Aims. Surgeon and patient reluctance to participate are potential significant barriers to conducting placebo-controlled trials of orthopaedic surgery. Understanding the preferences of orthopaedic surgeons and patients regarding the design of randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCT-Ps) of knee procedures can help to identify what RCT-P features will lead to the greatest participation. This information could inform future trial designs and feasibility assessments. Methods. This study used two discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to determine which features of RCT-Ps of knee procedures influence surgeon and patient participation. A mixed-methods approach informed the DCE development. The DCEs were analyzed with a baseline category multinomial logit model. Results. The proportion of respondents (surgeons n = 103; patients n = 140) who would not participate in any of the DCE choice sets (surgeons = 31%; patients = 40%), and the proportion who would participate in all (surgeons = 18%; patients = 30%), indicated strong views regarding the conduct of RCT-Ps. There were three main findings: for both surgeons and patients, studies which involved an arthroscopic procedure were more likely to result in participation than those with a total knee arthroplasty; as the age (for patients) and years of experience (for surgeons) increased, the overall likelihood of participation decreased; and, for surgeons, offering authorship and input into the RCT-P design was preferred for less experienced surgeons, while only completing the procedure was preferred by more experienced surgeons. Conclusion. Patients and surgeons have strong views regarding participation in RCT-Ps. However, understanding their preferences can inform future trial designs and feasibility assessments with regard to recruitment rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1408–1415

Aims. The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). Results. The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. Conclusion. The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753–758

The ability to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) would enhance treatment decision making and facilitate economic analysis. QALYs are calculated using utilities, or health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) weights. An instrument designed for cervical myelopathy disease would increase the sensitivity and specificity of HRQoL assessments. The objective of this study is to develop a multi-attribute utility function for the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) Score. We recruited a sample of 760 adults from a market research panel. Using an online discrete choice experiment (DCE), participants rated 8 choice sets based on mJOA health states. A multi-attribute utility function was estimated using a mixed multinomial-logit regression model (MIXL). The sample was partitioned into a training set used for model fitting and validation set used for model evaluation. The regression model demonstrated good predictive performance on the validation set with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.80-0.82)). The regression model was used to develop a utility scoring rubric for the mJOA. Regression results revealed that participants did not regard all mJOA domains as equally important. The rank order of importance was (in decreasing order): lower extremity motor function, upper extremity motor function, sphincter function, upper extremity sensation. This study provides a simple technique for converting the mJOA score to utilities and quantify the importance of mJOA domains. The ability to evaluate QALYs for DCM will facilitate economic analysis and patient counseling. Clinicians should use these findings in order to offer treatments that maximize function in the attributes viewed most important by patients

Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common and cost-effective elective surgical procedures. In the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales a myriad of implants for THR are offered at a variety of locally negotiated prices. This study aims to estimate the total burden of elective THR to the NHS, expenditure on implants, and different scenarios of cost changes if implant selection changed for different patient groups. Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data and NHS reference costs, we estimated the number and expenditure of NHS funded primary and revision THR in the 10-year period 2008–2017 and forecasted the number and expenditure on THR over the next decade. Using NJR average NHS Trust prices for the different implant combinations we estimated the average cost of implants used in THRs and estimated the budget impact on NHS providers from switching to alternative implants. The NHS spent over £4.76 billion performing 702,381 THRs between 2008–2017. The average cost of implants was £1,260 per surgery, almost a fifth of the cost of primary THR. Providing cemented implant combinations in primary elective THRs may potentially save up to £281 million over the next 10 years, whilst keeping 10-year revision risks low. The NHS is likely to spend over £5.6 billion providing primary elective THR over the next decade. There are efficiency savings to realise in the NHS by switching to more cost-effective implant combinations available for patients undergoing primary elective THR surgery, but these will need to be balanced against the risks inherent to a change in selection of implants and surgical practice. The HIPPY programme will be conducting practice surveys, discrete choice experiments and a large randomised controlled trial of cemented, uncemented and hybrid fixation in THR for patients under 70 to answer uncertainties

Given the prolonged waits for hip arthroplasty seen across the U.K. it is important that we optimise priority systems to account for potential disparities in patient circumstances and impact. We set out to achieve this through a two-stage approach. This included a Delphi-study of patient and surgeon preferences to determine what should be considered when determining patient priority, followed by a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to decide relative weighting of included attributes. The study was conducted according to the published protocol ([. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. ](. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. )). The Delphi study was performed online over 3 rounds with anonymous ranking and feedback. Included factors were voted as either Consensus in, Consensus out, or No Consensus• following an established scoring criterion. A final consensus meeting determined the prioritisation factors (and their levels) to be included in the DCE. The DCE was then conducted using an online platform, with surgeons performing 18 choice sets regarding which merited greater priority between two hypothetical patients. Results were collated and analysed using multinomial logit regression analysis (MNL). For the Delphi study there were 43 responses in the first round, with a subsequent 91% participation rate. Final consensus inclusion was achieved for Pain; Mobility/Function; Activities of Daily Living; Inability to Work/Care; Length of Time Waited; Radiological Severity and Mental Wellbeing. 70 individuals subsequently contributed to the DCE, with radiological severity being the most significant factor (Coefficient 2.27 \[SD 0.31\], p<0.001), followed by pain (Coefficient 1.08 \[SD 0.13\], p<0.001) and time waited (Coefficient for 1-month additional wait 0.12 \[SD 0.02\], p<0.001). The calculated trade-off in waiting time for a 1-level change in pain (e.g., moderate to severe pain) was 9.14 months. These results present a new method of determining comparative priority for those on primary hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required

Aims

Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme.