Intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis: A qualitative study of patients' and clinicians' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of joint pain and disability. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACs) are often used in primary care once other recommended treatments have failed. Evidence shows that IACs provide short-term relief of osteoarthritis symptoms, yet little is known about patients' and primary care clinicians' experiences and beliefs about their use. We explored patients' and primary care clinicians' views about IACs, including the benefits, disadvantages, perceived risks of treatment, when they are used, and factors that affect decision-making. METHODS: We conducted individual interviews with patients and primary care clinicians and used inductive thematic analysis to investigate their views and experiences of intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis (IACs). FINDINGS: We interviewed 38 patients and 19 primary care clinicians. We identified 6 patient themes: variation in access; awareness of IACs; views of risk and trust; effectiveness of IACs; variation in onset and effect duration; and an alternative to undesirable treatments. In the interviews with clinicians, we identified an overarching theme of caution and competence, which included eight subthemes: confidence and (dis)comfort with practical procedures; risk of adverse outcomes; training; uncertainty about evidence and guidelines; technical uncertainties; IACs use on the osteoarthritis pathway; perceived benefits and impacts of IACs; and the possibility of placebo. CONCLUSION: Patients and clinicians valued IACs' potential to relieve symptoms and improve quality of life. Variability in patients' access to treatment appears related to clinicians' confidence in delivering injections and their concerns about the evidence base. Variation in dose frequency and timing reflect clinicians' uncertainty about current guidance. Despite variation in effectiveness patients preferred IACs to other forms of pain medication and to delay or avoid surgery. IACs were mostly used as an adjunct treatment before surgery was offered. These findings can inform further research into the effectiveness of IACs and improvements in information and guidance.

Prehabilitation for frail patients undergoing hip and knee replacement in the UK: Joint PREP feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate a prehabilitation programme for frail patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). DESIGN: Randomised feasibility study with embedded qualitative work. SETTING: Three National Health Service hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥65 years, frail and scheduled for primary THR or TKR. INTERVENTION: Appointment with a physiotherapist to individualise a home-based exercise programme. Participants were encouraged to do the home exercises daily for 12 weeks pre-operative and were provided with a daily protein supplement. Participants were supported by six telephone calls over the 12-week intervention period. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eligibility and recruitment rates, intervention adherence, data completion rates of patient-reported outcome measures, retention rates and acceptability of the trial and intervention. Qualitative interviews were conducted with participants and non-participants and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Between December 2022 and August 2023, 411 patients were sent a screening pack. Of the 168 patients who returned a screening questionnaire, 79 were eligible and consented to participate, and 64 were randomised. Of the 33 participants randomised to the intervention, 26 attended the intervention appointment. Eighteen participants (69%) received all six intervention follow-up telephone calls. Nineteen participants (73%) completed an intervention adherence log; 13 (68%) adhered to the exercise programme and 11 (58%) adhered to the protein supplementation. The overall retention rate was 86% (55/64 overall) at 12 weeks. The 12-week follow-up questionnaire was returned by 46 of the 55 participants (84%) who were sent a questionnaire. Interviews with 19 patients found that the trial processes and intervention were generally acceptable, but areas of potential improvements were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that a larger study is possible and has identified improvements to optimise the design of an RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11121506.

Recommendations for developing accessible patient information leaflets for clinical trials to address English language literacy as a barrier to research participation.

BACKGROUND: Low English language literacy is a common barrier to participation in clinical trials. Patient information leaflets (PILs) used in clinical trials are often lengthy, complex and have poor readability; this is a persistent and prevalent problem common to trials across the world. Simplifying the information provided in PILs can lead to improved understanding, comprehension and knowledge. The aim of this project was to develop recommendations for developing accessible PILs for clinical trials through a literature review of published and grey literature and co-working with marginalised communities, patients, and health and social care charities. METHODS: A literature review of MEDLINE, Embase and online resources was conducted, and recommendations for developing accessible PILs were extracted from eligible published and grey literature. Grey literature which contained insights into more inclusive forms of communication was also identified and summarised. Meetings were held with two racially marginalised community groups, two groups involving autistic adults and/or adults with learning difficulties and a patient advisory group. Examples of accessible PILs were shared and discussions held about the content and format of the PILs and suggestions for changes/improvements. National Voices, a coalition of health and social care charities in England, held a national online workshop with charities and lived experience partners. Recommendations identified from the multiple sources were coded, collated and refined to develop an overarching framework of recommendations. RESULTS: The framework consists of 74 recommendations for developing accessible PILs for clinical trials. Recommendations cover the five topics of formatting, information presentation, writing style, content and accessibility. CONCLUSIONS: This project has developed a comprehensive framework of recommendations to guide researchers in the development of accessible PILs for clinical trials. Findings from previous research and from co-working with marginalised communities, patients and health and social care charities were collated to ensure that a diverse range of voices and experiences informed the framework. These recommendations aim to support researchers to develop better study information to reduce English language literacy as a barrier to participation in clinical trials.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation versus placebo for chronic and moderate to severe low back pain: study protocol for the RADICAL randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading global cause of disability. Patients with moderate to severe LBP who respond positively to a diagnostic medial nerve branch block can be offered radiofrequency denervation (RFD). However, high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of RFD is lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RADICAL (RADIofrequenCy denervAtion for Low back pain) is a double-blind, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial. A total of 250 adults listed for RFD will be recruited from approximately 20 National Health Service (NHS) pain and spinal clinics. Recruitment processes will be optimised through qualitative research during a 12-month internal pilot phase. Participants will be randomised in theatre using a 1:1 allocation ratio to RFD or placebo. RFD technique will follow best practice guidelines developed for the trial. Placebo RFD will follow the same protocol, but the electrode tip temperature will not be raised. Participants who do not experience a clinically meaningful improvement in pain 3 months after randomisation will be offered the alternative intervention to the one provided at the outset without disclosing the original allocation. The primary clinical outcome will be pain severity, measured using a pain Numeric Rating Scale, at 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will be assessed up to 2 years after randomisation and include disability, health-related quality of life, psychological distress, time to pain recovery, satisfaction, adverse events, work outcomes and healthcare utilisation. The primary statistical analyses will be by intention to treat and will follow a prespecified analysis plan. The primary economic evaluation will take an NHS and social services perspective and estimate the discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net benefit of RFD over the 2-year follow-up period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the London-Fulham Research Ethics Committee (21/LO/0471). Results will be disseminated in open-access publications and plain language summaries. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16473239.

In risk we trust? Making decisions about knee replacement.

Risk communication is a key legal and ethical component of shared decision-making. Decisions about total knee replacement, a common surgery, must contend with the fact that a minority of cases result in unintended outcomes, some of which have devastating effects. To understand how risks are communicated during decision-making, we audio-recorded and analysed 62 consultations between surgeons and patients. Various communication methods were evident, including listing risks without elaboration, discussing them in a conversational manner, abrogating discussion of risk, or using decision-tools. Discussion of risks was often brief in nature, and risk communication was sometimes curtailed or deferred by both patients and surgeons. Risks could also be observed to play a part in reinforcing policy norms of the doctor-patient relationship that highlighted patient responsibility. Nevertheless, patients and surgeons in the observed consultations appeared more interested in developing trusting relationships than in discussing risks. Because patients had sometimes experienced considerable deterioration in their knee function before their consultation, were in pain and struggled with mobility, the realities of clinical practice clashed with the policy norms of choice and patient responsibility. Rather, decisions could appear coerced by the disease process rather than being clear-cut examples of self-determination. While policy norms putatively use risk disclosure to frame communication between patients and clinicians as a transaction between customer and technician, the lack of conformity to these norms in the consultations may indicate resistance to this framing. A greater emphasis on determining positive roles for trust and care would help policy to present a nuanced understanding of decision-making. Risk communication could be seen as a factor in the formation of trusting relationships, improving its role in decision-making processes while recognising its inherent tensions with practice.

The influence of pain catastrophizing on pain and function after knee arthroplasty in knee osteoarthritis.

Pain catastrophizing is an exaggerated focus on pain sensations. It may be an independent factor influencing pain and functional outcomes of knee arthroplasty. We aimed to evaluate the association between pre-operative pain catastrophizing with pain and function outcomes up to one year after knee arthroplasty. We used data from a cohort study of patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty (either total or unicompartmental arthroplasty) for knee osteoarthritis. Pain catastrophizing was assessed pre-operatively using the Pain Catastrophizing scale (PCS). Other baseline variables included demographics, body mass index, radiographic severity, anxiety, depression, and knee pain and function assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster University Index (WOMAC). Patients completed the WOMAC at 6- and 12-months after arthroplasty. WOMAC pain and function scores were converted to interval scale and the association of PCS and changes of WOMAC pain and function were evaluated in generalized linear regression models with adjustment with confounding variables. Of the 1136 patients who underwent arthroplasty (70% female, 84% Chinese, 92% total knee arthroplasty), 1102 and 1089 provided data at 6- and 12-months post-operatively. Mean (± SD) age of patients was 65.9 (± 7.0) years. PCS was associated with a change in WOMAC pain at both 6-months and 12-months (ß = - 0.04, 95% confidence interval: - 0.06, - 0.02; P < 0.001) post-operatively after adjustment in multivariable models; as well as change in WOMAC function at 6-months and 12-months. In this large cohort study, pre-operative pain catastrophizing was associated with lower improvements in pain and function at 6-months and 12-months after arthroplasty.

'Everyone has heard of it, but no one knows what it is': A qualitative study of patient understandings and experiences of herpes zoster.

BACKGROUND: Shingles (herpes zoster), caused by reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus, is usually diagnosed and managed in primary care. The lifetime risk of shingles in the general population is approximately 30%, and it can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. There has been little qualitative research about patient experience and understanding of shingles. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interviews with people recruited from primary care in England. METHOD: Qualitative semi-structured remote interviews were undertaken with 29 participants in a randomised controlled trial in primary care in England (ATHENA, ISRCTN14490832). Participants were aged >49 and were diagnosed within six days of shingles rash onset. Interviewees were sampled for diversity in terms of pain, intervention adherence, age, gender, and ethnicity. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Participants' understanding of shingles was limited, particularly pre-diagnosis. Television campaigns about the shingles vaccination programme helped some to recognise the rash. Shingles was understood as a disease with a variable prognosis, resulting in a sense of uncertainty about the significance when diagnosed. Participants reported a range of symptoms which impacted on everyday life. Some people thought their diagnosis was caused by poor mental health or challenging life circumstances, a perception sometimes reinforced by healthcare professionals. Many participants sought meaning in their diagnosis, reflecting upon, and sometimes changing, their life and circumstances. CONCLUSION: Primary care practitioners should be aware of the broad spectrum of patient knowledge, and the potential for better understanding to promote early attendance and treatment, to reduce the impact of shingles.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of elective primary total knee replacement with PAtellar Resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing: a pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled Trial (PART).

Aims: During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon's decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. Methods: The PAtellar Resurfacing Trial (PART) is a patient- and assessor-blinded multicentre, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary TKR for primary osteoarthritis at NHS hospitals in England, with an embedded internal pilot phase (ISRCTN 33276681). Participants will be randomly allocated intraoperatively on a 1:1 basis (stratified by centre and implant type (cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-sacrificing)) to always resurface or selectively resurface the patella, once the surgeon has confirmed sufficient patellar thickness for resurfacing and that constrained implants are not required. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures at three months, six months, and one year (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, OKS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and costs). Cost-effectiveness will be measured for the lifetime of the patient. Overall, 530 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a four-point difference in OKS between the groups one year after surgery, assuming up to 40% resurfacing in the selective group. Conclusion: The trial findings will provide evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. This will inform future NICE guidelines on primary TKR and the role of selective patellar resurfacing.

