Management of primary snoring in adults: A scoping review examining interventions, outcomes and instruments used to assess clinical effects.

While various treatment options for primary snoring are available, evidence-based recommendations to determine the optimal intervention remain unestablished. To inform future directions of research to guide clinical decision-making, this scoping review was conducted to map the existing evidence on interventions for primary snoring, the outcomes and instruments used to assess their clinical effects in adults. The feasibility of conducting further systematic reviews and comparing outcomes across these therapies using network meta-analysis was also assessed. Of the 1673 records identified, 38 interventional studies met the inclusion criteria with three-fifths of them being before-after studies. The most common reason for study exclusion was results being reported for patients with primary snoring and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) combined. Interventions were surgical (73 %), behavioural and the use of devices/medications. Twenty-six common outcomes were identified and categorised into six domains. Fifty-nine instruments were used to assess the outcomes and based mainly on non-validated questionnaires. Our findings indicated (1) the need for randomised controlled trials with strict discrimination between patients with primary snoring and OSA, (2) further network meta-analyses using some outcomes is feasible, and (3) a core outcome set to inform standardised reporting for future research should be developed.

Surgical versus non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture in adults 60 years and older: the L1FE RCT.

Background: Lateral compression type-1 pelvic fractures are a common fragility fracture in older adults. Patients who do not mobilise due to ongoing pain are at greater risk of immobility-related complications. Standard treatment in the United Kingdom is provision of pain relief and early mobilisation, unlike fragility hip fractures, which are usually treated surgically based on evidence that early surgery is associated with better outcomes. Currently there is no evidence on whether patients with lateral compression type-1 fragility fractures would have a better recovery with surgery than non-surgical management. Objectives: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical fixation with internal fixation device compared to non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 fragility fractures in older adults. Design: Pragmatic, randomised controlled superiority trial, with 12-month internal pilot; target sample size was 600 participants. Participants were randomised between surgical and non-surgical management (1 : 1 allocation ratio). An economic evaluation was planned. Setting: UK Major Trauma Centres. Participants: Patients aged 60 years or older with a lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture, arising from a low-energy fall and unable to mobilise independently to a distance of 3 m and back due to pelvic pain 72 hours after injury. Interventions: Internal fixation device surgical fixation and non-surgical management. Participants, surgeons and outcome assessors were not blinded to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome - average patient health-related quality of life, over 6 months, assessed by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility score. Secondary outcomes (over the 6 months following injury) - self-rated health, physical function, mental health, pain, delirium, displacement of pelvis, mortality, complications and adverse events, and resource use data for the economic evaluation. Results: The trial closed early, at the end of the internal pilot, due to low recruitment. The internal pilot was undertaken in two separate phases because of a pause in recruitment due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The planned statistical and health economic analyses were not conducted. Outcome data were summarised descriptively. Eleven sites opened for recruitment for a combined total of 92 months. Three-hundred and sixteen patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 43 were eligible (13.6%). The main reason for ineligibility was that the patient was able to mobilise independently to 3 m and back (n = 161). Of the 43 eligible participants, 36 (83.7%) were approached for consent, of whom 11 (30.6%) provided consent. The most common reason for eligible patients not consenting to take part was that they were unwilling to be randomised to a treatment (n = 10). There were 11 participants, 5 randomised to surgical management with internal fixation device and 6 to non-surgical management. The average age of participants was 83.0 years (interquartile range 76.0, 89.0) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility score at 6 months post randomisation (n = 8) was 0.32 (standard deviation 0.37). A limitation of the trial was that study objectives were not addressed due to poor recruitment. Conclusions: It was not feasible to recruit to this trial in the current context. Further research to understand the treatment and recovery pathways of this group of patients, along with their outcomes, would be needed prior to undertaking a future trial. Future work: Exploration of equipoise across different healthcare professional groups. Investigate longer-term patient outcomes. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16478561. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/57) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 15. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

When older adults with weak bones fall onto their side, they can fracture the pelvis in a certain way known as a 'lateral compression type-1 fracture'; this summary will use 'pelvic fracture'. Pelvic fractures can heal without surgery; patients are offered pain relief and encouraged to move as much as they can after the injury. Pelvic fractures can be painful, and some people are not able to get up and walk for weeks. These fractures can cause health problems such as chest infections, urinary tract infections, pressure sores and blood clots. To avoid these problems, we are trying to find treatments to help people recover sooner. Pelvic surgeons think patients may benefit from surgery with an internal fixation device (a bar and screws) to stabilise the pelvis; however, there can be risks and complications with any surgery. This study aimed to find out which treatment is better for patients and better value for money for the National Health Service. This required 600 people aged over 60, in hospital with a pelvic fracture and having difficulty walking to take part. Three hundred would receive surgery and 300 would receive non-surgical treatment. Over 6 months, participants would complete questionnaires, a walking assessment and have X-rays to check healing. The trial had a 12-month run-in period to see if enough people would take part. The trial closed early as we were unable to recruit sufficient people into the study. Fewer older patients with pelvic fractures were identified than expected, 51% were able to walk after a few days and therefore were not eligible to be included in the study. Of the patients, 13.6% were eligible and 30.6% of those consented to take part. Restrictions on visitors during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic made it difficult to discuss the study with patients' families and fewer patients were admitted to hospital where the study was taking place. The research question could not be answered by this study at the present time.

