Can intra-articular hip injections predict arthroscopy outcomes for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome? A systematic review.

Background: Femoroacetabular Impingement (FAI) syndrome represents a prevalent aetiology of hip discomfort observed among both adolescent and adult populations. It is initially managed conservatively with oral anti-inflammatories and physiotherapy; some patients proceed to receiving an intra-articular (IA) hip injection, but ultimately, the gold-standard treatment is hip arthroscopy. Study design: Systematic Review. Purpose: To systematically investigate the relationship between response to IA anaesthetic or steroid hip injections and arthroscopy outcomes for FAI syndrome. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Cochrane was conducted in line with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Results: Seven studies (Level II-IV) were identified that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. These studies collectively included 637 patients, demonstrating an average age of 37.5 years (and a range of 14-72 years). Two of the seven studies reported a statistically significant positive correlation between response to IA injections and arthroscopy outcomes. The remaining five studies found that although a positive IA injection response increased the odds of a good outcome post arthroscopy (defined across various studies as a post-operative modified Harris Hip score of >70 points, >79 points or an improvement by 8 or more points), this correlation was not statistically significant. Conclusion: IA hip injections can be a useful prognostic tool, though they are not a consistently reliable predictor of which patients will have good arthroscopic outcomes.

Patient-Reported Outcomes following Total Knee Replacement in Patients Aged 65 Years and Over-A Systematic Review.

A previous systematic review showed positive patient-reported outcomes following total knee replacement (TKR) in patients aged < 65 years. However, the question remains as to whether these results are replicated for older individuals. This systematic review evaluated the patient-reported outcomes following TKR in individuals aged ≥ 65 years. A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were performed to identify studies examining disease-specific or health-related quality of life outcomes following TKR. Qualitative evidence synthesis was performed. Eighteen studies with low (n = 1), moderate (n = 6), or serious (n = 11) overall risk of bias were included, with evidence syntheses derived from 20,826 patients. Four studies reported on pain scales, showing improvement of pain from 6 months to 10 years postoperatively. Nine studies examined functional outcomes, showing significant improvements from 6 months to 10 years after TKR. Improvement in health-related quality of life was evident in six studies over 6 months to 2 years. All four studies examining satisfaction reported overall satisfaction with TKR results. TKR results in reduced pain, improved function, and increased quality of life for individuals aged ≥ 65 years. The improvement in patient-reported outcomes needs to be utilised in conjunction with physician expertise to determine what would comprise clinically significant differences.

British laypeople's attitudes towards gradual sedation, sedation to unconsciousness and euthanasia at the end of life.

BACKGROUND: Many patients at the end of life require analgesia to relieve pain. Additionally, up to 1/5 of patients in the UK receive sedation for refractory symptoms at the end of life. The use of sedation in end-of-life care (EOLC) remains controversial. While gradual sedation to alleviate intractable suffering is generally accepted, there is more opposition towards deliberate and rapid sedation to unconsciousness (so-called "terminal anaesthesia", TA). However, the general public's views about sedation in EOLC are not known. We sought to investigate the general public's views to inform policy and practice in the UK. METHODS: We performed two anonymous online surveys of members of the UK public, sampled to be representative for key demographic characteristics (n = 509). Participants were given a scenario of a hypothetical terminally ill patient with one week of life left. We sought views on the acceptability of providing titrated analgesia, gradual sedation, terminal anaesthesia, and euthanasia. We asked participants about the intentions of doctors, what risks of sedation would be acceptable, and the equivalence of terminal anaesthesia and euthanasia. FINDINGS: Of the 509 total participants, 84% and 72% indicated that it is permissible to offer titrated analgesia and gradual sedation (respectively); 75% believed it is ethical to offer TA. Eighty-eight percent of participants indicated that they would like to have the option of TA available in their EOLC (compared with 79% for euthanasia); 64% indicated that they would potentially wish for TA at the end of life (52% for euthanasia). Two-thirds indicated that doctors should be allowed to make a dying patient completely unconscious. More than 50% of participants believed that TA and euthanasia were non-equivalent; a third believed they were. INTERPRETATION: These novel findings demonstrate substantial support from the UK general public for the use of sedation and TA in EOLC. More discussion is needed about the range of options that should be offered for dying patients.

A conscious choice: Is it ethical to aim for unconsciousness at the end of life?

One of the most commonly referenced ethical principles when it comes to the management of dying patients is the doctrine of double effect (DDE). The DDE affirms that it is acceptable to cause side effects (e.g. respiratory depression) as a consequence of symptom-focused treatment. Much discussion of the ethics of end of life care focuses on the question of whether actions (or omissions) would hasten (or cause) death, and whether that is permissible. However, there is a separate question about the permissibility of hastening or causing unconsciousness in dying patients. Some authors have argued that the DDE would not permit end of life care that directly aims to render the patient unconscious. The claim is that consciousness is an objective human good and therefore doctors should not intentionally (and permanently) suppress it. Three types of end of life care (EOLC) practices will be explored in this article. The first is symptom-based management (e.g. analgesia); the second is proportional terminal sedation as a means of relieving suffering (also referred to as palliative sedation or continuous deep sedation); and finally, deliberate and rapid sedation to unconsciousness until death (a practice we call terminal anaesthesia in this paper). After examining the common arguments for the various types of symptom-based management and sedation, we apply the DDE to the latter two types of EOLC practices. We argue that aiming at unconsciousness, contrary to some claims, can be morally good or at least morally neutral in some dying patients.