Prevalence and patterns of neuropathic pain in people with chronic post-surgical pain after total knee arthroplasty.

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence and patterns of neuropathic pain over one year in a cohort of patients with chronic post-surgical pain at three months following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: Between 2016 and 2019, 363 patients with troublesome pain, defined as a score of ≤ 14 on the Oxford Knee Score pain subscale, three months after TKA from eight UK NHS hospitals, were recruited into the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) clinical trial. Self-reported neuropathic pain and postoperative pain was assessed at three, nine, and 15 months after surgery using the painDETECT and Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaires collected by postal survey. Results: Symptoms of neuropathic pain were common among patients reporting chronic pain at three months post-TKA, with half reporting neuropathic pain on painDETECT (191/363; 53%) and 74% (267/359) on DN4. Of those with neuropathic pain at three months, half continued to have symptoms over the next 12 months (148/262; 56%), one-quarter had improved (67/262; 26%), and for one-tenth their neuropathic symptoms fluctuated over time (24/262; 9%). However, a subgroup of participants reported new, late onset neuropathic symptoms (23/262; 9%). Prevalence of neuropathic symptoms was similar between the screening tools when the lower cut-off painDETECT score (≥ 13) was applied. Overall, mean neuropathic pain scores improved between three and 15 months after TKA. Conclusion: Neuropathic pain is common in patients with chronic pain at three months after TKA. Although neuropathic symptoms improved over time, up to half continued to report painful neuropathic symptoms at 15 months after TKA. Postoperative care should include screening, assessment, and treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with early chronic postoperative pain after TKA.

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.

Is it possible to predict which patients are most likely to benefit from intra-articular corticosteroid injections? A systematic review.

AIM: Intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACIs) can reduce osteoarthritis-related pain, with differing levels of response across patient groups. This systematic review investigates what is known about the positive and negative predictors of outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis who undergo IACIs. METHODS: We systematically searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases to May 2023 for studies that evaluated patients undergoing IACIs for osteoarthritis and reported on predictors of outcomes in these patients. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. Two were placebo-controlled trials, six were observational studies. Due to the heterogeneity of outcomes and variables between the studies, it was not possible to pool the results for formal meta-analysis. Higher baseline pain, older age, higher BMI, lower range of movement, higher Kellgren-Lawrence radiographic score, joint effusion, and aspiration were shown to be predictors of a positive response to IACIs in some of the included studies. However, other studies showed no difference in response with these variables, or a negative correlation with response. Sex, smoking, mental health status, hypertension/ischaemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, duration of symptoms, and socioeconomic status did not demonstrate any correlation with the prediction of positive or negative outcomes after IACIs. CONCLUSION: Several patient features have been identified as positive predictors of outcomes following IACIs. However, this systematic review has identified inconsistent and variable findings across the existing literature. Further research with standardization of IACI administration and outcome measures is required to facilitate further analysis of the reliability and significance of predictive factors for response to IACIs.

The STAR care pathway for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: four-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway is a clinically important and cost-effective intervention found to improve pain outcomes over one year for people with chronic pain three months after total knee replacement (TKR). We followed up STAR trial participants to evaluate the longer-term clinical- and cost-effectiveness of this care pathway. METHODS: Participants who remained enrolled on the trial at one year were contacted by post at a median of four years after randomisation and invited to complete a questionnaire comprising the same outcomes collected during the trial. We captured pain (co-primary outcome using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference scales; scored 0-10, best to worst), function, neuropathic characteristics, emotional aspects of pain, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction. Electronic hospital informatics data on hospital resource use for the period of one to four years post-randomisation were collected from participating hospital sites. The economic evaluation took an National Health Service (NHS) secondary care perspective, with a four-year time horizon. RESULTS: Overall, 226/337 (67%) of participants returned completed follow-up questionnaires, yielding adjusted between-group differences in BPI means of -0.42 (95% confidence interval, CI (-1.07, 0.23); p = 0.20) for pain severity and - 0.64 (95% CI -1.41, 0.12); p = 0.10) for pain interference. Analysis using a multiple imputed data set (n = 337) showed an incremental net monetary benefit in favour of the STAR care pathway of £3,525 (95% CI -£990 to £8,039) at a £20,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, leading to a probability that the intervention was cost-effective of 0.94. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the longer-term benefits of the STAR care pathway are uncertain due to attrition of trial participants; however, there is a suggestion of some degree of sustained clinical benefit at four years. The care pathway remained cost-effective at four years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 92,545,361.