'A whole different ball game': the qualitative experience of older adults with a transtibial amputation and the use of a self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot on the STEPFORWARD trial.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with lower limb amputation, categorised as having "limited community mobility", are under-researched. Understanding their experience with a new prosthetic ankle-foot is important when designing clinical trials. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the adjustments they made after amputation and the acceptability of a self-aligning ankle-foot (SA-AF) to older adults. METHODS: Fourteen participants, who took part in the STEPFORWARD randomised controlled feasibility trial (ISRCTN15043643), were purposively recruited; nine were intervention participants and five were standard care participants. They were asked to reflect on their life prior to and consider the adjustments they made following their amputation. Participants in the intervention group were also asked about their views of the new SA-AF compared to their standard non-SA-AF. A thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Three broad themes were identified: The impact of the amputation; Role of clinical support; and Experiences of the SA-AF. The findings tell a narrative of the long-term impact that amputation has on these individuals' lives. Participants randomised to receive the SA-AF were very positive about it, reporting less pain, greater mobility and being able to do more. CONCLUSION: Participants who used the SA-AF found it an acceptable intervention. These findings suggest that a full-scale RCT is warranted.

There is a high degree of acceptability among an older patient group with a transtibial amputation to use a self-aligning ankle foot.Patients reported experiencing better mobility and more prosthetic comfort with the self-aligning ankle-foot.Key outcomes important to participants include engagement in social and daily activities and balance confidence.

A scoping review of the outcome reporting following surgery for chronic osteomyelitis of the lower limb.

Chronic osteomyelitis (COM) of the lower limb in adults can be surgically managed by either limb reconstruction or amputation. This scoping review aims to map the outcomes used in studies surgically managing COM in order to aid future development of a core outcome set. A total of 11 databases were searched. A subset of studies published between 1 October 2020 and 1 January 2011 from a larger review mapping research on limb reconstruction and limb amputation for the management of lower limb COM were eligible. All outcomes were extracted and recorded verbatim. Outcomes were grouped and categorized as per the revised Williamson and Clarke taxonomy. A total of 3,303 records were screened, of which 99 studies were included. Most studies were case series (77/99; 78%) and assessed one method of reconstruction (68/99; 69%). A total of 511 outcomes were reported, which were grouped into 58 distinct outcomes. Overall, 143/511 of all outcomes (28%) were provided with a clear, in-text definition, and 231 outcomes (45%) had details reported of how and when they were measured. The most commonly reported outcome was 'recurrence of osteomyelitis' (62; 12%). The single-most patient-reported outcome measure was 'pain'. This study has highlighted significant inconsistencies in the defining, reporting, and measuring of outcomes across studies investigating surgical management for chronic osteomyelitis of the lower limb in adults. Future studies should clearly report complete details of how outcomes are defined and measured, including timing. The development of a standardized core outcome set would be of significant benefit in order to allow evidence synthesis and comparison across studies.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty versus non-surgical treatment for older adults with acute 3- or 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PROFHER-2: PROximal Fracture of Humerus Evaluation by Randomisation - Trial Number 2).

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fractures (PHF) are common and painful injuries, with the majority resulting from falls from a standing height. As with other fragility fractures, its age-specific incidence is increasing. Surgical treatment with hemiarthroplasty (HA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been increasingly used for displaced 3- and 4-part fractures despite a lack of good quality evidence as to whether one type of arthroplasty is superior to the other, and whether surgery is better than non-surgical management. The PROFHER-2 trial has been designed as a pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of RSA vs HA vs Non-Surgical (NS) treatment in patients with 3- and 4-part PHF. METHODS: Adults over 65 years of age presenting with acute radiographically confirmed 3- or 4-part fractures, with or without associated glenohumeral joint dislocation, who consent for trial participation will be recruited from around 40 National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals in the UK. Patients with polytrauma, open fractures, presence of axillary nerve palsy, pathological (other than osteoporotic) fractures, and those who are unable to adhere to trial procedures will be excluded. We will aim to recruit 380 participants (152 RSA, 152 HA, 76 NS) using 2:2:1 (HA:RSA:NS) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fractures without joint dislocation, and 1:1 (HA:RSA) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fracture dislocations. The primary outcome is the Oxford Shoulder Score at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), pain, range of shoulder motion, fracture healing and implant position on X-rays, further procedures, and complications. Independent Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee will oversee the trial conduct, including the reporting of adverse events and harms. DISCUSSION: The PROFHER-2 trial is designed to provide a robust answer to guide the treatment of patients aged 65 years or over who sustain 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures. The pragmatic design and recruitment from around 40 UK NHS hospitals will ensure immediate applicability and generalisability of the trial findings. The full trial results will be made available in a relevant open-access peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN76296703. Prospectively registered on 5th April 2018.

