Findings from the patch augmented rotator cuff surgery (PARCS) feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: A rotator cuff tear is a common disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms include pain, weakness, lack of mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a pressing need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery. The use of patch augmentation to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds new promise. Different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or intestine tissue, and completely synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or a mesh) have been used to produce patches. However, clinical evidence on their use is limited. The patch augmented rotator cuff surgery (PARCS) feasibility study aimed to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. METHODS: A mixed methods feasibility study of conducing a subsequent RCT. The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence; a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society's (BESS) surgical membership; a survey of surgeon trialists; focus groups and interviews with stakeholders; a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. RESULTS: The BESS surgeons' survey identified a variety of patches in use (105 (21%) responses received). Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the trialist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted involving 24 stakeholders. Twenty-nine (67% of invited) individuals took part in the Delphi. Differing views were held on a number of aspects including the appropriate patient population for trial participation. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential RCTs were achieved through the Delphi study and the consensus meeting. CONCLUSIONS: Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs, and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who might not necessarily reflect all stakeholders.

Patch augmentation surgery for rotator cuff repair: the PARCS mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh). OBJECTIVES: The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. DESIGN: A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018. METHODS: The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society's surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2-6. RESULTS: The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5-152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION: The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available. FUTURE WORK: Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study. STUDY REGISTRATION: The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Shoulder muscles and tendons allow us to move our arms to carry out daily activities, work and play sports. Disease and injury of these tendons can cause significant long-term disability. Early treatment of these tendon problems usually involves painkillers, injections and physiotherapy. However, many patients whose symptoms do not improve may need surgery to repair these tendons. Unfortunately, around 40% of surgical tendon repairs fail within 12 months. As such, these operations need to be improved. A promising approach is to use a patch to support the repair while the tendon heals; this patch is often used in a similar way to a plaster. However, it is not yet clear whether or not using a patch improves patient health and, if so, whether or not it makes enough of a difference to justify the additional cost to the NHS. A scientific study called a randomised controlled trial is needed to fairly assess the value of surgery with a patch in people requiring a tendon repair. This study must be carefully designed so that it is acceptable to patients and surgeons, among others, and feasible to run. We conducted a multistage study to explore whether or not a potential trial design could be achieved. We searched the scientific literature for previous research that had studied using patches for repairing shoulder tendons. We surveyed shoulder surgeons, including those who had previously been involved shoulder randomised controlled trials. We conducted four focus groups with stakeholders. Initial agreement on the best way to run a randomised controlled trial of patches in shoulder surgery was achieved using online questionnaires. Finally, we held a 2-day meeting to scrutinise the study findings and the relevant issues. Two potential studies were recommended, as was the need for closer monitoring of patch safety.

Use of implantable meshes for augmented rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To appraise studies reporting on clinical effectiveness and safety of surgical meshes used to augment rotator cuff repairs (RCRs). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched between April 2006 and April 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All studies evaluating adults (≥18 years) undergoing RCR were considered. There were no language restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects models if ≥2 comparative studies reported the same outcome measure. Risk of bias assessment was undertaken for randomised (RoB2, Cochrane) and comparative studies (ROBINS-I, Cochrane). RESULTS: We included 60 studies, consisting of 7 randomised controlled trials, 13 observational comparative studies and 40 observational case series. All comparative studies reported on shoulder-specific functional outcome scores, 18 on the radiographic occurrence of re-tear and 14 on pain score metrics. All studies contained some risk of bias.Compared with non-augmented repair, a small improvement in shoulder-specific function or pain scores was observed for synthetic patches with a mean improvement of 6.7 points on the University of California Los Angles (UCLA) shoulder score (95% CI 0.1 to 13.4) and 0.46 point reduction on the Visual Analogue Scale (95% CI -0.74 to -0.17), respectively. A reduced likelihood of radiologically observed re-tear was observed for synthetic (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.61) and allograft (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.65) patches. A total of 49 studies reported on the occurrence of complications. Slightly higher crude complication rates were observed following patch-augmented repair (2.1%) than standard repair (1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: While several studies suggest a decreased failure rate and small improvements in shoulder function and pain following augmented RCR, a paucity of rigorous clinical evaluation, for both effectiveness and safety, prevents firm recommendations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017057908.

Systematic review of the surgical management of rotator cuff repair with an augmentative patch: a feasibility study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain is a common problem in the general population and is responsible for prolonged periods of disability, loss of productivity, absence from work and inability to carry out household activities. Rotator cuff problems account for up to 70% of shoulder pain problems and are the third most prevalent musculoskeletal disorder after those occurring in the lower back and neck. Rotator cuff surgery has high failure rates (25-50% within 12 months), and as a result, there is a pressing need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery. Patch augmented surgery for rotator cuff repairs has recently been developed and is increasingly being used within the UK National Health Service. Patch augmented surgery could lead to a dramatic improvement in patient and surgical outcomes, but its clinical and cost effectiveness needs rigorous evaluation. The existing evidence on the use of patches may be at risk of bias as currently only a small number of single-centre comparative studies appear to have been carried out. Additionally, it is unclear for which patches a clinical study (comparative and non-comparative) has been conducted. This paper outlines the protocol for a systematic review intended to summarise the best available clinical evidence and will indicate what further research is required. METHODS: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane) will be systematically searched between April 2006 and the present day for relevant publications using a specified search strategy, which can be adapted for the use in multiple electronic databases, and inclusion criteria. Screening of both titles and abstracts will be done by two independent reviewers with any discrepancies resolved by a third independent reviewer. Data extraction will include information regarding the type of participants, type of intervention and outcomes including but not limited to shoulder-specific function and pain scores, patch-related adverse events and type of study. The results will be summarised in a narrative review where qualitative analysis is not possible. DISCUSSION: This review aims to collate the current evidence base regarding the use of patches to augment rotator cuff repair. The results of this review will help to develop, using consensus methods, the design of a definitive randomised trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and is feasible. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42017057908.

Review of the Reporting of Survival Analyses within Randomised Controlled Trials and the Implications for Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis is a growing approach to evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis in particular represents an important and developing method within Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Meta-analysis of survival data is usually performed using the individual summary statistic-the hazard ratio (HR) from each randomised controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to: (i) review the methods and reporting of survival analyses in oncology RCTs; and (ii) assess the suitability and relevance of survival data reported in RCTs for inclusion into meta-analysis. METHODS: Five oncology journals were searched to identify Phase III RCTs published between April and July 2015. Eligible studies included those that analysed a survival outcome. RESULTS: Thirty-two RCTs reporting survival outcomes in cancer populations were identified. None of the publications reported details relating to a strategy for statistical model building, the goodness of fit of the final model, or final model validation for the analysis of survival outcomes. The majority of studies (88%) reported the use of Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression to analyse survival endpoints. However, most publications failed to report the validation of the statistical models in terms of the PH assumption. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights deficiencies in terms of reporting the methods and validity of survival analyses within oncology RCTs. We support previous recommendations to encourage authors to improve the reporting of survival analyses in journal publications. We also recommend that the final choice of a statistical model for survival should be informed by goodness of model fit to a given dataset, and that model assumptions are validated. The failure of trial investigators and statisticians to investigate the PH for RCT survival data is likely to result in clinical decisions based on inappropriate methods. The development of alternative approaches for the meta-analysis of survival outcomes when the PH assumption is implausible is required if valid clinical decisions are to be made.