Inclusive approaches to involvement of community groups in health research: the co-produced CHICO guidance.

BACKGROUND: Racially marginalised groups are underserved in healthcare and underrepresented in health research. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is established as the method to ensure equity in health research. However, methods traditionally employed in PPIE can lead to the exclusion of some communities and exacerbation of existing inequalities, highlighting the need to develop inclusive processes for more inclusive community involvement in health research. We aimed to produce guidance to promote good practice for inclusive involvement of racially marginalised community groups in health research via public and community involvement and engagement. METHODS: The CHecklist for Inclusive COmmunity involvement in health research (CHICO) was co-produced by researchers and three Bristol-based community organisations: Dhek Bhal, My Friday Coffee Morning-Barton Hill, and Malcolm X Elders. After initial conversations and link building with community leaders to develop relationships, researchers attended at least three meetings with each community group to discuss preferred approaches to involvement. Each community group had a different format, and discussions were open and tailored to fit the groups preferences. The meetings were held in the community groups' usual meeting venue. Notes from meetings were reviewed by researchers to identify key themes, which were used to inform the creation of a draft illustration which was then taken back to the community groups for refinement and used to inform the development of written guidance and the final illustration. RESULTS: Checklist items were structured into three stages: (1) building relationships, (2) reciprocal relationships and (3) practicalities. Stage 1 highlights the importance of building trust with the community group over time through regular visits to community venues and talking to people informally to understand the history of the group, their preferences and needs, and topics that are likely to be of interest to them. Stage 2 focusses on maintaining a reciprocal relationship and understanding how to best to give back to the community. Stage 3 provides guidance on the practicalities of designing and running inclusive community-based involvement activities, including consideration of the venue, format, communication-style, language requirements, social activities, and provision of food. CONCLUSIONS: Our co-produced checklist can guide researchers in how to involve people from different ethnicities in health research that is relevant to their community.

Health research needs to be for everyone. For this to happen, people from all backgrounds need to be involved. However, people from ethnic minority backgrounds are often not involved in the design of health research. We wanted to find out how researchers and community groups can work together to make the research process more inclusive. Researchers worked with three community groups in Bristol. These were South Asian, African Caribbean and (majority) Somali community groups. One researcher talked with community leaders to find out if the interests of the research unit was relevant to community members and to understand how each group would prefer to work. Following this, at least three meetings were held with each group. After these meetings, we looked at what was talked about. We suggest that researchers involving community groups in health research follow three key steps. Step 1 is making relationships and covers the importance of building trust with the community. This should be through talking with community leaders and regular visits to the group to get to know members before asking for input. Step 2 is about how to best to give back to the community. This is important to make sure that relationships are fair. Step 3 is about how to design and run activities. This includes thinking about the venue, language needs, social activities, and providing food. Our suggestions can help researchers and community groups to work together on health research. We have made an illustration of our findings for sharing.