Lateral compression type 1 fracture fixation in the elderly (L1FE): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (with internal pilot) comparing the effects of INFIX surgery and non-surgical management for treating patients with lateral compression type 1 (LC-1) fragility fractures.

BACKGROUND: Lateral compression type1 (LC-1) fragility fractures are a common, painful injury in older adults resulting in reduced mobility. The incidence of these fractures is increasing with the growing older adult population. The current standard of care is non-surgical management; however, patients with this injury are at risk of long-term immobility and related complications. INFIX is a pelvic fixation device used in younger patients with high-energy fractures. The device is fitted via a percutaneous technique with no external pin sites and has good purchase even in osteoporotic bone. It therefore has the potential to be well tolerated in patients with LC-1 fragility fractures. INFIX could improve patients' ability to mobilise and reduce the risk of immobility-related complications. However, there is a risk of complications related to surgery, and robust evidence is required on patient outcomes. This study will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical fixation with INFIX compared to non-surgical management of LC-1 fragility fractures in older adults. METHODS: A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of 600 patients allocated 1:1 to non-surgical management or INFIX surgery. The study will have a 12-month internal pilot to assess recruitment and trial feasibility. The primary outcome will be the patient quality of life over 6 months, measured by the patient-reported EQ-5D-5L. The secondary outcomes will include physical function, mental health, pain, delirium, imaging assessment, resource use, and complications. DISCUSSION: The L1FE study aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical management of people aged 60 years and older with LC-1 fragility fractures. The trial is sufficiently powered and rigorously designed to inform future clinical and patient decision-making and allocation of NHS resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN16478561. Registered on 8 April 2019.

What is important to adults after lower limb reconstruction surgery: a conceptual framework.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to understand the impact of lower limb reconstruction on patient's Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL). Existing measures have not involved this group of patients and their experiences during development. This study aimed to develop a conceptual framework to reflect what is important to patients requiring, undergoing or after undergoing reconstructive surgery. METHODS: Our population of interest was people requiring, undergoing or after undergoing reconstructive surgery due to trauma, malunion, nonunion, infection or congenital issues treated by internal or external fixation. We undertook semi-structured interviews with patients and orthopaedic healthcare professionals (surgeons, methodologists and patient contributors) in England. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients and 22 orthopaedic healthcare professionals (surgeons, methodologists and patient contributors) were interviewed between November 2020 and June 2021. Eight domains from a previously developed preliminary conceptual framework were used as a framework around which to code the interviews using thematic analysis. Six domains important to patients (from the perspective of patients and orthopaedic healthcare professionals) were included in the final conceptual framework: pain, perception-of-self, work and finances, daily lifestyle and functioning, emotional well-being, and support. These findings, plus meetings with our advisory panel led to the refinement of the conceptual framework. CONCLUSION: The first five domains relate to important outcomes for patients; they are all inter-related and their importance to patients changed throughout recovery. The final domain-support (from work, the hospital, physiotherapists and family/friends)-was vital to patients and lessened the negative impact of the other domains on their HRQL. These new data strengthen our original findings and our understanding of the domains we identified in the QES. The next step in this research is to ascertain whether current PROMs used with this group of patients adequately capture these areas of importance.

Elbow arthroplasty research methods, outcome domains, and instruments used in clinical outcome studies : a scoping review.

AIMS: Arthroplasties of the elbow, including total elbow arthroplasty, radial head arthroplasty, distal humeral hemiarthroplasty, and radiocapitellar arthroplasty, are rarely undertaken. This scoping review aims to outline the current research in this area to inform the development of future research. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken adhering to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries, limited to studies published between 1 January 1990 and 7 February 2021. Endnote software was used for screening and selection, and included randomized trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, and case series of ten or more patients reporting the clinical outcomes of elbow arthroplasty. The results are presented as the number of types of studies, sample size, length of follow-up, clinical outcome domains and instruments used, sources of funding, and a narrative review. RESULTS: A total of 362 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were of total elbow arthroplasty (246; 68%), followed by radial head arthroplasty (100; 28%), distal humeral hemiarthroplasty (11; 3%), and radiocapitellar arthroplasty (5; 1%). Most were retrospective (326; 90%) and observational (315; 87%). The median sample size for all types of implant across all studies was 36 (interquartile range (IQR) 21 to 75). The median length of follow-up for all studies was 56 months (IQR 36 to 81). A total of 583 unique outcome descriptors were used and were categorized into 18 domains. A total of 105 instruments were used to measure 39 outcomes. CONCLUSION: We found that most of the literature dealing with elbow arthroplasty consists of retrospective observational studies with small sample sizes and short follow-up. Many outcomes have been used with many different instruments for their measurement, indicating a need to define a core set of outcomes and instruments for future research in this area.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1148-1155.

