A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-stay programmes for total hip and knee replacement, focusing on safety and optimal patient selection.

BACKGROUND: Short-stay joint replacement programmes are used in many countries but there has been little scrutiny of safety outcomes in the literature. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the safety of short-stay programmes versus usual care for total hip (THR) and knee replacement (KR), and optimal patient selection. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies including a comparator group reporting on 14 safety outcomes (hospital readmissions, reoperations, blood loss, emergency department visits, infection, mortality, neurovascular injury, other complications, periprosthetic fractures, postoperative falls, venous thromboembolism, wound complications, dislocation, stiffness) within 90 days postoperatively in adults ≥ 18 years undergoing primary THR or KR were included. Secondary outcomes were associations between patient demographics or clinical characteristics and patient outcomes. Four databases were searched between January 2000 and May 2023. Risk of bias and certainty of the evidence were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were included. Based upon low certainty RCT evidence, short-stay programmes may not reduce readmission (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.12-7.43); blood transfusion requirements (OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.27-11.36); neurovascular injury (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01-7.92); other complications (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26-1.53); or stiffness (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.53-2.05). For registry studies, there was no difference in readmission, infection, neurovascular injury, other complications, venous thromboembolism, or wound complications but there were reductions in mortality and dislocations. For interrupted time series studies, there was no difference in readmissions, reoperations, blood loss volume, emergency department visits, infection, mortality, or neurovascular injury; reduced odds of blood transfusion and other complications, but increased odds of periprosthetic fracture. For other observational studies, there was an increased risk of readmission, no difference in blood loss volume, infection, other complications, or wound complications, reduced odds of requiring blood transfusion, reduced mortality, and reduced venous thromboembolism. One study examined an outcome relevant to optimal patient selection; it reported comparable blood loss for short-stay male and female participants (p = 0.814). CONCLUSIONS: There is low certainty evidence that short-stay programmes for THR and KR may have non-inferior 90-day safety outcomes. There is little evidence on factors informing optimal patient selection; this remains an important knowledge gap.

Stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs: results from a national cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The capacity to meet anticipated growth in joint replacement demand requires safe, efficient models of care. While short-stay joint replacement programs are being used internationally, they have not been widely implemented in many countries. Importantly, the critical challenges that need to be addressed ahead of large-scale program implementation remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs, including perceived barriers and enablers to implementation and sustainability, and understand current practices in Australia. METHODS: Four key stakeholder groups were invited to participate in this national study: (1) health professionals who provide joint replacement care; (2) hospital administrators involved in joint replacement provision; (3) patients with recent joint replacement; and (4) carers of people with recent joint replacement. Data on perceived feasibility (0 (not at all feasible) - 10 (highly feasible), appeal (0 (not at all appealing) - 10 (highly appealing), current practices, and barriers and enablers were collected using visual analogue scales, multiple response option and open-ended questions, via an online platform. Descriptive analysis and free-text content analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Data were available from 1,445 participants including 360 health professionals, 20 hospital administrators, 1,034 patients, and 31 carers. Short-stay program implementation was considered moderately feasible by health professionals (median 6, interquartile range (IQR) 3-8) and hospital administrators (median 5, IQR 5-6). Short-stay programs were moderately appealing to patients (median 7, IQR 2-9) but of little appeal to carers (median 3, IQR 1-7). Prominent implementation barriers included perceived limited appropriateness of short-stay programs, inadequate home supports, and issues around reimbursement models or program funding. Not having daily physiotherapy access and concerns about pain and mobility at home were common barriers for patients. Concern about patients' ability to manage daily activities was the most common barrier for carers. Access to post-discharge services, better funding models, improved staffing, and consistent protocols and national care standards were prominent enablers. CONCLUSIONS: This national study has uniquely captured multiple stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs. The findings can guide future quality improvement and implementation initiatives and the development of resources to best support patients, carers, clinicians, and hospitals.

