or serious adverse events was found between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found no difference in postoperative recovery or pain associated with the use of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride alone in patients who underwent knee replacement surgery. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN54191675.

Assessing a 12-month course of oral alendronate for adults with avascular necrosis of the hip: MANTIS RCT with internal pilot.

BACKGROUND: People with avascular necrosis of the hip have very limited treatment options currently available to stop the progression of this disease; this often results in the need for a hip replacement. There is some weak evidence that a class of drugs called bisphosphonates may delay the course of the disease, and this trial was commissioned and set up to provide robust evidence regarding the use of bisphosphonates in adults aged ≥ 18 years with this condition. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the Managing Avascular Necrosis Treatments: an Interventional Study ( MANTIS ) trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 12-month course of alendronate in the treatment of avascular necrosis. DESIGN: This was a 66-month, definitive, multisite, two-arm, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, with an internal pilot phase. SETTING: Eight secondary care NHS hospitals across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Planned trial size - 280 adult patients with avascular necrosis. INTERVENTION: Participants in the intervention group received 70 mg of alendronate (an oral bisphosphonate) weekly for 12 months. MAIN OUTCOMES: The main outcomes were Oxford Hip Score at 12 months (short-term outcome) and the time to decision that a hip replacement is required at 36 months (long-term outcome). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were recruited and randomised to receive either the intervention drug, alendronate, or a placebo-matched tablet. LIMITATIONS: This trial was principally limited by low disease prevalence. Other limitations included the late disease stage at which participants were identified and the rapid progression of the disease. FUTURE WORK: This trial was limited by a low recruitment rate. Avascular necrosis of the hip should be treated as a rare disease. Future trials would need to recruit many more sites and recruit over a longer time period, and, for this reason, a registry may provide a more effective means of collecting data pertaining to this disease. CONCLUSIONS: The MANTIS trial was terminated at the end of the pilot phase, because it did not meet its go/no-go criteria. The main issue was a poor recruitment rate, owing to a lower than expected disease prevalence and difficulties in identifying the condition at a sufficiently early stage. Those patients who were identified and screened either were too advanced in their disease progression or were already taking medication. We would not recommend that a short-term interventional study is conducted on this condition until its prevalence, geographic foci and natural history and better understood. The difficulty of acquiring this understanding is likely to be a barrier in most health-care markets. One means of developing this understanding would be the introduction of a database/registry for patients suffering from avascular necrosis of the hip. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as ISRCTN14015902. 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. 26, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?: The Managing Avascular Necrosis Treatments: an Interventional Study ( MANTIS ) trial was designed to compare ways of treating patients with avascular necrosis who are seeking to slow down the deterioration of their condition. Alendronate is a drug routinely available across the NHS in both tablet and injection form, and doctors and scientists believe that it might prevent ongoing hip deterioration and result in fewer patients requiring a total hip replacement. WHAT DID WE DO?: This trial attempted to compare alendronate taken as a tablet with an identical-looking tablet that did not contain any of the drug (a placebo) to find out if alendronate reduced the number of patients requiring a hip replacement and having pain (compared with patients who did not get alendronate). WHAT DID WE FIND?: Patients were willing to participate in the trial but we were able to recruit only a small number to the study. The main reason for this was difficulty in identifying potentially suitable patients and approaching them at the right point in their medical care. This was more challenging than anticipated, particularly because the NHS sites and professionals that patients with this condition seek out are extremely variable in the UK. It was also difficult to locate and identify patients with the condition at an early enough stage, and before they had already started taking the drug. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: More information on patients with this rare condition, such as NHS referral pathways, and an understanding of how the condition progresses may help to improve our understanding of this patient group. This information could also help us determine whether or not there is scope to carry out the study in a different way that might enable these patients to be more easily identified.

The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials in surgery can be a challenge to design and conduct, especially when including a non-surgical comparison. As few as half of initiated surgical trials reach their recruitment target, and failure to recruit is cited as the most frequent reason for premature closure of surgical RCTs. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to identify and synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring the challenges in the design and conduct of trials directly comparing surgical and non-surgical interventions. METHODS: A qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography was conducted. Six electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Central, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo) were searched up to the end of February 2018. Studies that explored patients' and health care professionals' experiences regarding participating in RCTs with a surgical and non-surgical comparison were included. The GRADE-CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in review findings. RESULTS: In total, 3697 abstracts and 49 full texts were screened and 26 published studies reporting experiences of patients and healthcare professionals were included. The focus of the studies (24/26) was primarily related to the challenge of recruitment. Two studies explored reasons for non-compliance to treatment allocation following randomisation. Five themes related to the challenges to these types of trials were identified: (1) radical choice between treatments; (2) patients' discomfort with randomisation: I want the best treatment for me as an individual; (3) challenge of equipoise: patients' a priori preferences for treatment; (4) challenge of equipoise: clinicians' a priori preferences for treatment and (5) imbalanced presentation of interventions. CONCLUSION: The marked dichotomy between the surgical and non-surgical interventions was highlighted in this review as making recruitment to these types of trials particularly challenging. This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. Trialists may wish to consider exploring the balance of potential factors influencing patient and clinician preferences towards treatments before they start recruitment, to enable issues specific to a particular trial to be identified and addressed. This may enable trial teams to make more efficient considered design choices and benefit the delivery of such 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.