Scaling up Quality Improvement for Surgical Teams (QIST)-avoiding surgical site infection and anaemia at the time of surgery: a cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to introduce change in the NHS.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this trial was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to implement large-scale change in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, specifically for improving outcomes in patients undergoing primary, elective total hip or knee replacement. METHODS: We undertook a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the roll-out of two preoperative pathways: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) decolonisation (infection arm) and anaemia screening and treatment (anaemia arm). NHS Trusts are public sector organisations that provide healthcare within a geographical area. NHS Trusts (n = 41) in England providing primary, elective total hip and knee replacements, but that did not have a preoperative anaemia screening or MSSA decolonisation pathway in place, were randomised to one of the two parallel collaboratives. Collaboratives took place from May 2018 to November 2019. Twenty-seven Trusts completed the trial (11 anaemia, 16 infection). Outcome data were collected for procedures performed between November 2018 and November 2019. Co-primary outcomes were perioperative blood transfusion (within 7 days of surgery) and deep surgical site infection (SSI) caused by MSSA (within 90 days post-surgery) for the anaemia and infection trial arms, respectively. Secondary outcomes were deep and superficial SSIs (any organism), length of hospital stay, critical care admissions and unplanned readmissions. Process measures included the proportion of eligible patients receiving each preoperative initiative. RESULTS: There were 19,254 procedures from 27 NHS Trusts included in the results (6324 from 11 Trusts in the anaemia arm, 12,930 from 16 Trusts in the infection arm). There were no improvements observed for blood transfusion (anaemia arm 183 (2.9%); infection arm 302 (2.3%) transfusions; adjusted odds ratio 1.20, 95% CI 0.52-2.75, p = 0.67) or MSSA deep SSI (anaemia arm 8 (0.13%); infection arm 18 (0.14%); adjusted odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.42-2.46, p = 0.98). There were no significant improvements in any secondary outcome. This is despite process measures showing the preoperative pathways were implemented for 73.7% and 61.1% of eligible procedures in the infection and anaemia arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement collaboratives did not result in improved patient outcomes in this trial; however, there was some evidence they may support successful implementation of new preoperative pathways in the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on 15 February 2018, ISRCTN11085475.

Interventions for improving the design and conduct of scientific research: A scoping review protocol.

Background: Research waste is prevalent in many scientific fields despite a number of initiatives to improve research practices. Interventions to improve practice are often implemented without evaluating their effectiveness. It is therefore important to identify the interventions that have been evaluated, assess how they have been evaluated and to identify areas where further research is required. Objectives: A scoping review will be undertaken to assess what interventions, aimed at researchers or research teams, to improve research design and conduct have been evaluated. This review will also consider when in the research pathway these interventions are implemented; what aspects of research design or conduct are being targeted; and who is implementing these interventions. Methods: Interventions which aim to improve the design or conduct of research will be eligible for inclusion. The review will not include interventions aimed at hypothetical research projects or interventions implemented without evaluation.The following sources will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, HMIC, EconLit, Social Policy and Practice, ProQuest theses, and MetaArXiv. Hand searching of references and citations of included studies will also be undertaken. Searches will be limited to articles published in the last 10 years.Data extraction will be completed using a data extraction template developed for this review. Results will be tabulated by type of intervention, research stage, and outcome. A narrative review will also be provided addressing each of the objectives.

It has been shown that due to the poor way in which some research is done the results either cannot be trusted or are not useful. Examples of this include: not publishing research that is completed so the results cannot be used by others; using outdated or unreliable research methods; measuring outcomes that are not useful in the real world or not important to patients; having too small a sample of participants in a study to get a reliable answer to the research question. This means that the money that has been spent on the research and the time that any participants have given to that research has been wasted. There have been a number of initiatives to try and stop this happening. It is important to evaluate these to test whether they actually work. Some initiatives that have been evaluated include: reminders to publish research once it is complete, providing researchers with tools for better research design and public recognition for good research practices. We intend to search for and summarise all the initiatives that have already been tested. To do this we will do a comprehensive search for all studies that have tested these initiatives. By doing this we will be able to see what further initiatives could be developed and how we can better test them.

