During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. The PAtellar Resurfacing Trial (PART) is a patient- and assessor-blinded multicentre, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary TKR for primary osteoarthritis at NHS hospitals in England, with an embedded internal pilot phase (ISRCTN 33276681). Participants will be randomly allocated intraoperatively on a 1:1 basis (stratified by centre and implant type (cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-sacrificing)) to always resurface or selectively resurface the patella, once the surgeon has confirmed sufficient patellar thickness for resurfacing and that constrained implants are not required. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures at three months, six months, and one year (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, OKS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and costs). Cost-effectiveness will be measured for the lifetime of the patient. Overall, 530 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a four-point difference in OKS between the groups one year after surgery, assuming up to 40% resurfacing in the selective group.Aims
Methods
Lower limb fractures are common in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and represent a significant burden to the existing orthopaedic surgical infrastructure. In high income country (HIC) settings, internal fixation is the standard of care due to its superior outcomes. In LMICs, external fixation is often the surgical treatment of choice due to limited supplies, cost considerations, and its perceived lower complication rate. The aim of this systematic review protocol is identifying differences in rates of infection, nonunion, and malunion of extra-articular femoral and tibial shaft fractures in LMICs treated with either internal or external fixation. This systematic review protocol describes a broad search of multiple databases to identify eligible papers. Studies must be published after 2000, include at least five patients, patients must be aged > 16 years or treated as skeletally mature, and the paper must describe a fracture of interest and at least one of our primary outcomes of interest. We did not place restrictions on language or journal. All abstracts and full texts will be screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias and quality of evidence will be analyzed using standardized appraisal tools. A random-effects meta-analysis followed by a subgroup analysis will be performed, given the anticipated heterogeneity among studies, if sufficient data are available.Aims
Methods
Is it feasible to conduct a definitive multicentre trial in community settings of corticosteroid injections (CSI) and hydrodilation (HD) compared to CSI for patients with frozen shoulder? An adequately powered definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) delivered in primary care will inform clinicians and the public whether hydrodilation is a clinically and cost-effective intervention. In this study, prior to a full RCT, we propose a feasibility trial to evaluate recruitment and retention by patient and clinician willingness of randomization; rates of withdrawal, crossover and attrition; and feasibility of outcome data collection from routine primary and secondary care data. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advises that prompt early management of frozen shoulder is initiated in primary care settings with analgesia, physiotherapy, and joint injections; most people can be managed without an operation. Currently, there is variation in the type of joint injection: 1) CSI, thought to reduce the inflammation of the capsule reducing pain; and 2) HD, where a small volume of fluid is injected into the shoulder joint along with the steroid, aiming to stretch the capsule of the shoulder to improve pain, but also allowing greater movement. The creation of musculoskeletal hubs nationwide provides infrastructure for the early and effective management of frozen shoulder. This potentially reduces costs to individuals and the wider NHS perhaps negating the need for a secondary care referral.Aims
Methods
Ankle fractures are common, mainly affecting adults aged 50 years and over. To aid recovery, some patients are referred to physiotherapy, but referral patterns vary, likely due to uncertainty about the effectiveness of this supervised rehabilitation approach. To inform clinical practice, this study will evaluate the effectiveness of supervised versus self-directed rehabilitation in improving ankle function for older adults with ankle fractures. This will be a multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomized controlled superiority trial. We aim to recruit 344 participants aged 50 years and older with an ankle fracture treated surgically or non-surgically from at least 20 NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomized 1:1 using a web-based service to supervised rehabilitation (four to six one-to-one physiotherapy sessions of tailored advice and prescribed home exercise over three months), or self-directed rehabilitation (provision of advice and exercise materials that participants will use to manage their recovery independently). The primary outcome is participant-reported ankle-related symptoms and function six months after randomization, measured by the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score. Secondary outcomes at two, four, and six months measure health-related quality of life, pain, physical function, self-efficacy, exercise adherence, complications, and resource use. Due to the nature of the interventions, participants and intervention providers will be unblinded to treatment allocation.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study is to define a core outcome set (COS) to allow consistency in outcome reporting amongst studies investigating the management of orthopaedic treatment in children with spinal dysraphism (SD). Relevant outcomes will be identified in a four-stage process from both the literature and key stakeholders (patients, their families, and clinical professionals). Previous outcomes used in clinical studies will be identified through a systematic review of the literature, and each outcome will be assigned to one of the five core areas, defined by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT). Additional possible outcomes will be identified through consultation with patients affected by SD and their families.Aims
Methods