Comparison of the clinical and cost effectiveness of two management strategies (rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction) for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury: study protocol for the ACL SNNAP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common knee injury that can lead to poor quality of life, decreased activity and increased risk of secondary osteoarthritis of the knee. Management of patients with a non-acute ACL injury can include a non-surgical (rehabilitation) or surgical (reconstruction) approach. However, insufficient evidence to guide treatment selection has led to high variation in treatment choice for patients with non-acute presentation of ACL injury. The objective of the ACL SNNAP trial is to determine in patients with non-acute anterior cruciate ligament deficiency (ACLD) whether a strategy of non-surgical management (rehabilitation) (with option for later ACL reconstruction only if required) is more clinically effective and cost effective than a strategy of surgical management (reconstruction) without prior rehabilitation with all patients followed up at 18 months. METHODS: The study is a pragmatic, multi-centre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with two-arm parallel groups and 1:1 allocation. Patients with a symptomatic non-acute ACL deficient knee will be randomised to either non-surgical management (rehabilitation) or surgical management (reconstruction). We aim to recruit 320 patients from approximately 30 secondary care orthopaedic units from across the United Kingdom. Randomisation will occur using a web-based randomisation system. Blinding of patients and clinicians to treatment allocation will not be possible because of the nature of the interventions. Participants will be followed up via self-reported questionnaires at 6, 12 and 18 months. The primary outcome is the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include a return to sport/activity, intervention-related complications, patient satisfaction, expectations of activity, generic health quality of life, knee specific quality of life and resource usage. DISCUSSION: At present, no evidence-based treatment of non-acute ACL deficiency exists, particularly in the NHS. Moreover, little consensus exists on the management approach for these patients. The proposed trial will address this gap in knowledge regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of ACL treatment and inform future standards of care for this condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 10110685. Registered on 16 November 2016. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02980367. Registered in December 2016.

Evidence-Based Evaluation of Practice and Innovation in Physical Therapy Using the IDEAL-Physio Framework.

The IDEAL framework is an established method for initial and ongoing evaluations of innovation and practice for complex health care interventions. First derived for surgical sciences and embedded at a global level for evaluating surgery/surgical devices, the IDEAL framework is based on the principle that innovation and evaluation in clinical practice can, and should, evolve together in an ordered manner: from conception to development and then to validation by appropriate clinical studies and, finally, longer-term follow-up. This framework is highly suited to other complex, nonpharmacological interventions, such as physical therapist interventions. This perspective outlines the application of IDEAL to physical therapy in the new IDEAL-Physio framework. The IDEAL-Physio framework comprises 5 stages. In stage 1, the idea phase, formal data collection should begin. Stage 2a is the phase for iterative improvement and adjustment with thorough data recording. Stage 2b involves the onset of formal evaluation using systematically collected group or cohort data. Stage 3 is the phase for formal comparative assessment of treatment, usually involving randomized studies. Stage 4 involves long-term follow-up. The IDEAL-Physio framework is recommended as a method for guiding and evaluating both innovation and practice in physical therapy, with the overall goal of providing better evidence-based care.

Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial - TOPKAT: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the majority of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee the disease originates in the medial compartment. There are two fundamentally different approaches to knee replacement for patients with unicompartmental disease: some surgeons feel that it is always best to replace both the knee compartments with a total knee replacement (TKR); whereas others feel it is best to replace just the damaged component of the knee using a partial or unicompartment replacement (UKR). Both interventions are established and well-documented procedures. Little evidence exists to prove the clinical and cost-effectiveness of either management option. This provides an explanation for the high variation in treatment of choice by individual surgeons for the same knee pathology.The aim of the TOPKAT study will be to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of TKRs compared to UKRs in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis. METHODS/DESIGN: The design of the study is a single layer multicentre superiority type randomised controlled trial of unilateral knee replacement patients. Blinding will not be possible as the surgical scars for each procedure differ.We aim to recruit 500 patients from approximately 28 secondary care orthopaedic units from across the UK including district general and teaching hospitals. Participants will be randomised to either UKR or TKR. Randomisation will occur using a web-based randomisation system. The study is pragmatic in terms of implant selection for the knee replacement operation. Participants will be followed up for 5 years. The primary outcome is the Oxford Knee Score, which will be collected via questionnaires at 2 months, 1 year and then annually to 5 years. Secondary outcomes will include cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction and complications data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01352247.