Exploring the biopsychosocial impact of hypermobility spectrum disorders and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome in an adult population: a protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Conditions such as hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) are most often diagnosed when an individual has joint flexibility beyond the normal physiological limits. Additional characteristics and symptoms include pain and fatigue with individuals also being more likely to report feelings of anxiety and depression. Due to the varied presentation of these conditions, there is a lack of understanding amongst the various healthcare professionals (HCPs) individuals present to, leading to delayed diagnoses and negative experiences for the individuals themselves. This scoping review therefore aims to map the known biopsychosocial impact of adults with HSD and EDS. METHODS: The scoping review will follow the six-step framework as outlined by Arskey and O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The search will be conducted using the following databases: AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed PEDro. Full-text published articles in the English language (excluding literature and systematic reviews) with adult samples (over the age of 18 years) and a diagnosis of a HSD or EDS, published between 2012 and 2022, will be included in the review. DISCUSSION: This review will aim to explore the existing literature for the reported biopsychosocial impact of adults with a HSD or EDS. It will also aim to further acknowledge the gaps in understanding of the condition, how the condition and the impact of the condition is being measured and what HCPs are involved in supporting such individuals. These gaps will be used to inform a future systematic review. It is the overall goal to increase the knowledge of HCPs and the quality of life of adults living with a joint hypermobility condition.

Psychological interventions to improve pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and quality of life in children and adults with hypermobility spectrum disorders and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: a systematic review.

Hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) affect individuals across physical, psychological and social domains, making assessment and management difficult. Management for this condition primarily focuses on addressing the musculoskeletal complaints using physiotherapy rather than the additional manifestations such as fatigue, anxiety and depression. This systematic review aims to identify psychological interventions and assess whether they improve the lived experiences of individuals with HSD. It also aims to assess which psychological interventions were most effective, which symptoms were most effectively managed by a psychological intervention, and whether there were differences between children and adults. Studies were included if they were a randomised controlled trial or pre/post-test design, a sample of any age and clinical diagnosis of HSD (including Ehlers-Danlos syndrome), used a psychological intervention and assessed the effect of the intervention on lived experiences using appropriate outcome measures. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The results were narratively synthesised. Six studies were included in the review, one isolated psychological intervention and five incorporated a psychological intervention within a multidisciplinary programme. The interventions predominantly aimed to reduce pain including intensity, interference, pain-related fear and catastrophising, with anxiety and depression, affect, daily living, fatigue also being evaluated. The most beneficial psychological interventions were those delivered alongside physiotherapy in an outpatient or community setting, improving both the physical and psychological aspects of pain, subsequently improving quality of life. However, there lacks randomised controlled trials with larger samples to definitively confirm the significant findings discussed in this review.

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.

The biopsychosocial impact of hypermobility spectrum disorders in adults: a scoping review.

Joint hypermobility affects approximately 30% of the United Kingdom (UK) population, characterised by the ability to move joints beyond the physiological limits. Associated conditions include Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders, affecting individuals across physical, psychological and social levels detrimentally impacting their health and wellbeing. The scoping review aims to describe the known biopsychosocial impact of joint hypermobility conditions in adults over the last decade. Additional objectives include to (1) identify the types of studies that address these factors, (2) to understand how the impact of the condition is measured and managed and (3) what healthcare professionals (HCPs) are involved. The scoping review was conducted using the five-stage framework by Arksey and O'Malley. The search strategy related to two main keywords, "hypermobility" and, "biopsychosocial" across a number of electronic databases. A pilot search was conducted to determine the suitability of the databases and terms. Following the search, the data was extracted and charted, summarised and narratively reported. 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority were conducted in either the UK or United States of America and case-control in design. The biopsychosocial impact was wide-ranging including, but not limited to, musculoskeletal system and dermatology, gastroenterology, mood and anxiety disorders, education and employments. This review is the first of its kind to summarise all reported symptoms and impact of joint hypermobility conditions in adults, highlighting a clear need to promote a multidisciplinary and holistic approach in raising awareness of these conditions and improving their management.

