Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention for the prevention of low back pain recurrence in Australia (WalkBack): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence of low back pain is common and a substantial contributor to the disease and economic burden of low back pain. Exercise is recommended to prevent recurrence, but the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an accessible and low-cost intervention, such as walking, is yet to be established. We aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention to prevent the recurrence of low back pain. METHODS: WalkBack was a two-armed, randomised controlled trial, which recruited adults (aged 18 years or older) from across Australia who had recently recovered from an episode of non-specific low back pain that was not attributed to a specific diagnosis, and which lasted for at least 24 h. Participants were randomly assigned to an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention facilitated by six sessions with a physiotherapist across 6 months or to a no treatment control group (1:1). The randomisation schedule comprised randomly permuted blocks of 4, 6, and 8 and was stratified by history of more than two previous episodes of low back pain and referral method. Physiotherapists and participants were not masked to allocation. Participants were followed for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 36 months, depending on the date of enrolment. The primary outcome was days to the first recurrence of an activity-limiting episode of low back pain, collected in the intention-to-treat population via monthly self-report. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the societal perspective and expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ACTRN12619001134112). FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2019, and June 10, 2022, 3206 potential participants were screened for eligibility, 2505 (78%) were excluded, and 701 were randomly assigned (351 to the intervention group and 350 to the no treatment control group). Most participants were female (565 [81%] of 701) and the mean age of participants was 54 years (SD 12). The intervention was effective in preventing an episode of activity-limiting low back pain (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·85], p=0·0002). The median days to a recurrence was 208 days (95% CI 149-295) in the intervention group and 112 days (89-140) in the control group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was AU$7802, giving a 94% probability that the intervention was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $28 000. Although the total number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event over 12 months was similar between the intervention and control groups (183 [52%] of 351 and 190 [54%] of 350, respectively, p=0·60), there was a greater number of adverse events related to the lower extremities in the intervention group than in the control group (100 in the intervention group and 54 in the control group). INTERPRETATION: An individualised, progressive walking and education intervention significantly reduced low back pain recurrence. This accessible, scalable, and safe intervention could affect how low back pain is managed. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.

Mid- to long-term outcome of laparoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation for malignant hepatic tumors.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of fully laparoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (LURFA) in malignant hepatic tumors that are difficult to curatively treat with the percutaneous approach or laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). METHODS: Between 2011 and 2021, 62 patients with malignant hepatic tumors (37 hepatocellular carcinomas [HCCs] and 25 metastatic colorectal cancers [mCRCs]), who were not feasible to be curatively treated by percutaneous radiofrequency ablation or LLR, were enrolled and treated only by LURFA. Patients who underwent concurrent surgical resection were excluded. The cumulative incidence rates of local recurrence (LR) and survival were analyzed. RESULTS: All 93 tumors with a median diameter of 22.0 mm (IQR, 8.0-50.0) and a median number of 1.5 tumors (IQR, 1.0-6.0) in 62 patients were successfully treated. According to the IWATE criteria for LLR, 33 of 62 patients (53.2%) had tumors in difficult locations (segments I, VII, VIII, and IVa). Over a median follow-up period of 92.4 months (IQR, 60.0-128.0), the 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, 8-, and 10-year cumulative incidence rates of LR were 6.9%, 13.8%, 17.2%, 17.2%, 20.9%, and 20.9%, respectively. In patients with HCC, 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year survival rates were 97.2%, 80.6%, 55.6%, and 40.1%, respectively. In patients with mCRC, 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year survival rates were 100.0%, 36.4%, 27.3%, and 16.4%, respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 occurred in only 3 of 62 patients (4.8%). CONCLUSION: Full LURFA is a safe and effective treatment for malignant hepatic tumors, even in difficult percutaneous ablation or LLR areas.

Comparison of the Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes between the Sinus Tarsi and Extended Lateral Approaches for Intra-Articular Calcaneal Fractures: A Retrospective Study.

The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and functional outcomes of the extended lateral and sinus tarsi approaches for managing displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures. This retrospective study involved 44 patients with displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. The patients were treated with either the extended lateral or sinus tarsi approach and followed up for at least a year. The radiological and clinical outcomes were compared between the approaches. The waiting time for surgery was shorter and the complication rate was lower in the sinus tarsi approach group than in the other group. There were no significant differences in the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score, Foot Function Index, or visual analog scale score between the groups. In both groups, the radiological outcomes (Böhler angle, calcaneal width, and calcaneal height) were better postoperatively than preoperatively. The sinus tarsi approach is a safe and effective alternative to the extended lateral approach for managing displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures. It is associated with a lower complication rate and a shorter waiting time for surgery than the extended lateral approach, with similar functional and radiological outcomes.

Compliance with Australian Orthopaedic Association guidelines does not reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism after total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Preventing avoidable venous-thrombo-embolism (VTE) is a priority to improve patient and service outcomes after total hip and total knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA), but compliance with relevant clinical guidelines varies. This study aims to determine the degree to which prophylaxis was compliant with Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA) VTE prophylaxis guidelines and whether non-compliance is associated with increased risk of VTE. A prospective multi-centre cohort study of adults with osteoarthritis undergoing primary TKA/THA was completed at 19 high-volume public and private hospitals. Data were collected prior to surgery and for one-year post-surgery. Logistic regression was undertaken to explore associations between non-compliance with AOA VTE prophylaxis guidelines and symptomatic 90-day VTE outcomes. Data were analysed for 1838 participants from 19 sites. The rate of non-compliance with all clinical guideline recommendations was 20.1% (N = 369), with 14.1% (N = 259) non-compliance for risk-stratified prophylaxis, 35.8% (N = 658) for duration, and 67.8% (N = 1246) for other general recommendations. Symptomatic VTE was experienced up to 90-days post-surgery by 48 people (2.6%). Overall guideline non-compliance (AOR = 0.93, 95%CI = 0.4 to 1.3, p = 0.86) was not associated with a lower risk of symptomatic 90-day VTE. Results were consistent when people with high bleeding risk were excluded (AOR = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.44 to 2.34, p = 0.89). Non-compliance with the AOA VTE prophylaxis guidelines was not associated with risk of 90-day VTE after arthroplasty. This counterintuitive finding is concerning and necessitates a rigorous review of the AOA VTE prevention clinical guideline.