Hip-specific and generic patient-reported outcome measure scores after primary hip replacement are associated with early revision surgery: a national registry study.

BACKGROUND: The ability to efficiently identify patients at higher risk of poor outcomes after joint replacement would enable limited resources for post-operative follow-up to be directed to those with the greatest clinical need. This is particularly important as joint replacement rates continue to grow internationally, stretching health system capabilities. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are routinely administered in many settings and offer an opportunity to detect suboptimal patient outcomes early. This study aimed to determine whether hip-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision hip replacement within six to 24 months after the primary procedure. METHODS: Pre-operative and six-month post-operative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary total hip replacement (THR) were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National and linked to revision surgery data. Clinically important improvement was defined using anchor-based thresholds. Associations between PROM scores (hip pain, Oxford Hip Score, HOOS-12, EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS, patient-perceived change, satisfaction) and revision surgery were evaluated using t-tests, chi-square tests and regression models. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 21,236 primary THR procedures between 2013 and 2022. Eighty-eight revision procedures were performed at six to 24 months. Patients who were revised had more back pain and worse HOOS-12 scores pre-operatively but between-group differences were small. Worse post-operative PROM scores (hip pain, Oxford, HOOS-12, EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS) were associated with early revision, after adjusting for age and sex (p < 0.001 for all analyses). Patient dissatisfaction (relative risk (RR) 10.18, 95%CI 6.01-17.25) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 19.62, 95%CI 11.33-33.98) were also associated with a higher likelihood of revision. Patients who did not achieve clinically important improvement in hip pain, function, or quality of life had a higher revision risk (RRs 2.54-5.64), compared with those who did (reference). CONCLUSION: Six-month hip-specific and generic PROM scores can identify patients at higher risk of early revision surgery. Our data highlight the utility of routine post-operative PROM assessment for signaling suboptimal surgical outcomes.

First knee for pain and function versus second knee for quality of life.

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe and compare joint-specific and generic health-related quality of life outcomes of the first versus second knee in patients undergoing staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty (BTKA) for osteoarthritis. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Australian national arthroplasty registry data from January 2013 to January 2021 to identify participants who underwent elective staged BTKA with six to 24 months between procedures. The primary outcome was Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at six months postoperatively for the first TKA compared to the second TKA, adjusted for age and sex. Secondary outcomes compared six-month EuroQol five-dimension five-level (EQ-5D-5L) domain scores, EQ-5D index scores, and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) between knees at six months postoperatively. Results: The cohort included 635 participants (1,270 primary procedures). Preoperative scores were worse in the first knee compared to the second for all instruments; however, comparing the first knee at six months postoperatively with the second knee at six months postoperatively, the mean between-knee difference was minimal for OKS (-0.8 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.4 to -0.2), EQ-VAS (3.3; 95% CI 1.9 to 4.7), and EQ-5D index (0.09 points; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.12). Outcomes for the EQ-5D-5L domains 'mobility', 'usual activities', and 'pain/discomfort' were better following the second TKA. Conclusion: At six months postoperatively, there were no clinically meaningful differences between the first and second TKA in either the joint-specific or overall generic health-related quality of life outcomes. However, individual domain scores assessing mobility, pain, and usual activities were notably higher after the second TKA, likely reflecting the cumulative improvement in quality of life after both knees have been replaced.

Holistic Care for People Living with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: The Relevance and Importance of Sexual Function.