Prospective comparative study of quantitative X-ray (QXR) versus dual energy X-ray absorptiometry to determine the performance of QXR as a predictor of bone health for adult patients in secondary care.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a method of quantitative X-ray (QXR) for obtaining bone health information from standard radiographs aimed at identifying early signs of osteoporosis to enable improved referral and treatment. This QXR measurement is performed by postexposure analysis of standard radiographs, meaning bone health data can be acquired opportunistically, alongside routine imaging. DESIGN: The relationship between QXR and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) was demonstrated with a phantom study. A prospective clinical study was conducted to establish areal bone mineral density (aBMD) prediction model and a risk prediction model of a non-normal DEXA outcome. This was then extrapolated to a larger patient group with DEXA referral data. SETTING: Secondary care National Health Service Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 126 consenting adult patients from a DEXA clinic. INTERVENTIONS: All participants underwent a DEXA scan to determine BMD at the lumbar spine (L2-L4) and both hips. An additional Antero-Posterior pelvis X-ray on a Siemens Ysio, fixed digital radiograph system was performed for the study. OUTCOME: Performance of QXR as a risk predictor for non-normal (osteoporotic) BMD. RESULTS: Interim clinical study data from 78 patients confirmed a receiver operator curve (area under the ROC curve) of 0.893 (95% CI 0.843 to 0.942) for a risk prediction model of non-normal DEXA outcome. Extrapolation of these results to a larger patient group of 11 029 patients indicated a positive predictive value of 0.98 (sensitivity of 0.8) for a population of patients referred to DEXA under current clinical referral criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that the novel QXR method provides accurate prediction of a DEXA outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN98160454; Pre-results.

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.

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.

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.

Management of adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care (UK FROST): a multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release are costly and invasive treatments for frozen shoulder, but their effectiveness remains uncertain. We compared these two surgical interventions with early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection. METHODS: In this multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised trial, patients referred to secondary care for treatment of primary frozen shoulder were recruited from 35 hospital sites in the UK. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation (≥50%) in the affected shoulder. Participants were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive manipulation under anaesthesia, arthroscopic capsular release, or early structured physiotherapy. In manipulation under anaesthesia, the surgeon manipulated the affected shoulder to stretch and tear the tight capsule while the participant was under general anaesthesia, supplemented by a steroid injection. Arthroscopic capsular release, also done under general anaesthesia, involved surgically dividing the contracted anterior capsule in the rotator interval, followed by manipulation, with optional steroid injection. Both forms of surgery were followed by postprocedural physiotherapy. Early structured physiotherapy involved mobilisation techniques and a graduated home exercise programme supplemented by a steroid injection. Both early structured physiotherapy and postprocedural physiotherapy involved 12 sessions during up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS; 0-48) at 12 months after randomisation, analysed by initial randomisation group. We sought a target difference of 5 OSS points between physiotherapy and either form of surgery, or 4 points between manipulation and capsular release. The trial registration is ISRCTN48804508. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2017, we screened 914 patients, of whom 503 (55%) were randomly assigned. At 12 months, OSS data were available for 189 (94%) of 201 participants assigned to manipulation (mean estimate 38·3 points, 95% CI 36·9 to 39·7), 191 (94%) of 203 participants assigned to capsular release (40·3 points, 38·9 to 41·7), and 93 (94%) of 99 participants assigned to physiotherapy (37·2 points, 35·3 to 39·2). The mean group differences were 2·01 points (0·10 to 3·91) between the capsular release and manipulation groups, 3·06 points (0·71 to 5·41) between capsular release and physiotherapy, and 1·05 points (-1·28 to 3·39) between manipulation and physiotherapy. Eight serious adverse events were reported with capsular release and two with manipulation. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, manipulation under anaesthesia had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0·8632, compared with 0·1366 for physiotherapy and 0·0002 for capsular release). INTERPRETATION: All mean differences on the assessment of shoulder pain and function (OSS) at the primary endpoint of 12 months were less than the target differences. Therefore, none of the three interventions were clinically superior. Arthoscopic capsular release carried higher risks, and manipulation under anaesthesia was the most cost-effective. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Occupational advice to help people return to work following lower limb arthroplasty: the OPAL intervention mapping study.

