Shoulder replacement surgery's rising demand, inequality of provision, and variation in outcomes: cohort study using Hospital Episode Statistics for England.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to forecast future patient demand for shoulder replacement surgery in England and investigate any geographic and socioeconomic inequalities in service provision and patient outcomes. METHODS: For this cohort study, all elective shoulder replacements carried out by NHS hospitals and NHS-funded care in England from 1999 to 2020 were identified using Hospital Episode Statistics data. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older. Shoulder replacements for malignancy or acute trauma were excluded. Population estimates and projections were obtained from the Office for National Statistics. Standardised incidence rates and the risks of serious adverse events (SAEs) and revision surgery were calculated and stratified by geographical region, socioeconomic deprivation, sex, and age band. Hospital costs for each admission were calculated using Healthcare Resource Group codes and NHS Reference Costs based on the National Reimbursement System. Projected rates and hospital costs were predicted until the year 2050 for two scenarios of future growth. RESULTS: A total of 77,613 elective primary and 5847 revision shoulder replacements were available for analysis. Between 1999 and 2020, the standardised incidence of primary shoulder replacements in England quadrupled from 2.6 to 10.4 per 100,000 population, increasing predominantly in patients aged over 65 years. As many as 1 in 6 patients needed to travel to a different region for their surgery indicating inequality of service provision. A temporal increase in SAEs was observed: the 30-day risk increased from 1.3 to 4.8% and the 90-day risk increased from 2.4 to 6.0%. Patients from the more deprived socioeconomic groups appeared to have a higher risk of SAEs and revision surgery. Shoulder replacements are forecast to increase by up to 234% by 2050 in England, reaching 20,912 procedures per year with an associated annual cost to hospitals of £235 million. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports a rising incidence of shoulder replacements, regional disparities in service provision, and an overall increasing risk of SAEs, especially in more deprived socioeconomic groups. These findings highlight the need for better healthcare planning to match local population demand, while more research is needed to understand and prevent the increase observed in SAEs.

Mapping the Oxford Shoulder Score onto the EQ-5D utility index.

PURPOSE: In order to enable cost-utility analysis of shoulder pain conditions and treatments, this study aimed to develop and evaluate mapping algorithms to estimate the EQ-5D health index from the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) when health outcomes are only assessed with the OSS. METHODS: 5437 paired OSS and EQ-5D questionnaire responses from four national multicentre randomised controlled trials investigating different shoulder pathologies and treatments were split into training and testing samples. Separate EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L analyses were undertaken. Transfer to utility (TTU) regression (univariate linear, polynomial, spline, multivariable linear, two-part logistic-linear, tobit and adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models) and response mapping (ordered logistic regression and seemingly unrelated regression (SUR)) models were developed on the training sample. These were internally validated, and their performance evaluated on the testing sample. Model performance was evaluated over 100-fold repeated training-testing sample splits. RESULTS: For the EQ-5D-3L analysis, the multivariable linear and splines models had the lowest mean square error (MSE) of 0.0415. The SUR model had the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.136. Model performance was greatest in the mid-range and best health states, and lowest in poor health states. For the EQ-5D-5L analyses, the multivariable linear and splines models had the lowest MSE (0.0241-0.0278) while the SUR models had the lowest MAE (0.105-0.113). CONCLUSION: The developed models now allow accurate estimation of the EQ-5D health index when only the OSS responses are available as a measure of patient-reported health outcome.