Opioids for Acute Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of opioids for people with acute musculoskeletal pain against placebo. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised, placebo-controlled trials of opioid analgesics for acute musculoskeletal pain in any setting. The primary outcomes were pain and disability at the immediate timepoint (< 24 h). DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases were searched from their inception to February 22nd, 2023. DATA SYNTHESIS: Continuous outcomes were converted to a 0-100 scale. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk differences. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed. RESULTS: We located 17 trials (1 intravenous and 16 oral route of administration). For adults, high certainty evidence from 11 comparisons shows that oral opioids provide small benefits relative to placebo in the immediate term for pain (mean difference [MD] - 8.8 95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.0 to - 5.6). For disability, the difference is uncertain (MD - 6.2, 95% CI - 17.8 to 5.4). Opioid groups were at higher risk of adverse events (MD 14.3%, 95% CI 8.3-20.4%, very low certainty). There was moderate certainty evidence of a large effect of IV morphine on sciatica pain (MD -42.5, 95% CI - 49.9 to - 35.1, n = 197, 1 study). In paediatric populations, moderate certainty evidence from 3 trials shows that oral opioids probably do not provide benefit beyond that of placebo for pain (MD 6.1, 95% CI - 1.7 to 12.8) and there was no evidence for disability. There was low certainty evidence that there may be no difference in adverse events (MD 10.4%, 95% CI - 0.6 to 21.4%). DISCUSSION: Intravenous morphine likely offers benefits, but oral opioids may not provide clinically meaningful benefits. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021249346.

How is postoperative pain after hip and knee replacement managed? An analysis of two large hospitals in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia regimens are recommended for the postoperative period after hip and knee replacement surgeries. However, there are no data on practice patterns for analgesic use in the immediate postoperative period after hip and knee replacements in Australia. OBJECTIVES: To describe analgesic prescribing patterns in the inpatient postoperative phase for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement. METHODS: Retrospective study of electronic medical record data from two major hospitals in Sydney, Australia. We identified analgesic medication prescriptions for all patients aged 18 years and older who underwent hip or knee replacement surgery in 2019. We extracted data on pain medications prescribed while in the ward up until discharge. These were grouped into distinct categories based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification. We described the frequency (%) of pain medications used by category and computed the average oral morphine equivalent daily dose (OMEDD) during hospitalisation. RESULTS: We identified 1282 surgeries in 1225 patients. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 69 (11.8) years; most (57.1%) were female. Over 99% of patients were prescribed opioid analgesics and paracetamol during their hospital stay. Most patients (61.4%) were managed with paracetamol and opioids only. The most common prescribed opioid was oxycodone (87.3% of patients). Only 19% of patients were prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs). The median (IQR) average daily OMEDD was 50.2 mg (30.3-77.9). CONCLUSION: We identified high use of opioids analgesics as the main strategies for pain control after hip and knee replacement in hospital. Other analgesics were much less frequently used, such as NSAIDs, and always in combination with opioids and paracetamol.

Paracetamol Combination Therapy for Back Pain and Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although paracetamol (acetaminophen) combined with other analgesics can reduce pain intensity in some pain conditions, its effectiveness in managing low back pain and osteoarthritis is unclear. This systematic review investigated whether paracetamol combination therapy is more effective and safer than monotherapy or placebo in low back pain and osteoarthritis. METHODS: Online database searches were conducted for randomised trials that evaluated paracetamol combined with another analgesic compared to a placebo or the non-paracetamol ingredient in the combination (monotherapy) in low back pain and osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was a change in pain. Secondary outcomes were (serious) adverse events, changes in disability and quality of life. Follow-up was immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 months but < 12 months) or long term (≥ 12 months). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool, and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. Pain was reduced with oral paracetamol plus a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at immediate term in low back pain (paracetamol plus ibuprofen vs ibuprofen [mean difference (MD) - 6.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4 to -2.0, moderate evidence]) and in osteoarthritis (paracetamol plus aceclofenac vs aceclofenac [MD - 4.7, 95% CI - 8.3 to - 1.2, moderate certainty evidence] and paracetamol plus etodolac vs etodolac [MD - 15.1, 95% CI - 18.5 to - 11.8; moderate certainty evidence]). Paracetamol plus oral tramadol reduced pain compared with placebo at intermediate term for low back pain (MD - 11.7, 95% CI - 19.2 to - 4.3; very low certainty evidence) and osteoarthritis (MD - 6.8, 95% CI - 12.7 to -0.9; moderate certainty evidence). Disability scores improved in half the comparisons. Quality of life was infrequently measured. All paracetamol plus NSAID combinations did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to NSAID monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports the oral use of some paracetamol plus NSAID combinations for short-term pain relief with no increased risk of harm for low back pain and osteoarthritis compared to its non-paracetamol monotherapy comparator.