Prehabilitation for frail patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement: protocol for the Joint PREP feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately, 8% of community-based adults aged ≥ 50 years in England are frail. Frailty has been found to be associated with poorer outcomes after joint replacement. Targeting frailty preoperatively via exercise and protein supplementation has the potential to improve outcomes for people undergoing joint replacement. Prior to proceeding with a randomised controlled trial (RCT), a feasibility study is necessary to address key uncertainties and explore how to optimise trial design and delivery. METHODS: The Joint PRehabilitation with Exercise and Protein (Joint PREP) study is a feasibility study for a multicentre, two-arm, parallel group, pragmatic, RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for frail patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. Sixty people who are ≥ 65 years of age, frail according to the self-reported Groningen Frailty Indicator, and scheduled to undergo total hip or knee replacement at 2-3 hospitals in England and Wales will be recruited and randomly allocated on a 1:1 ratio to the intervention or usual care group. The usual care group will receive the standard care at their hospital. The intervention group will be given a daily protein supplement and will be asked to follow a home-based, tailored daily exercise programme for 12 weeks before their operation, in addition to usual care. Participants will be supported through six follow-up calls from a physiotherapist during the 12-week intervention period. Study questionnaires will be administered at baseline and 12 weeks after randomisation. Embedded qualitative research with patients will explore their experiences of participating, reasons for nonparticipation, and/or reasons for withdrawal or treatment discontinuation. Primary feasibility outcomes will be eligibility and recruitment rates, adherence to the intervention, and acceptability of the trial and the intervention. DISCUSSION: This study will generate important data regarding the feasibility of a RCT to evaluate a prehabilitation intervention for frail patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement. A future phase-3 RCT will determine if preoperative exercise and protein supplementation improve the recovery of frail patients after primary joint replacement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11121506, registered 29 September 2022.

Healthcare professionals' views on implementing the STAR care pathway for people with chronic pain after total knee replacement: A qualitative study.

For many people with advanced osteoarthritis, total knee replacement is an effective treatment to relieve pain and improve function. However, 10-34% of people experience chronic postsurgical pain in the months and years after total knee replacement. The Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) randomised controlled trial (ISCRTN92545361) evaluated the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a new multifaceted and personalised care pathway, compared with usual care, for people with pain at three months after total knee replacement. Our objective was to identify factors promoting or inhibiting its implementation, and to inform future training and wider implementation of the pathway. We conducted a prospective process evaluation using qualitative interviews with eight Extended Scope Practitioners and six Principal Investigators from seven trial sites who were involved in delivering the STAR care pathway during the trial. We used Normalization Process Theory as a theoretical framework for qualitative data collection and content analysis. We identified that factors promoting the implementation of the pathway were quick familiarisation with the pathway, valuing patient-centredness, formalising referral processes, and increasing confidence to address neuropathic pain. Challenges to implementation were availability of time and resources, sensitivity in referral process, and ensuring collective understanding of the pathway. These findings have enabled us to make recommendations about the future implementation of the STAR care pathway and will inform the development of a training package, and updated manual for successful delivery in usual care. Furthermore, this model of care has potential value in diverse elective surgeries and pain conditions.

Development of evidence-based guidelines for the treatment and management of periprosthetic hip infection.

Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme. We used a consensus process consisting of an evidence review to generate items for the guidelines and online consensus questionnaire and virtual face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the guidelines. The consensus panel comprised 21 clinical experts in orthopaedics, primary care, rehabilitation, and healthcare commissioning. The final output from the consensus process was a 14-item guideline. The guidelines make recommendations regarding increased vigilance and monitoring of those at increased risk of infection; diagnosis including strategies to ensure the early recognition of prosthetic infection and referral to orthopaedic teams; treatment, including early use of DAIR and revision strategies; and postoperative management including appropriate physical and psychological support and antibiotic strategies. We believe the implementation of the INFORM guidelines will inform treatment protocols and clinical pathways to improve the treatment and management of periprosthetic hip infection.