People living with chronic primary or secondary musculoskeletal pain conditions such as low back pain, fibromyalgia, and inflammatory arthritis typically experience wide-ranging impacts on their physical function, activity participation, and psychosocial wellbeing. These can extend to negative impacts on a person's sexual function and their intimate relationships. While sexual function is an important component of wellbeing, it is often not considered within musculoskeletal pain care. Without awareness or targeted training, physical therapists may lack the confidence and skills to screen, assess, and manage the impacts that pain may be having on a person's sexual function and can miss the opportunity to tailor their care and optimize wellbeing. This perspective seeks to raise awareness among physical therapists of how living with chronic musculoskeletal pain can impact a person's sexual function and intimate relationships, and provide guidance on how to consider these issues within a person-centred approach to care. This perspective describes why considering sexual function and intimate relationship issues as part of a person's lived musculoskeletal pain experience may be relevant, outline the use of validated patient-reported outcome measures to assess sexual dysfunction, and suggest practical strategies for sensitively raising sexual function in consultations. Management approaches and possible referral pathways are also presented, to assist physical therapists in understanding available care options. This perspective seeks to support holistic care by improving physical therapists' knowledge and understanding of sexual dysfunction and its management in people living with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Considering sexual function as a valued functional activity, together with other activities of daily living, will assist physical therapists to provide more holistic and person-centred care. This perspective covers the main considerations for raising sexual function and intimate relationship issues with people living with chronic musculoskeletal pain, as well as management options and potential referral pathways. Physical therapists are encouraged to seek targeted training to improve their confidence and skills in this area, and to use inclusive, respectful language for discussions around sexual function and intimate relationships.

Measurement Properties of the Oxford Shoulder Score and Minimal Clinically Important Changes After Primary Total Shoulder Replacement Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the measurement properties of the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and estimated the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) in patients undergoing primary total shoulder replacement in Australia. METHODS: Deidentified data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used for this analysis. Pre- and 6-month postoperative OSS scores were used, with the 5-level EuroQoL quality of life instrument and shoulder pain scores used as comparators. Floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness to change were evaluated using standard psychometric methods. Mean change and predictive modeling approaches (with and without adjustment for the proportion of improved patients) were used to calculate MCIC thresholds, with patient-perceived improvement after surgery as the anchor. RESULTS: Preoperative OSS data were available for 1,117 patients (59% female; 90% aged ≥60 years) undergoing primary total shoulder replacement. No floor or ceiling effects were observed pre- or postoperatively. The OSS showed high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha >0.89), good construct validity, and high responsiveness to change (effect size 1.88). The MCIC derived from the mean change method was 6.50 points (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.41-8.61). The predictive modeling approach produced an MCIC estimate of 8.42 points (95% CI 5.68-12.23) after adjustment. CONCLUSION: The OSS has good measurement properties to capture pain and function outcomes after shoulder replacement procedures and is highly responsive to change. Based on robust methods, an increase in OSS scores of at least eight points can be considered as meaningful improvement after surgery from the patient's perspective.

Are Outcomes From an Exercise Therapy and Patient Education Program for Osteoarthritis Associated With Hip and Knee Replacement Within Two Years? A Register-Based Study of 9,339 Patients With Osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether short-term outcomes from exercise therapy and patient education for osteoarthritis (OA) are associated with hip or knee replacement within two years. METHODS: Individual-level data from the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D) Registry were linked to the Danish National Patient Registry and other national registries. Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate associations between program outcomes (baseline to three-month changes) and time to primary hip or knee replacement. Patients who did not receive joint replacement were censored at two years, time of death, or emigration. RESULTS: A total of 2,304 and 7,035 patients with clinically diagnosed hip and knee OA, respectively, were included. Of these, 30% with hip OA and 10% with knee OA had joint replacement within two years. Postprogram improvements in hip-related quality of life and arthritis self-efficacy (pain subscale) were associated with a reduced hazard of hip replacement (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs] for a 10-unit improvement: 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.80] and 0.90 [95% CI 0.85-0.96], respectively). Improvements in knee pain, knee-related quality of life, and arthritis self-efficacy (pain subscale) were associated with a lower hazard of knee replacement (adjusted HRs for 10-unit improvement: 0.81 [95% CI 0.76-0.86] to 0.90 [95% CI 0.86-0.95], 0.70 [95% CI 0.63-0.78] to 0.79 [95% CI 0.72-0.86], and 0.89 [95% CI 0.83-0.94], respectively). CONCLUSION: The magnitude of improvement in key measures after exercise therapy and education was significantly associated with the likelihood of surgery. Progression to hip replacement was three times higher than progression to knee replacement. This information can guide patient-clinician conversations around anticipated program outcomes.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation and sustainability of short-stay arthroplasty programs for elective primary total hip and knee replacement: A systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to systematically review contemporary evidence on the barriers and enablers to implementing and sustaining short-stay arthroplasty programs for elective primary total hip and knee replacement from the perspectives of patients, health professionals, carers, healthcare administrators, funders and policymakers and to map the findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). METHODS: Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (up to 19 August 2023). Primary qualitative or mixed-methods studies reporting on perspectives relating to the review aims that utilised a short-stay programme were eligible for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the qualitative critical appraisal tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Data were analysed inductively. The final themes were mapped to the TDF. The confidence in the findings was assessed using GRADE CERQual. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included. Twelve barrier themes and twelve enabler themes were identified. Three themes were graded with high confidence, 10 were graded with moderate confidence, three were graded with low confidence, and eight were graded with very low confidence. The most pertinent domains that the themes were mapped to for patients were beliefs about capabilities, reinforcement, and the environmental context and resources. Health professionals identified knowledge, environmental context and resources as important domains. Two domains were identified for carers: (1) social/professional role and identity and (2) memory, attention, and decision processes. CONCLUSION: We identified key barrier and enabler themes linked to the TDF that can be used to guide implementation initiatives and promote the sustainability of short-stay arthroplasty programs.