BACKGROUND: Hip and knee replacements are regularly carried out for patients who work. There is little evidence about these patients' needs and the factors influencing their return to work. There is a paucity of guidance to help patients return to work after surgery and a need for structured occupational advice to enable them to return to work safely and effectively. OBJECTIVES: To develop an occupational advice intervention to support early recovery to usual activities including work that is tailored to the requirements of patients undergoing hip or knee replacements. To test the acceptability, practicality and feasibility of this intervention within current care frameworks. DESIGN: An intervention mapping approach was used to develop the intervention. The research methods employed were rapid evidence synthesis, qualitative interviews with patients and stakeholders, a prospective cohort study, a survey of clinical practice and a modified Delphi consensus process. The developed intervention was implemented and assessed during the final feasibility stage of the intervention mapping process. SETTING: Orthopaedic departments in NHS secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were in work and intending to return to work following primary elective hip or knee replacement surgery, health-care professionals and employers. INTERVENTIONS: Occupational advice intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Development of an occupational advice intervention, fidelity of the developed intervention when delivered in a clinical setting, patient and clinician perspectives of the intervention and preliminary assessments of intervention effectiveness and cost. RESULTS: A cohort study (154 patients), 110 stakeholder interviews, a survey of practice (152 respondents) and evidence synthesis provided the necessary information to develop the intervention. The intervention included information resources, a personalised return-to-work plan and co-ordination from the health-care team to support the delivery of 13 patient and 20 staff performance objectives. To support delivery, a range of tools (e.g. occupational checklists, patient workbooks and employer information), roles (e.g. return-to-work co-ordinator) and training resources were created. Feasibility was assessed for 21 of the 26 patients recruited from three NHS trusts. Adherence to the defined performance objectives was 75% for patient performance objectives and 74% for staff performance objectives. The intervention was generally well received, although the short time frame available for implementation and concurrent research evaluation led to some confusion among patients and those delivering the intervention regarding its purpose and the roles and responsibilities of key staff. LIMITATIONS: Implementation and uptake of the intervention was not standardised and was limited by the study time frame. Evaluation of the intervention involved a small number of patients, which limited the ability to assess it. CONCLUSIONS: The developed occupational advice intervention supports best practice. Evaluation demonstrated good rates of adherence against defined performance objectives. However, a number of operational and implementation issues require further attention. FUTURE WORK: The intervention warrants a randomised controlled trial to assess its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to improve rates and timing of sustained return to work after surgery. This research should include the development of a robust implementation strategy to ensure that adoption is sustained. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27426982 and PROSPERO CRD42016045235. 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. 45. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Hip and knee replacements are regularly carried out for patients who work. There is a lack of evidence about these patients' needs and how they return to work. Guidance to enable return to work after surgery is limited. There is, therefore, a need for structured occupational advice to help these patients. The aim of this project was to develop a multidisciplinary occupational advice intervention for this patient population and assess if it could be delivered. The study also aimed to make recommendations about its further assessment in a clinical trial. The study combined different methods of research (quantitative and qualitative) to identify the population likely to benefit, their current care, and the outcomes important to patients and health-care professionals. All of the information gathered was mapped through a framework (intervention mapping), which included a consensus process with stakeholders to develop the intervention. The intervention delivery was assessed for a small number of patients across orthopaedic departments, employer organisations and primary care networks. The study involved 154 patients, 110 stakeholders (general practitioners, surgeons, employers and health professionals/nurses) and a survey of current care (152 respondents) to develop the intervention. The intervention included information resources, a personalised return-to-work plan and co-ordination from the health-care team to support the delivery of 33 patient and staff performance objectives. To support delivery, a range of tools (e.g. occupational checklists, patient workbooks and employer information), roles (e.g. return-to-work co-ordinator) and training resources were created. The intervention was assessed in 26 patients and staff, and showed high rates of adherence to the defined performance objectives. The overall results demonstrated that the occupational advice intervention developed for hip and knee replacement patients is deliverable. The intervention warrants further research to assess its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness as a tool to improve rates and timing of sustained return to work after surgery.