Surgery versus conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fracture: the PRESTO feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is informal consensus that simple compression fractures of the body of the thoracolumbar vertebrae between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra without neurological complications can be managed conservatively and that obvious unstable fractures require surgical fixation. However, there is a zone of uncertainty about whether surgical or conservative management is best for stable fractures. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing surgical fixation with initial conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fractures without spinal cord injury. DESIGN: External randomised feasibility study, qualitative study and national survey. SETTING: Three NHS hospitals. METHODS: A feasibility randomised controlled trial using block randomisation, stratified by centre and type of injury (high- or low-energy trauma) to allocate participants 1 : 1 to surgery or conservative treatment; a costing analysis; a national survey of spine surgeons; and a qualitative study with clinicians, recruiting staff and patients. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years with a high- or low-energy fracture of the body of a thoracolumbar vertebra between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra, confirmed by radiography, computerised tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, with at least one of the following: kyphotic angle > 20° on weight-bearing radiographs or > 15° on a supine radiograph or on computerised tomography; reduction in vertebral body height of 25%; a fracture line propagating through the posterior wall of the vertebra; involvement of two contiguous vertebrae; or injury to the posterior longitudinal ligament or annulus in addition to the body fracture. INTERVENTIONS: Surgical fixation: open spinal surgery (with or without spinal fusion) or minimally invasive stabilisation surgery. Conservative management: mobilisation with or without a brace. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Recruitment rate (proportion of eligible participants randomised). RESULTS: Twelve patients were randomised (surgery, n = 8; conservative, n = 4). The proportion of eligible patients recruited was 0.43 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.63) over a combined total of 30.7 recruitment months. Of 211 patients screened, 28 (13.3%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Patients in the qualitative study (n = 5) expressed strong preferences for surgical treatment, and identified provision of information about treatment and recovery and when and how they are approached for consent as important. Nineteen surgeons and site staff participated in the qualitative study. Key themes were the lack of clinical consensus regarding the implementation of the eligibility criteria in practice and what constitutes a stable fracture, alongside lack of equipoise regarding treatment. Based on the feasibility study eligibility criteria, 77% (50/65) and 70% (46/66) of surgeons participating in the survey were willing to randomise for high- and low-energy fractures, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the small number of participants, there is substantial uncertainty around the recruitment rate. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive trial is unlikely to be feasible currently, mainly because of the small number of patients meeting the eligibility criteria. The recruitment and follow-up rates were slightly lower than anticipated; however, there is room to increase these based on information gathered and the support within the surgical community for a future trial. FUTURE WORK: Development of consensus regarding the population of interest for a trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12094890. 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. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Fractures occurring in the mid- to low back region (or thoracolumbar fractures) are the most common back fractures. When the fracture is stable with no spinal nerve injury, there is uncertainty whether treatment with surgery or non-surgical treatment (e.g. stabilising the spine with a brace) results in the best outcome for patients. The Pragmatic Randomised Evaluation of Stable Thoracolumbar fracture treatment Outcomes (PRESTO) study aimed to explore whether or not it would be feasible to carry out a full-scale study to find out which of these two treatments works best. Adults aged ≥ 16 years being treated for these fractures in three hospitals were invited to take part in the study. Over the course of 1 year, we assessed how many patients were treated, the number who met the study entry criteria and the proportion of eligible patients who agreed to take part. Staff and patients were interviewed about the study processes and their experiences of taking part. Spine surgeons from around the UK were also asked to complete an online survey, which asked questions about the treatment of patients with this fracture. There were fewer patients than expected who met the study entry criteria and, of these, fewer patients who agreed to take part. There were differences among surgeons about the definition of a stable fracture, and we found that surgeons have strong views about whether or not surgery is appropriate when fractures are stable. We also found that more support would be required for the staff involved in inviting patients to take part in a bigger study, and that the format and content of information provided to patients needs to be improved. The findings of the PRESTO study showed that a large trial is unlikely to be successful at this time; however, we have provided important information for future research into the treatment of these fractures.

Effectiveness of interventions for the management of primary frozen shoulder : a systematic review of randomized trials.

AIMS: This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, Science Citation Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry were searched up to December 2018. Reference lists of included studies were screened. No language restrictions applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, PTSI, and hydrodilatation against each other, or supportive care or no treatment, for the management of primary frozen shoulder. RESULTS: Nine RCTs were included. The primary outcome of patient-reported shoulder function at long-term follow-up (> 6 months and ≤ 12 months) was reported for five treatment comparisons across four studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were: ACR versus MUA: 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.42), ACR versus supportive care: -0.13 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.83), and ACR versus PTSI: 0.33 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.59) and 0.25 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.85), all favouring ACR; MUA versus supportive care: 0 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.44) not favouring either; and MUA versus PTSI: 0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.37) favouring MUA. None of these differences met the threshold of clinical significance agreed for the UK FROST and most confidence intervals included zero. CONCLUSION: The findings from a recent multicentre RCT provided the strongest evidence that, when compared with each other, neither PTSI, MUA, nor ACR are clinically superior. Evidence from smaller RCTs did not change this conclusion. The effectiveness of hydrodilatation based on four RCTs was inconclusive and there remains an evidence gap. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):773-784.

Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatments compared with early structured physiotherapy in secondary care for adults with primary frozen shoulder : an economic evaluation of the UK FROST trial.

AIMS: A pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial, UK FROzen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), was conducted in the UK NHS comparing the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments for adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care. METHODS: A cost utility analysis from the NHS perspective was performed. Differences between manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR), and early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection (ESP) in costs (2018 GBP price base) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at one year were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments using regression methods. RESULTS: ACR was £1,734 more costly than ESP ((95% confidence intervals (CIs) £1,529 to £1,938)) and £1,457 more costly than MUA (95% CI £1,283 to £1,632). MUA was £276 (95% CI £66 to £487) more expensive than ESP. Overall, ACR had worse QALYs compared with MUA (-0.0293; 95% CI -0.0616 to 0.0030) and MUA had better QALYs compared with ESP (0.0396; 95% CI -0.0008 to 0.0800). At a £20,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, MUA had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.8632) then ESP (0.1366) and ACR (0.0002). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: While ESP was less costly, MUA was the most cost-effective option. ACR was not cost-effective. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):685-695.