How long does an elbow replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-series and national registry reports with more than 10 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aims to determine, for the first time, generalizable data on the longevity and long-term function of elbow replacements. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for articles reporting 10-year or greater survival of total elbow replacements (TERs) and distal humeral hemiarthroplasty. Implant survival and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) data were extracted. National joint replacement registries were also analyzed. We weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate at 10, 15, and 20 years. For PROMs we pooled the standardized mean difference (SMD) at 10 years. FINDINGS: Despite its widespread use, we identified only 9 series reporting all-cause survival of 628 linked TERs and 610 unlinked TERs and no series for distal humeral hemiarthroplasty. The studied population was treated for rheumatoid arthritis in over 90% of cases. The estimated 10-year survival for linked TERs was 92% (95% CI 90-95) and unlinked TERs 84% (CI 81-88). 2 independent registries contributed 32 linked TERs and 530 unlinked TERs. The pooled registry 10-year survival for unlinked TERs was 86% (CI 83-89). Pooled 10-year PROMs from 164 TERs (33 linked and 131 unlinked), revealed a substantial improvement from baseline scores (SMD 2.7 [CI 1.6-3.8]). INTERPRETATION: Over 80% of all elbow replacements and over 90% of linked elbow replacements can last more than 10 years with sustained patient-reported benefits. This information is long overdue and will be particularly useful to patients as well as healthcare providers.

Low rate of subsequent surgery and serious complications following intra-articular steroid injection for base of thumb osteoarthritis: national cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Intra-articular steroid injection is commonly used to treat base of thumb osteoarthritis (BTOA), despite a lack of large-scale data on safety and effectiveness. We estimate the incidence of serious complications and further procedures following BTOA injection, including the risk of post-operative serious surgical site infection for subsequent operative intervention. METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics data linked to mortality records from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2017 were used to identify all BTOA injections undertaken in adults in the National Health Service secondary care in England. Patients were followed up longitudinally until death or 31 March 2017. A multivariable regression with a Fine and Gray model adjusting for the competing risk of mortality in addition to age, sex and socioeconomic deprivation was used to identify factors associated with progression to further procedure. Secondary outcomes included serious complications after injection and subsequent surgical site infection. RESULTS: A total of 19 120 primary injections were performed during the 19-year period in 18 356 patients. Of these 76.5% were female; mean age 62 years (s.d. 10.6); 50.48% underwent further procedure; 22.40% underwent surgery. Median time to further intervention was 412 days (IQR 110-1945). Female sex was associated with increased risk of proceeding to surgery. Serious complication rate following injection was 0.04% (0.01-0.08) within 90 days. Of those proceeding to surgery 0.16% (0.06-0.34) presented with a wound infection within 30 days and 90 days, compared with an overall post-operative wound infection rate of 0.03% (0.02-0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Very low rates of serious complications were identified following BTOA injections performed in secondary care; only one in five patients proceeded to subsequent surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03573765.

Temporal Trends and Geographical Variation in Dupuytren Disease Surgery in England: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Dupuytren disease (DD) is a common fibroproliferative disease of the palmar fascia. The mainstay of DD treatment in England is surgery with either percutaneous needle fasciotomy, limited fasciectomy, or dermofasciectomy. This study aimed to investigate the temporal trends and geographical variation of primary DD surgery in England. METHODS: A longitudinal population-based cohort study was perfomed using the Hospital Episode Statistics database from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2017. Directly standarized rates were estimated over time (between financial years 2007-2008 and 2016-2017) and by geographic region (by clinical commissioning groups [CCGs]; financial years 2010-2011, 2013-2014, and 2016-2017). The Office for National Statistics midyear population estimates were used as the reference population. MAIN FINDINGS: Primary DD surgery was undertaken at a steadily increasing rate from financial year 2007 to 2008, to 2016 to 2017 in England. There was a striking 3.6-fold variation in the rates of primary DD surgery among National Health Service CCGs in England place of residence. CONCLUSIONS: This significant variation in DD surgical treatment in England suggests a need for the development of standardized surgical practice across all CCGs and National Health Service hospitals, promoting equality of access to cost-effective health care.

TIDieR-Placebo: A guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls.