How Does the New Australian EQ-5D-5L Value Set Impact Utility Scores? Analysis of Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: With advances in health state valuation methods, new value sets may be developed for some countries. Quantifying the impact of moving between existing and new value sets is critical for guiding decisions around utility score interpretation, reporting and comparison with published scores. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to examine, using large-scale national registry data, how the new Australian EQ-5D-5L value set impacts utility scores for patients undergoing joint replacement. METHODS: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used for this analysis. All primary total hip (THR), knee (TKR), and shoulder replacement (TSR) procedures between 2018 and 2022 with pre-operative and 6-month post-operative EQ-5D-5L data were included. Utility scores were generated using the 2013 and 2023 Australian value sets ('previous' and 'new' value sets, respectively) and analysed descriptively for each joint replacement cohort. Agreement between the two utility score sets was evaluated using concordance correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: EQ-5D-5L data were available for 17,576 THR, 23,010 TKR, and 1667 TSR procedures. The new value set produced a lowest possible EQ-5D-5L utility score of -0.30 (compared with -0.68 previously) and fewer patients had 'worse-than-dead' quality of life (score < 0.00) before surgery. Mean pre-operative scores were 0.21 (THR), 0.19 (TKR), and 0.17 (TSR) units higher with the new value set, and mean post-operative scores were 0.11-0.14 units higher. The new value set resulted in smaller effect sizes for the THR (1.08 versus 1.23) and TKR cohorts (0.86 versus 0.92). There was moderate-to-good overall agreement (coefficients: 0.70-0.80), but concordance varied by time point. CONCLUSION: Although acceptable agreement was evident, the new Australian value set produces less extreme negative utility scores and markedly higher group-level scores. Transition to reporting new EQ-5D-5L utility scores will require accompanying explanation to signal measurement modifications rather than better quality of life.