Embedding qualitative research in randomised controlled trials to improve recruitment: findings from two recruitment optimisation studies of orthopaedic surgical trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment of patients is one of the main challenges when designing and conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Trials of rare injuries or those that include surgical interventions pose added challenges due to the small number of potentially eligible patients and issues with patient preferences and surgeon equipoise. We explore key issues to consider when recruiting to orthopaedic surgical trials from the perspective of staff and patients with the aim of informing the development of strategies to improve recruitment in future research. DESIGN: Two qualitative process evaluations of a UK-wide orthopaedic surgical RCT (ACTIVE) and mixed methods randomised feasibility study (PRESTO). Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted and data was analysed thematically. SETTING: NHS secondary care organisations throughout the UK. Interviews were undertaken via telephone. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven health professionals including UK-based spinal and orthopaedic surgeons and individuals involved in recruitment to the ACTIVE and PRESTO studies (e.g. research nurses, surgeons, physiotherapists). Twenty-two patients including patients who agreed to participate in the ACTIVE and PRESTO studies (n=15) and patients that declined participation in the ACTIVE study (n=7) were interviewed. RESULTS: We used a mixed methods systematic review of recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials as a framework for reporting and analysing our findings. Our findings mapped onto those identified in the systematic review and highlighted the importance of equipoise, randomisation, communication, patient's circumstances, altruism and trust in clinical and research teams. Our findings also emphasised the importance of considering how eligibility criteria are operationalised and the impact of complex patient pathways when recruiting to surgical trials. In particular, the influence of health professionals, who are not involved in trial recruitment, on patients' treatment preferences by suggesting they would receive a certain treatment ahead of recruitment consultations should not be underestimated. CONCLUSIONS: A wealth of evidence exploring factors affecting recruitment to randomised controlled trials exists. A methodological shift is now required to ensure that this evidence is used by all those involved in recruitment and to ensure that existing knowledge is translated into methods for optimising recruitment to future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTIVE: ( ISRCTN98152560 ). Registered on 06/03/2018. PRESTO: ( ISRCTN12094890 ). Registered on 22/02/2018.

A multicentre, randomized, parallel group, superiority study to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of external frame versus internal locking plate for complete articular pilon fracture fixation in adults.

AIMS: A pilon fracture is a severe ankle joint injury caused by high-energy trauma, typically affecting men of working age. Although relatively uncommon (5% to 7% of all tibial fractures), this injury causes among the worst functional and health outcomes of any skeletal injury, with a high risk of serious complications and long-term disability, and with devastating consequences on patients' quality of life and financial prospects. Robust evidence to guide treatment is currently lacking. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two surgical interventions that are most commonly used to treat pilon fractures. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 334 adult patients diagnosed with a closed type C pilon fracture will be conducted. Internal locking plate fixation will be compared with external frame fixation. The primary outcome and endpoint will be the Disability Rating Index (a patient self-reported assessment of physical disability) at 12 months. This will also be measured at baseline, three, six, and 24 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes include the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), the five-level EuroQol five-dimenison score (EQ-5D-5L), complications (including bone healing), resource use, work impact, and patient treatment preference. The acceptability of the treatments and study design to patients and health care professionals will be explored through qualitative methods. DISCUSSION: The two treatments being compared are the most commonly used for this injury, however there is uncertainty over which is most clinically and cost-effective. The Articular Pilon Fracture (ACTIVE) Trial is a sufficiently powered and rigorously designed study to inform clinical decisions for the treatment of adults with this injury. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(3):150-163.

STEPFORWARD study: a randomised controlled feasibility trial of a self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot for older patients with vascular-related amputations.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot compared with a standard prosthetic ankle-foot. DESIGN: Multicentre parallel group feasibility RCT. SETTING: Five prosthetics centres in England recruiting from July 2018 to August 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥50 years with a vascular-related or non-traumatic transtibial amputation for 1 year or longer, categorised as having 'limited community mobility' and using a non-self-aligning ankle-foot. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised into one of two groups for 12 weeks: self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot or existing non-self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot. OUTCOMES: Feasibility measures: recruitment, consent and retention rates; and completeness of questionnaire and clinical assessment datasets across multiple time points. Feasibility of collecting daily activity data with wearable technology and health resource use data with a bespoke questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty-five participants were randomised (61% of the target 90 participants): n=27 self-aligning ankle-foot group, n=28 non-self-aligning ankle-foot group. Fifty-one participants were included in the final analysis (71% of the target number of participants). The consent rate and retention at final follow-up were 86% and 93%, respectively. The average recruitment rate was 1.25 participants/site/month (95% CI 0.39 to 2.1). Completeness of questionnaires ranged from 89%-94%, and clinical assessments were 92%-95%, including the activity monitor data. The average completion rates for the EQ-5D-5L and bespoke resource use questionnaire were 93% and 63%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility trial recruited and retained participants who were categorised as having 'limited community mobility' following a transtibial amputation. The high retention rate of 93% indicated the trial was acceptable to participants and feasible to deliver as a full-scale RCT. The findings support a future, fully powered evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot compared with a standard non-self-aligning version with some adjustments to the trial design and delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15043643.

