Methods

PRAISE is a multicentre, prospective, parallel group, patient-blinded, randomised trial, seeking to recruit 456 adult participants undergoing elective, posterior lumbar-instrumented spinal surgery from up to 25 NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to receive (1) Usual Care with local wound infiltration, (2) Intrathecal Opioid plus Usual Care with local wound infiltration or (3) Erector Spinae Plane blockade plus Usual Care with no local wound infiltration. The primary outcome is pain on movement on a 100mm visual analogue scale at 24 hours post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include pain at rest, leg pain, quality of recovery (QoR-15), postoperative opioid consumption, time to mobilisation, length of hospital stay, health utility (EQ-5D-5L), adverse events and resource use. Parallel economic evaluation will estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Methods

Participants were recruited from two community musculoskeletal treatment centres in the UK. Patients were eligible if aged 18 years or older, and had a clinical diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome which the treating clinician thought was suitable for treatment with a subacromial injection. Consenting patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to a patient-blinded subacromial injection of CSI (standard care) or APS. The primary outcome measures of this study relate to rates of recruitment, retention, and compliance with intervention and follow-up to determine feasibility. Secondary outcome measures relate to the safety and efficacy of the interventions.

Methods

We used data from the Repurposing anti-TNF for Dupuytren’s disease (RIDD) randomized controlled trial of intranodular adalimumab injections in patients with early-stage progressive DD. RIDD found that intranodular adalimumab injections reduced nodule hardness and size in patients with early-stage DD, indicating the potential to control disease progression. A within-trial cost-utility analysis compared four adalimumab injections with no further treatment against standard care alone, taking a 12-month time horizon and using prospective data on EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and resource use from the RIDD trial. We also developed a patient-level simulation model similar to a Markov model to extrapolate trial outcomes over a lifetime using data from the RIDD trial and a literature review. This also evaluated repeated courses of adalimumab each time the nodule reactivated (every three years) in patients who initially responded.

Introduction

This multi-centre randomised controlled trial evaluated the clinical and cost effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine for pain and recovery following knee replacement.

Methodology

533patients undergoing primary knee replacement were randomised to receive either liposomal bupivacaine (266mg) plus bupivacaine hydrochloride (100mg) or control (bupivacaine hydrochloride 100mg), administered at the surgical site. The co-primary outcomes were pain visual analogue score (VAS) area under the curve (AUC) 6 to 72hours and the Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) score at 72hours.

Method

Seventy-one patients with long-bone osteomyelitis, confirmed using a validated composite protocol, were included. Patients received a single-stage procedure at a specialist bone infection unit. Euro-Qol EQ-5D-3L questionnaires and Visual Analogue Scores (VAS) (0–100) were collected prospectively at baseline, 14 days, 6 weeks, 4 months and 1 year post-operatively. The EQ-5D-3L index score, a composite measure of performance of daily activities, was calculated from the 5 domains of the EQ-5D-3L. BACH was applied retrospectively by two independent clinicians blinded to all patient outcomes.

Patients and Methods

The use of resources, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed in the trial at six months and one year. Results were extrapolated to two years after randomization. Differences between treatment arms, based on the intention-to-treat principle, were adjusted for covariates and missing data were handled using multiple imputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, with uncertainty around the values estimated using bootstrapping.

Method

All eligible participants enrolled in the OVIVA trial (2010–2015) were randomised to six weeks of either PO or IV antibiotic treatment arms. Self-administering patients were followed up with questionnaires at day 14 and 42. A subset of PO participants was also given the medication event monitoring system* in order to validate the adherence questionnaires. The results were correlated with treatment failures at one-year follow-up.

Method

This was a parallel group, randomised (1:1), open label, non-inferiority trial across twenty-six NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom. Eligible patients were adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least six weeks of antibiotics and who had received ≤7 days of IV therapy from the date of definitive surgery (or the start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively). Participants were randomised to receive either oral or IV antibiotics for the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral therapy was permitted in either arm. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing definitive treatment failure within one year of randomisation. The non-inferiority margin was set at 7.5%.

Method

This study was designed to determine whether oral antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to intravenous (IV) therapy when given for the first six weeks of treatment for bone and joint infections. Of the 1054 participants recruited from 26 centres, 462 were treated for periprosthetic or native joint infections of the hip or knee. There were 243 participants in the IV antibiotic cohort and 219 in the oral cohort. Functional outcome was determined at baseline through to one year using the Oxford Hip/Knee Score (OHS/OKS) as joint-specific measures (0 the worse and 48 the best). An adjusted quantile regression model was used to compare functional outcome scores.

Patients and Methods

We therefore identified a previously unreported cohort of 1084 knees in 947 patients who had a UKA inserted for anteromedial knee arthritis by consultants and surgeons in training, at a tertiary arthroplasty centre and performed survival analysis on the group with revision as the endpoint.

Methods

FAIT is a multicentre superiority parallel two-arm randomised controlled trial comparing physiotherapy and activity modification with arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of symptomatic FAI. Patients aged 18 to 60 with clinical and radiological evidence of FAI are eligible. Principal exclusion criteria include previous surgery to the index hip, established osteoarthritis (Kellgren–Lawrence ≥ 2), hip dysplasia (centre-edge angle < 20°), and completion of a physiotherapy programme targeting FAI within the previous 12 months. Recruitment will take place over 24 months and 120 patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio and followed up for three years. The two primary outcome measures are change in hip outcome score eight months post-randomisation (approximately six-months post-intervention initiation) and change in radiographic minimum joint space width 38 months post-randomisation. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01893034.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:321–7.

Methods

Surgeon opinion was obtained using validated questionnaires at a Specialist Hip Meeting (n = 61, 30 of whom stated that they routinely performed FAI surgery) and patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients with a new diagnosis of FAI (n = 31).