Development of an occupational advice intervention for patients undergoing elective hip and knee replacement: a Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain consensus on the content and delivery of an occupational advice intervention for patients undergoing primary hip and knee replacement surgery. The primary targets for the intervention were (1) patients, carers and employers through the provision of individualised support and information about returning to work and (2) hospital orthopaedic teams through the development of a framework and materials to enable this support and information to be delivered. DESIGN: Modified Delphi study as part of a wider intervention development study (The Occupational advice for Patients undergoing Arthroplasty of the Lower limb (OPAL) study: Health Technology Assessment Reference 15/28/02) (ISRCTN27426982). SETTING: Five stakeholder groups (patients, employers, orthopaedic surgeons, general practitioners, allied health professionals and nurses) recruited from across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-six participants. METHODS: Statements for the Delphi process were developed relating to the content, format, delivery, timing and measurement of an occupational advice intervention. The statements were based on evidence gathered through the OPAL study that was processed using an intervention mapping framework. Intervention content was examined in round 1 and intervention format, delivery, timing and measurement were examined in round 2. In round 3, the developed intervention was presented to the stakeholder groups for comment. CONSENSUS: For rounds 1 and 2, consensus was defined as 70% agreement or disagreement on a 4-point scale. Statements reaching consensus were ranked according to the distribution of responses to create a hierarchy of agreement. Round 3 comments were used to revise the final version of the developed occupational advice intervention. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for 36 of 64 round 1 content statements (all agreement). In round 2, 13 questions were carried forward and an additional 81 statements were presented. Of these, 49 reached consensus (44 agreement/5 disagreement). Eleven respondents provided an appraisal of the intervention in round 3. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi process informed the development of an occupational advice intervention as part of a wider intervention development study. Stakeholder agreement was achieved for a large number of intervention elements encompassing the content, format, delivery and timing of the intervention. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the developed intervention will require evaluation in a randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Trial ID: ISRCTN27426982.

Timing of electronic reminders did not improve trial participant questionnaire response: a randomized trial and meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess whether timing of short messaging service (SMS) reminders improved postal questionnaire return rates from participants in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A Study Within A Trial (SWAT) embedded in a multicenter RCT evaluating three treatments for the frozen shoulder. Participants who provided a mobile telephone number were randomized to either prenotification SMS on the day of the questionnaire mail-out or postnotification SMS 4 days after questionnaire mail-out for the 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who returned a valid questionnaire. A systematic review was undertaken to identify other embedded trials to perform a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 269 participants, 122/135 (90.4%) returned a valid questionnaire in the prenotification arm and 119/134 (88.8%) in the postnotification arm (difference of -1.6%; 95% CI of difference: -8.9%, 5.7%). There was no difference in time to response (HR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.34) or need for additional reminders (OR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.17). Meta-analysis of two RCTs showed no difference in response rates between prenotification and postnotification reminders (OR = 0.78 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.45). CONCLUSION: Timing of SMS reminders did not improve response rates and time to response or affect the need for additional reminders.

Patch-augmented rotator cuff surgery (PARCS) study-protocol for a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: A rotator cuff tear is a common disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms 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 pressing need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery and the use of patch augmentation to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds new promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or intestine tissue, and completely synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or a mesh). However, clinical evidence on their use is limited. The aim of the patch-augmented rotator cuff surgery (PARCS) feasibility study is to determine, using a mixed method approach, the design of a definitive randomised trial 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: The objectives of this six-stage mixed methods feasibility study are to determine current practice, evidence and views about patch use; achieve consensus on the design of a randomised trial to evaluate patch-augmented rotator cuff surgery; and assess the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed design. The six stages will involve a systematic review of clinical evidence, two surveys of surgeons, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a Delphi study and a consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons, and representatives from industry, the NHS and regulatory bodies) will be involved across the six stages. DISCUSSION: The PARCS feasibility study will inform the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch-augmented rotator cuff surgery. Consensus opinion on the basic design of a randomised trial will be sought. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

United Kingdom Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), multi-centre, randomised, 12 month, parallel group, superiority study to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Early Structured Physiotherapy versus manipulation under anaesthesia versus arthroscopic capsular release for patients referred to secondary care with a primary frozen shoulder: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Frozen shoulder (also known as adhesive capsulitis) occurs when the capsule, or the soft tissue envelope around the ball and socket shoulder joint, becomes scarred and contracted, making the shoulder tight, painful and stiff. It affects around 1 in 12 men and 1 in 10 women of working age. Although this condition can settle with time (typically taking 1 to 3 years), for some people it causes severe symptoms and needs referral to hospital. Our aim is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two invasive and costly surgical interventions that are commonly used in secondary care in the National Health Service (NHS) compared with a non-surgical comparator of Early Structured Physiotherapy. METHODS: We will conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 500 adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of frozen shoulder, and who have radiographs that exclude other pathology. Early Structured Physiotherapy with an intra-articular steroid injection will be compared with manipulation under anaesthesia with a steroid injection or arthroscopic (keyhole) capsular release followed by manipulation. Both surgical interventions will be followed with a programme of post-procedural physiotherapy. These treatments will be undertaken in NHS hospitals across the United Kingdom. The primary outcome and endpoint will be the Oxford Shoulder Score (a patient self-reported assessment of shoulder function) at 12 months. This will also be measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months after randomisation; and on the day that treatment starts and 6 months later. Secondary outcomes include the Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score, the EQ-5D-5 L score, pain, extent of recovery and complications. We will explore the acceptability of the different treatments to patients and health care professionals using qualitative methods. DISCUSSION: The three treatments being compared are the most frequently used in secondary care in the NHS, but there is uncertainty about which one works best and at what cost. UK FROST is a rigorously designed and adequately powered study to inform clinical decisions for the treatment of this common condition in adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ID: ISRCTN48804508 . Registered on 25 July 2014.