Surgical treatments compared with early structured physiotherapy in secondary care for adults with primary frozen shoulder: the UK FROST three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Frozen shoulder causes pain and stiffness. It affects around 10% of people in their fifties and is slightly more common in women. Costly and invasive surgical interventions are used, without high-quality evidence that these are effective. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three treatments in secondary care for adults with frozen shoulder; to qualitatively explore the acceptability of these treatments to patients and health-care professionals; and to update a systematic review to explore the trial findings in the context of existing evidence for the three treatments. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, three-arm, randomised superiority trial with unequal allocation (2 : 2 : 1). An economic evaluation and a nested qualitative study were also carried out. SETTING: The orthopaedic departments of 35 hospitals across the UK were recruited from April 2015, with final follow-up in December 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation in the affected shoulder to < 50% of the opposite shoulder, and with plain radiographs excluding other pathology. INTERVENTIONS: The inventions were early structured physiotherapy with a steroid injection, manipulation under anaesthesia with a steroid injection and arthroscopic capsular release followed by manipulation. Both of the surgical interventions were followed with post-procedural physiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome and end point was the Oxford Shoulder Score at 12 months post randomisation. A difference of 5 points between early structured physiotherapy and manipulation under anaesthesia or arthroscopic capsular release or of 4 points between manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release was judged clinically important. RESULTS: The mean age of the 503 participants was 54 years; 319 were female (63%) and 150 had diabetes (30%). The primary analyses comprised 473 participants (94%). At the primary end point of 12 months, participants randomised to arthroscopic capsular release had, on average, a statistically significantly higher (better) Oxford Shoulder Score than those randomised to manipulation under anaesthesia (2.01 points, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 3.91 points; p = 0.04) or early structured physiotherapy (3.06 points, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 5.41 points; p = 0.01). Manipulation under anaesthesia did not result in statistically significantly better Oxford Shoulder Score than early structured physiotherapy (1.05 points, 95% confidence interval -1.28 to 3.39 points; p = 0.38). No differences were deemed of clinical importance. Serious adverse events were rare but occurred in participants randomised to surgery (arthroscopic capsular release,n = 8; manipulation under anaesthesia,n = 2). There was, however, one serious adverse event in a participant who received non-trial physiotherapy. The base-case economic analysis showed that manipulation under anaesthesia was more expensive than early structured physiotherapy, with slightly better utilities. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for manipulation under anaesthesia was £6984 per additional quality-adjusted life-year, and this intervention was probably 86% cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Arthroscopic capsular release was more costly than early structured physiotherapy and manipulation under anaesthesia, with no statistically significant benefit in utilities. Participants in the qualitative study wanted early medical help and a quicker pathway to resolve their shoulder problem. Nine studies were identified from the updated systematic review, including UK FROST, of which only two could be pooled, and found that arthroscopic capsular release was more effective than physiotherapy in the long-term shoulder functioning of patients, but not to the clinically important magnitude used in UK FROST. LIMITATIONS: Implementing physiotherapy to the trial standard in clinical practice might prove challenging but could avoid theatre use and post-procedural physiotherapy. There are potential confounding effects of waiting times in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: None of the three interventions was clearly superior. Early structured physiotherapy with a steroid injection is an accessible and low-cost option. Manipulation under anaesthesia is the most cost-effective option. Arthroscopic capsular release carries higher risks and higher costs. FUTURE WORK: Evaluation in a randomised controlled trial is recommended to address the increasing popularity of hydrodilatation despite the paucity of high-quality evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48804508. 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. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Frozen shoulder occurs when the soft tissue envelope around the shoulder joint becomes inflamed, scarred and contracted, making movement painful and stiff. It affects around 1 in 10 people and is more common in women. Most patients are treated in the community. Those who do not improve are offered treatments in hospital. This includes costly and invasive surgical options. It is unclear which treatment provides the best patient outcomes and is cost-effective. UK FROST (UK FROzen Shoulder Trial) comprised 503 patients (from 35 UK hospitals) who randomly received one of three commonly offered treatments for frozen shoulder: early physiotherapy to restore movement, including a steroid injection for pain reliefmanipulation under anaesthesia, to stretch and tear the tight capsule to restore movement, and a steroid injection followed by physiotherapyarthroscopic capsular release, which uses keyhole surgery, including manipulation, to restore movement, followed by physiotherapy with pain medication. No important differences were found between the three treatments in shoulder function or pain at 12 months. Fewer patients who received arthroscopic capsular release required further treatment, and patients who received arthroscopic capsular release had slightly better shoulder function and pain outcomes than those who received the manipulation procedure or early physiotherapy. This improvement, however, was unlikely to be of clinical benefit to patients. Arthroscopic capsular release had slightly higher risks and substantially higher costs. Six serious complications were reported in patients who received arthroscopic capsular release (mostly owing to co-existing health problems) and two were reported in patients who received manipulation under anaesthesia. Physiotherapy was the least expensive treatment, but patients who received manipulation under anaesthesia had slightly better general health than those who received physiotherapy. Early physiotherapy with steroid injection could be accessed quicker than the surgical alternatives. Manipulation under anaesthesia cost more than physiotherapy but provided the best value for money. Patients in the study wanted early access to medical help to improve their shoulder problems.

