Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Health Technol Assess ; 24(65): 1-116, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33250068


BACKGROUND: Over 100,000 primary knee arthroplasty operations are undertaken annually in the UK. Around 15-30% of patients do not report a good outcome. Better rehabilitation strategies may improve patient-reported outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes from a traditional outpatient physiotherapy model with those from a home-based rehabilitation programme for people assessed as being at risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty. DESIGN: An individually randomised, two-arm controlled trial with a blinded outcome assessment, a parallel health economic evaluation and a nested qualitative study. SETTING: The trial took place in 14 NHS physiotherapy departments. PARTICIPANTS: People identified as being at high risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty. INTERVENTIONS: A multicomponent home-based rehabilitation package delivered by rehabilitation assistants with supervision from qualified therapists compared with usual-care outpatient physiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the Oxford Knee Score (a disease-specific measure of function); Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; Quality of Life subscale; Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly; EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; and physical function assessed using the Figure-of-8 Walk Test, 30-Second Chair Stand Test and Single Leg Stance. Data on the use of health-care services, time off work and informal care were collected using participant diaries. RESULTS: In total, 621 participants were randomised. A total of 309 participants were assigned to the COmmunity based Rehabilitation after Knee Arthroplasty (CORKA) home-based rehabilitation programme, receiving a median of five treatment sessions (interquartile range 4-7 sessions). A total of 312 participants were assigned to usual care, receiving a median of four sessions (interquartile range 2-6 sessions). The primary outcome, Late Life Function and Disability Instrument function total score at 12 months, was collected for 279 participants (89%) in the home-based CORKA group and 287 participants (92%) in the usual-care group. No clinically or statistically significant difference was found between the groups (intention-to-treat adjusted difference 0.49 points, 95% confidence interval -0.89 to 1.88 points; p = 0.48). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the patient-reported or physical secondary outcome measures at 6 or 12 months post randomisation. The health economic analysis found that the CORKA intervention was cheaper to provide than usual care (£66 less per participant). Total societal costs (combining health-care costs and other costs) were lower for the CORKA intervention than usual care (£316 less per participant). Adopting a societal perspective, CORKA had a 75% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Adopting the narrower health and social care perspective, CORKA had a 43% probability of being cost-effective at the same threshold. LIMITATIONS: The interventions were of short duration and were set within current commissioning guidance for UK physiotherapy. Participants and treating therapists could not be blinded. CONCLUSIONS: This randomised controlled trial found no important differences in outcomes when post-arthroplasty rehabilitation was delivered using a home-based, rehabilitation assistant-delivered rehabilitation package or a traditional outpatient model. However, the health economic evaluation found that when adopting a societal perspective, the CORKA home-based intervention was cost-saving and more effective than, and thus dominant over, usual care, owing to reduced time away from paid employment for this group. Further research could look at identifying the risk of poor outcome and further evaluation of a cost-effective treatment, including the workforce model to deliver it. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13517704. 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. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Artroplastia do Joelho/reabilitação , Análise Custo-Benefício/economia , Serviços de Assistência Domiciliar/economia , Pacientes Ambulatoriais/estatística & dados numéricos , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Idoso , Artroplastia do Joelho/economia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Inquéritos e Questionários , Reino Unido
Trials ; 17(1): 501, 2016 10 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27737685


BACKGROUND: The number of knee arthroplasties performed each year is steadily increasing. Although the outcome is generally favourable, up to 15 % fail to achieve a satisfactory clinical outcome which may indicate that the existing model of rehabilitation after surgery may not be the most efficacious. Given the increasing number of knee arthroplasties, the relative limited physiotherapy resources available and the increasing age and frailty of patients receiving arthroplasty surgery, it is important that we concentrate our rehabilitation resources on those patients who most need help to achieve a good outcome. This pragmatic randomised controlled trial will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a community-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention in comparison to usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial is designed as a prospective, single-blind, two-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT). A bespoke algorithm to predict which patients are at risk of poor outcome will be developed to screen patients for inclusion into a RCT using existing datasets. Six hundred and twenty patients undergoing knee arthroplasty, and assessed as being at risk of poor outcome using this algorithm, will be recruited and randomly allocated to one of two rehabilitation strategies: usual care or an individually tailored community-based rehabilitation package. The primary outcome is the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument measured at 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include the Oxford Knee Score, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score quality of life subscale, the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, the EQ-5D-5L and physical function measured by three performance-based tests: figure of eight, sit to stand and single-leg stand. A nested qualitative study will explore patient experience and perceptions and a health economic analysis will assess whether a home-based multidisciplinary individually tailored rehabilitation package represents good value for money when compared to usual care. DISCUSSION: There is lack of consensus about what constitutes the optimum package of rehabilitation after knee arthroplasty surgery. There is also a need to tailor rehabilitation to the needs of those predicted to do least well by focussing on interventions that target the elderly and frailer population receiving arthroplasty surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 13517704 , registered on 12 February 2015.

Artroplastia do Joelho/reabilitação , Serviços de Saúde Comunitária , Articulação do Joelho/cirurgia , Terapia Ocupacional , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Artroplastia do Joelho/efeitos adversos , Artroplastia do Joelho/economia , Protocolos Clínicos , Serviços de Saúde Comunitária/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Avaliação da Deficiência , Feminino , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Articulação do Joelho/fisiopatologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Terapia Ocupacional/economia , Modalidades de Fisioterapia/economia , Estudos Prospectivos , Qualidade de Vida , Recuperação de Função Fisiológica , Projetos de Pesquisa , Método Simples-Cego , Inquéritos e Questionários , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Reino Unido