Risk factors associated with intraoperative complications in primary shoulder arthroplasty.

Background and purpose - Increasing numbers of shoulder arthroplasty are performed internationally. The predictors of intraoperative complications when implanting primary shoulder replacements are unknown. We determined the incidence of intraoperative complications during primary shoulder arthroplasty using the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR), and analyzed the associated risk factors for complications. Patients and methods - NJR data on primary shoulder arthroplasty were scrutinized for intraoperative complications. 2 analyses were performed: the first examined the incidence and predictors of any recorded complication; the second examined the incidence and predictors for intraoperative fractures specifically. Analysis of risk factors was performed using multivariable binary logistic regression modeling. Results - 12,559 primary shoulder arthroplasties were recorded, with an intraoperative complication rate of 2.5%, the majority being fractures (1.6% overall). The incidence of all complications was lower in men (RR vs. women =0.63 (95% CI 0.47-0.84)). Patients undergoing surgery for avascular necrosis (RR =2.3 (1.3-4.2)) or trauma sequelae (RR =1.6 (1.2-2.7)) had a higher risk of complications compared with OA. Patients undergoing a stemmed hemiarthroplasty (RR =1.8 (1.2-2.5)) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RR 1.6 (1.1-2.5)) had a higher risk of complications compared with total shoulder arthroplasty. The incidence of all complications was less in patients undergoing resurfacing arthroplasty (vs. total shoulder arthroplasty (RR 0.42 (0.24-0.73)) and when performing the superior approach (vs. deltopectoral (RR 0.56 (0.39-0.80)). Interpretation - This is the first study to use a national data set to examine risk factors for intraoperative complications during all types of primary shoulder arthroplasty, and identifies several previously unrecognized risk factors, such as surgical approach.

Intraoperative complications during revision shoulder arthroplasty: a study using the National Joint Registry dataset.

BACKGROUND: The surgical options for revision shoulder arthroplasty and the number of procedures performed are increasing. However, little is known about the risk factors for intraoperative complications associated with this complex surgery. METHODS: The National Joint Registry (NJR) is a surgeon reported database recording information on major joint replacements including revision shoulder arthroplasty. Using multivariable binary logistic regression modelling, we analyzed 1445 revision shoulder arthroplasties reported to the NJR between April 2012 and 2015. RESULTS: The risk of developing a complication during revision surgery was greater than primary arthroplasty (5% versus 2.5%). An intraoperative fracture was the most common complication occurring in 50 (3.5%) cases. Nerve injuries were recorded for two (0.1%) patients and vascular injuries for one (0.1%) patient. The incidence of intraoperative fractures was higher in females than males (relative risk = 3.25; p = 0.005). Periprosthetic fracture as an indication for revision carried the highest risk for any complication (relative risk = 3.00, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest registry study to date investigating the incidence and risk factors for intraoperative complications during revision shoulder arthroplasty. Females have over three times the risk of intraoperative fractures compared to males. This study will help inform surgeons to accurately counsel patients.

Conservative management following closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder.