Quality of life following a lower limb reconstructive procedure: a protocol for the development of a conceptual framework.

INTRODUCTION: Lower limb conditions requiring reconstructive surgery can be either congenital or acquired from trauma, infection or other medical conditions. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used by healthcare professionals to assess the impact of a patient's condition (and treatment) on quality of life. However, we are not aware of any measures developed specifically for people requiring lower limb reconstructive surgery. Consequently, it is not clear the extent to which current PROMs accurately and specifically measure the outcomes that are important to these patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The 'PROLLIT' (Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Lower Limb Reconstruction) involves three phases: to explore what is important to patients with regard to quality of life (phase 1), ascertain whether current measures adequately capture these experiences (phase 2) and if not begin, the development of a new PROM (phase 3). The population of interest is people requiring, undergoing or after undergoing reconstructive surgery for a lower limb condition. In this paper, we describe phase 1, which aims to develop a conceptual framework to identify and map what is important to this group with regard to social interactions, employment, perceived health and quality of life after condition onset/injury and throughout recovery. The conceptual framework will be developed through three steps: (step A) a qualitative evidence synthesis, (step B) a qualitative study with patients and staff to explore patient's views and experiences of lower limb reconstructive surgery and (step C) a round table discussion with key stakeholders where findings from step A and step B will be brought together and used to finalise the conceptual framework. ETHICS CONSIDERATION AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted for the qualitative data collection (step B) from South Central Berkshire Research Ethics committee (REF:20/SC/0114). Findings from steps A and B will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication in academic journals, and presented at academic conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019139587. ISRCTN REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN75201623.

Systematic review assessing the evidence for the use of stem cells in fracture healing.

AIMS: Bone demonstrates good healing capacity, with a variety of strategies being utilized to enhance this healing. One potential strategy that has been suggested is the use of stem cells to accelerate healing. METHODS: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, WHO-ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, as well as reference checking of included studies. The inclusion criteria for the study were: population (any adults who have sustained a fracture, not including those with pre-existing bone defects); intervention (use of stem cells from any source in the fracture site by any mechanism); and control (fracture healing without the use of stem cells). Studies without a comparator were also included. The outcome was any reported outcomes. The study design was randomized controlled trials, non-randomized or observational studies, and case series. RESULTS: In all, 94 eligible studies were identified. The clinical and methodological aspects of the studies were too heterogeneous for a meta-analysis to be undertaken. A narrative synthesis examined study characteristics, stem cell methods (source, aspiration, concentration, and application) and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Insufficient high-quality evidence is available to determine the efficacy of stem cells for fracture healing. The studies were heterogeneous in population, methods, and outcomes. Work to address these issues and establish standards for future research should be undertaken.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:628-638.

Preoperative iron treatment in anaemic patients undergoing elective total hip or knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Preoperative anaemia is associated with increased risks of postoperative complications, blood transfusion and mortality. This meta-analysis aims to review the best available evidence on the clinical effectiveness of preoperative iron in anaemic patients undergoing elective total hip (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). DESIGN: Electronic databases and handsearching were used to identify randomised and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI) reporting perioperative blood transfusion rates for anaemic participants receiving iron before elective THR or TKR. Searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and other databases were conducted on 17 April 2019 and updated on 15 July 2020. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility and evaluated risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale for NRSIs. Data extraction was performed by ABS and checked by AB. Meta-analysis used the Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects models. RESULTS: 807 records were identified: 12 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 10 were eligible for meta-analyses (one RCT and nine NRSIs). Five of the NRSIs were of high-quality while there were some concerns of bias in the RCT. Meta-analysis of 10 studies (n=2178 participants) showed a 39% reduction in risk of receiving a perioperative blood transfusion with iron compared with no iron (risk ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.73, p<0.001, I2=0%). There was a significant reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused with iron compared with no iron (mean difference -0.37units, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.27, p<0.001, I2=40%); six studies (n=1496). Length of stay was significantly reduced with iron, by an average of 2.08 days (95% CI -2.64 to -1.51, p<0.001, I2=40%); five studies (n=1140). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative iron in anaemic, elective THR or TKR patients, significantly reduces the number of patients and number of units transfused and length of stay. However, high-quality, randomised trials are lacking. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019129035.