Rehabilitation for revision total knee replacement: survey of current service provision and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Revision total knee replacement (TKR) is a major operation with a long recovery period and many patients report suboptimal outcomes. Rehabilitation has the potential to improve outcomes. The aim of this study was to understand current provision of rehabilitation for revision TKR in England and evaluate the existing evidence. METHODS: Phase 1: An online national survey of education and rehabilitation provision for patients receiving revision TKR was completed by physiotherapy staff at 22 hospitals across England that were high volume for revision TKR (response rate of 34%). Phase 2: Systematic review to identify studies evaluating rehabilitation programmes for revision joint replacement. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases from inception to 15th June 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated post-operative rehabilitation for adults undergoing revision joint replacement were included. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment was undertaken by two reviewers. RESULTS: Phase 1: Pre-operative education which aimed to prepare patients for surgery and recovery was provided in most hospitals, predominately involving a single session delivered by a multidisciplinary team. Inpatient physiotherapy commonly commenced on post-operative day 1 and was provided twice daily, with most hospitals also providing occupational therapy. Rehabilitation was often provided in the first four weeks after hospital discharge, either in an outpatient, community or home setting. In most hospitals, the education and rehabilitation provided to patients receiving revision TKR was the same as that provided to patients undergoing primary TKR. Phase 2: Of the 1,445 articles identified, three retrospective cohort studies based on hospital records review were included. The studies evaluated intensive inpatient rehabilitation programmes, consisting of 2-3 h of daily group or individual physiotherapy, with additional occupational therapy in one study. All three studies reported improvement in functional outcomes for patients undergoing rehabilitation after revision TKR. All studies were limited by their retrospective design, short duration of follow-up and lack of sample size calculation. No RCTs evaluating effectiveness of rehabilitation for revision TKR were identified. CONCLUSION: This study identified the need for future research to develop and evaluate tailored rehabilitation to optimise patient outcomes following revision TKR.

Research priorities for intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis: A Delphi study.

Objective: To identify research priorities for intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis using a Delphi study. Design: In the Round 1 questionnaire, participants generated up to five potential research topics related to corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis. These responses were collated and grouped to develop candidate research questions. Literature searches were conducted and questions with a lack of evidence were included in the next round. In Round 2, importance ratings (1-9; not important to very important) were assigned to each question. Those questions given an importance rating of 7-9 by ≥ 70% of participants were carried forward. In Round 3, participants were provided with the group ratings and the rating process was repeated to develop the final research priority list. Results: All three Delphi rounds were completed by 75 participants (82%; 34 patients, 21 healthcare professionals and 20 academics). A total of 310 research topics were generated in Round 1, from which 26 research questions were developed. None had been robustly answered by research and therefore all were included in the Round 2 questionnaire. In Round 2, 14 research questions were retained; all 14 were prioritised in Round 3 and included in the final research priority list. The questions covered long-term effects, clinical and cost-effectiveness, measurement of outcomes, comparison to other treatments, provision, safety, identifying responders, maximising benefits, patient experience, delaying the need for joint replacement, and dosage. Conclusion: Using a robust consensus technique with key stakeholders, we have developed a research priority list to guide future research into corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis.

Primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions: a comparison between patients with and without chronic pain after total knee replacement.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of patients experience chronic pain after total knee replacement (TKR). The impact of chronic pain after TKR on primary care services in the UK is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to compare primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions between patients with and without chronic pain after TKR. METHODS: Data from 5,055 patients who received TKR between 2009 and 2016 with anonymised linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold (CPRD) and English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) programme were analysed. The exposure time was from 10 years pre-operative to eight years post-operative. Patients with a score ≤ 14 on the Oxford Knee Score pain component scale at 6 months post-operative were classified as having chronic pain after TKR. Primary care consultations and prescribed pain medicines were quantified, and costs calculated based on national cost data. RESULTS: 721 patients (14%) had chronic pain after TKR. The prevalence and costs of primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions per year were consistently higher for patients with chronic pain after TKR compared with those without chronic pain after TKR; these differences were observed both before and after surgery. There was a substantial and sustained increase in the cost of opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients with chronic pain after TKR, peaking at seven years post-operative. CONCLUSIONS: Increased primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions associated with chronic pain after TKR represent a considerable financial cost to primary care services. Evaluation of interventions to reduce the risk of developing this pain condition and improve the early management of pain after TKR are needed to improve outcomes for patients and reduce costs to healthcare services.