BACKGROUND: Acute anterior dislocation, which is the most common type of shoulder dislocation, usually results from an injury. Subsequently, the shoulder is less stable and is more susceptible to re-dislocation, especially in active young adults. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of conservative interventions after closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. These might include immobilisation, rehabilitative interventions or both. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (September 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2013), EMBASE (1980 to Week 38, 2013), CINAHL (1982 to September 2013), PEDro (1929 to November 2012), OTseeker (inception to November 2012) and trial registries. We also searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing various conservative interventions versus control (no or sham treatment) or other conservative interventions applied after closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Results of comparable groups of trials were pooled. MAIN RESULTS: We included three randomised trials and one quasi-randomised trial, which involved 470 participants (371 male) with primary traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder reduced by various closed methods. Three studies evaluated mixed populations; in the fourth study, all participants were male and 80% were soldiers. All trials were at some risk of bias but to a differing extent. One was at high risk in all domains of the risk of bias tool, and one was at unclear or high risk in all domains; the other two trials were deemed to have predominantly low risk across all domains. Overall, reflecting both the risk of bias and the imprecision of findings, we judged the quality of evidence to be "very low" for all outcomes, meaning that we are very uncertain about the estimates of effect.The four trials evaluated the same comparison - immobilisation in external rotation versus internal rotation - and each of our three primary outcomes (re-dislocation, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for shoulder instability and resumption of activities) was reported by one or more of the trials, with two-year or longer follow-up. Pooling was possible for "re-dislocation" (three trials) and for aspects of "resumption of sport/activities at pre-injury level" (two trials).There was no evidence to show a difference between the two groups in re-dislocation at two-year or longer follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06 favouring internal rotation, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.54; P value 0.77; 252 participants; three trials). In a low-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 247 re-dislocations per 1000, these data equate to 15 more (95% CI 67 fewer to 133 more) re-dislocations per 1000 after immobilisation in external rotation. In a medium-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 436 re-dislocations per 1000, the data equate to 26 more (95% CI 118 fewer to 235 more) re-dislocations after immobilisation in external rotation.Nor was evidence found to show a difference between the two groups in return to pre-injury levels of activity at two-year or longer follow-up (RR 1.25 favouring external rotation, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.2; P value 0.43; 278 participants; two trials). In a low-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 204 participants per 1000 returning to pre-injury levels of activity, this equates to 41 more (95% CI 59 fewer to 245 more) participants per 1000 resuming activity after immobilisation in external rotation. In a high-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 605 participants per 1000 returning to pre-injury levels of activity, this equates to 161 more (95% CI 76 fewer to 395 more) participants per 1000 resuming activity after immobilisation in external rotation.One trial reported that the difference between the two groups in Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index scores, analysed using non-parametric statistics, was "not significant (P = 0.32)". Of our secondary outcomes, pooling was possible for "any instability" (two trials) and for important adverse events (three events, two trials). However, adverse event data were collected only in an ad hoc way, and it is unclear whether identification and reporting of such events was comprehensive. No report addressed participant satisfaction or health-related quality of life outcome measures.There was no evidence confirming a difference between the two positions of immobilisation in any of the primary or secondary outcomes; for each outcome, the confidence intervals were wide, covering the possibility of substantial benefit for each intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Numerous conservative strategies may be adopted after closed reduction of a traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder, and many warrant investigation. However, our review reveals that evidence from randomised controlled trials is only available for a single approach: immobilisation in external rotation versus immobilisation in the traditional position of internal rotation. Moreover, this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate whether immobilisation in external rotation confers any benefit over immobilisation in internal rotation.We identified six unpublished trials and two ongoing trials that compare immobilisation in external versus internal rotation. Given this, the main priority for research on this question consists of the publication of completed trials, and the completion and publication of ongoing trials. Meanwhile, increased attention to other interventions is required. Sufficiently powered, good quality, well reported randomised controlled trials with long-term surveillance should be conducted to examine the optimum duration of immobilisation, whether immobilisation is necessary at all (in older age groups particularly), which rehabilitative interventions work best and the acceptability to participants of different care strategies.

Inner ear progenitor cells can be generated in vitro from human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells.

AIM: Mouse mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) can generate sensory neurons and produce inner ear hair cell-like cells. An equivalent source from humans is highly desirable, given their potential application in patient-specific regenerative therapies for deafness. In this study, we explored the ability of human MSCs (hMSCs) to differentiate into otic lineages. MATERIALS & METHODS: hMSCs were exposed to culture media conditioned by human fetal auditory stem cells. RESULTS: Conditioned media induced the expression of otic progenitor markers PAX8, PAX2, GATA3 and SOX2. After 4 weeks, cells coexpressed ATOH1, MYO7A and POU4F3 (indicators of hair cell lineage) or neuronal markers NEUROG1, POU4F1 and NEFH. Inhibition of WNT signaling prevented differentiation into otic progenitors, while WNT activation partially phenocopied results seen with the conditioned media. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that hMSCs can be driven to express key genes found in the otic lineages and thereby promotes their status as candidates for regenerative therapies for deafness.