HIP fracture Supplemental Therapy to Enhance Recovery (HIPSTER): a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures result in substantial health impacts for patients and costs to health systems. Many patients require prolonged hospital stays and up to 60% do not regain their prefracture level of mobility within 1 year. Physical rehabilitation plays a key role in regaining physical function and independence; however, there are no recommendations regarding the optimal intensity. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of early intensive in-hospital physiotherapy compared with usual care in patients who have had surgery following a hip fracture. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This two-arm randomised, controlled, assessor-blinded trial will recruit 620 participants who have had surgery following a hip fracture from eight hospitals. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive usual care (physiotherapy according to usual practice at the site) or intensive physiotherapy in the hospital over the first 7 days following surgery (two additional sessions per day, one delivered by a physiotherapist and the other by an allied health assistant). The primary outcome is the total hospital length of stay, measured from the date of hospital admission to the date of hospital discharge, including both acute and subacute hospital days. Secondary outcomes are functional mobility, health-related quality of life, concerns about falling, discharge destination, proportion of patients remaining in hospital at 30 days, return to preadmission mobility and residence at 120 days and adverse events. Twelve months of follow-up will capture data on healthcare utilisation. A cost-effectiveness evaluation will be undertaken, and a process evaluation will document barriers and facilitators to implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee has approved this protocol. The trial findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, submitted for presentation at conferences and disseminated to patients and carers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001442796.

Implementation of supplemental physiotherapy following hip fracture surgery: a protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient outcomes following low-trauma hip fracture are suboptimal resulting in increased healthcare costs and poor functional outcomes at 1 year. Providing early and intensive in-hospital physiotherapy could help improve patient outcomes and reduce costs following hip fracture surgery. The HIP fracture Supplemental Therapy to Enhance Recovery (HIPSTER) trial will compare usual care physiotherapy to intensive in-hospital physiotherapy for patients following hip fracture surgery. The complex environments in which the intervention is implemented present unique contextual challenges that may impact intervention effectiveness. This study aims to complete a process evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation and explore the patient, carer and clinician experience of intensive therapy following hip fracture surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The process evaluation is embedded within a two-arm randomised, controlled, assessor-blinded trial recruiting 620 participants from eight Australian hospitals who have had surgery for a hip fracture sustained via a low-trauma injury. A theory-based mixed method process evaluation will be completed in tandem with the HIPSTER trial. Patient and carer semi-structured interviews will be completed at 6 weeks following hip fracture surgery. The clinician experience will be explored through online surveys completed pre- and post-implementation of intensive therapy and mapped to domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Translation and behaviour change success will be assessed using the Reach Effectiveness-Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. These data will assist with the development of an Implementation Toolkit aiding future translation into practice. DISCUSSION: The embedded process evaluation will help understand the interplay between the implementation context and the intensive therapy intervention following surgery for low-trauma hip fracture. Understanding these mechanisms, if effective, will assist with transferability into other contexts and wider translation into practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN 12622001442796.

RECITAL: a non-inferiority randomised control trial evaluating a virtual fracture clinic compared with in-person care for people with simple fractures (study protocol).

INTRODUCTION: Most simple undisplaced fractures can be managed without surgery by immobilising the limb with a splint, prescribing medication for pain, and providing advice and early rehabilitation. Recent systematic reviews based on retrospective observational studies have reported that virtual fracture clinics can deliver follow-up care that is safe and cost-effective. However, no randomised controlled trial has investigated if a virtual fracture clinic can provide non-inferior physical function outcomes compared with an in-person clinic for patients with simple fractures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 312 participants will be recruited from 2 metropolitan hospitals located in Sydney, Australia. Adult patients will be eligible if they have an acute simple fracture that can be managed with a removable splint and is deemed appropriate for follow-up at either the virtual or in-person fracture clinic by an orthopaedic doctor. Patients will not be eligible if they have a complex fracture that requires a cast or surgery. Eligible participants will be randomised to receive their follow-up care either at the virtual or the in-person fracture clinic. Participants at the virtual fracture clinic will be reviewed within 5 days of receiving a referral through video calls with a physiotherapist. Participants at the in-person fracture clinic will be reviewed by an orthopaedic doctor within 7-10 days of receiving a referral. The primary outcome will be the patient's function measured using the Patient-Specific Functional Scale at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, patient-reported experiences, pain, health cost, healthcare utilisation, medication use, adverse events, emergency department representations and surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Sydney Local Health District Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone) (X23-0200 and 2023/ETH01038). The trial results will be submitted for publication in a reputable international journal and will be presented at professional conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623000934640.