BACKGROUND: Placebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their delivery have been shown to affect study outcomes, placebo and sham controls are rarely reported and often not matched to those of the active comparator. This can influence how beneficial or harmful the active intervention appears to be. Without adequate descriptions of placebo or sham controls, it is difficult to interpret results about the benefits and harms of active interventions within placebo-controlled trials. To overcome this problem, we developed a checklist and guide for reporting placebo or sham interventions. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed an initial list of items for the checklist by surveying experts in placebo research (n = 14). Because of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consulted experts in trials of drugs, surgery, physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychological interventions. We then used a multistage online Delphi process with 53 participants to determine which items were deemed to be essential. We next convened a group of experts and stakeholders (n = 16). Our main output was a modification of the existing Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist; this allows the key features of both active interventions and placebo or sham controls to be concisely summarised by researchers. The main differences between TIDieR-Placebo and the original TIDieR are the explicit requirement to describe the setting (i.e., features of the physical environment that go beyond geographic location), the need to report whether blinding was successful (when this was measured), and the need to present the description of placebo components alongside those of the active comparator. CONCLUSIONS: We encourage TIDieR-Placebo to be used alongside TIDieR to assist the reporting of placebo or sham components and the trials in which they are used.

Shoulder replacement surgery for osteoarthritis and rotator cuff tear arthropathy.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder replacement surgery is an established treatment for patients with end-stage glenohumeral osteoarthritis or rotator cuff tear arthropathy who have not improved with non-operative treatment. Different types of shoulder replacement are commonly used, but their relative benefits and risks compared versus one another and versus other treatments are uncertain. This expanded scope review is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of shoulder replacement surgery in adults with osteoarthritis (OA) of the shoulder, including rotator cuff tear arthropathy (RCTA). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SportDiscus, and Web of Science up to January 2019. We also searched clinical trial registers, conference proceedings, and reference lists from previous systematic reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised studies comparing any type of shoulder replacement surgery versus any other surgical or non-surgical treatment, no treatment, or placebo. We also included randomised studies comparing any type of shoulder replacement or technique versus another. Study participants were adults with osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint or rotator cuff tear arthropathy. We assessed the following major outcomes: pain, function, participant-rated global assessment of treatment success, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events, and risk of revision or re-operation or treatment failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We collected trial data on benefits and harms. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 studies involving 1083 participants (1105 shoulders). We found five studies comparing one type of shoulder replacement surgery to another type of shoulder replacement surgery, including three studies comparing conventional stemmed total shoulder replacement (TSR) surgery to stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty. The remaining 15 studies compared one type of shoulder replacement to the same type of replacement performed with a technical modification or a different prosthetic component. We found no studies comparing shoulder replacement surgery to any other type of surgical treatment or to any type of non-surgical treatment. We found no studies comparing reverse total shoulder replacement surgery to any other type of treatment or to any type of replacement. Trial size varied from 16 to 161 participants. Participant mean age ranged from 63 to 81 years. 47% of participants were male. Sixteen trials reported participants with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and intact rotator cuff tendons. Four trials reported patients with osteoarthritis and a rotator cuff tear or rotator cuff tear arthropathy. All studies were at unclear or high risk of bias for at least two domains, and only one study was free from high risk of bias (included in the main comparison). The most common sources of bias were lack of blinding of participants and assessors, attrition, and major baseline imbalance. Three studies allowed a comparison of conventional stemmed TSR surgery versus stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty in people with osteoarthritis. At two years, low-quality evidence from two trials (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggested there may be a small but clinically uncertain improvement in pain and function. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 is no pain), mean pain was 2.78 points after stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty and 1.49 points lower (0.1 lower to 2.88 lower) after conventional stemmed TSR. On a scale of 0 to 100 (100 = normal function), the mean function score was 72.8 points after stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty and 10.57 points higher (2.11 higher to 19.02 higher) after conventional stemmed TSR. There may be no difference in quality of life based on low-quality evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. On a scale of 0 to 100 (100 = normal), mean mental quality of life was rated as 57.4 points after stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty and 1.0 point higher (5.1 lower to 7.1 higher) after conventional stemmed TSR. We are uncertain whether there is any difference in the rate of adverse events or the rate of revision, re-operation, or treatment failure based on very low-quality evidence (downgraded three levels for risk of bias and serious imprecision). The rate of any adverse event following stemmed humeral hemiarthroplasty was 286 per 1000, and following conventional stemmed TSR 143 per 1000, for an absolute difference of 14% fewer events (25% fewer to 21% more). Adverse events included fractures, dislocations, infections, and rotator cuff failure. The rate of revision, re-operation, or treatment failure was 103 per 1000, and following conventional stemmed TSR 77 per 1000, for an absolute difference of 2.6% fewer events (8% fewer to 15% more). Participant-rated global assessment of treatment success was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although it is an established procedure, no high-quality randomised trials have been conducted to determine whether shoulder replacement might be more effective than other treatments for osteoarthritis or rotator cuff tear arthropathy of the shoulder. We remain uncertain about which type or technique of shoulder replacement surgery is most effective in different situations. When humeral hemiarthroplasty was compared to TSR surgery for osteoarthritis, low-quality evidence led to uncertainty about whether there is a clinically important benefit for patient-reported pain or function and suggested there may be little or no difference in quality of life. Evidence is insufficient to show whether TSR is associated with greater or less risk of harm than humeral hemiarthroplasty. Available randomised studies did not provide sufficient data to reliably inform conclusions about adverse events and harm. Although reverse TSR is now the most commonly performed type of shoulder replacement, we found no studies comparing reverse TSR to any other type of treatment.

Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. FINDINGS: Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference -1·3 points (95% CI -3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5-5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8-6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). INTERPRETATION: Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. FUNDING: Arthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).

Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials.

BACKGROUND: Poorly described placebo/sham controls make it difficult to appraise active intervention benefits and harms. The 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to improve the reporting of active interventions. The extent to which TIDieR has been used to improve description of placebo or sham control is not known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically identified and examined all placebo/sham-controlled randomised trials published in 2018 in the top six general medical journals. We reported how many of the TIDieR checklist items were used to describe the placebo/sham control(s). We supplemented this with a sample of 100 placebo/sham-controlled trials from any journal and searched Google Scholar to identify placebo/sham-controlled trials citing TIDieR. RESULTS: We identified 94 placebo/sham-controlled trials published in the top journals in 2018. None reported using TIDieR, and none reported placebo or sham components completely. On average eight TIDieR items were addressed, with placebo/sham control name (100%) and when and how much was administered (97.9%) most commonly reported. Some items (rationale, 8.5%, whether there were modifications, 25.5%) were less often reported. In our sample of less well-cited journals, reporting was poorer (average of six items) and followed a similar pattern. Since TIDieR's first publication, six placebo-controlled trials have cited it according to Google Scholar. Two of these used the checklist to describe placebo controls; neither one completely desribed the placebo intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo and sham controls are poorly described within randomised trials, and TIDieR is rarely used to guide these descriptions. We recommend developing guidelines to promote better descriptions of placebo/sham control components within clinical trials.

The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study.

PURPOSE: Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been proposed as a means of improving surgical accuracy and ease of implantation during technically challenging procedures such as unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this prospective randomised controlled trial was to compare the accuracy of implantation and functional outcome of mobile-bearing medial UKAs implanted with and without PSI by experienced UKA surgeons. METHODS: Mobile-bearing medial UKAs were implanted in 43 patients using either PSI guides or conventional instrumentation. Intra-operative measurements, meniscal bearing size implanted, and post-operative radiographic analyses were performed to assess component positioning. Functional outcome was determined using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). RESULTS: PSI guides could not be used in three cases due to concerns regarding accuracy and registration onto native anatomy, particularly on the tibial side. In general, similar component alignment and positioning was achieved using the two systems (n.s. for coronal/sagittal alignment and tibial coverage). The PSI group had greater tibial slope (p = 0.029). The control group had a higher number of optimum size meniscal bearing inserted (95 vs 52%; p = 0.001). There were no differences in OKS improvements (n.s). CONCLUSION: Component positioning for the two groups was similar for the femur but less accurate on the tibial side using PSI, often with some unnecessarily deep resections of the tibial plateau. Although PSI was comparable to conventional instrumentation based on OKS improvements at 12 months, we continue to use conventional instrumentation for UKA at our institution until further improvements to the PSI guides can be demonstrated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level I.