Internet interventions provide an opportunity to encourage patients with LBP to self-manage and remain active, by tailoring advice and providing evidence-based support for increasing physical activity. This paper reports the development of the ‘SupportBack’ internet intervention, designed for use with usual primary care, as the first stage of a feasibility RCT currently underway comparing: usual primary care alone; usual care plus the internet intervention; usual care plus the internet intervention with physiotherapist telephone support. The internet intervention delivers a 6-week, tailored programme focused on graded goal setting, self-monitoring, and provision of tailored feedback to encourage physical activity/exercise increases or maintenance. 22 patients with back pain from primary care took part in ‘think aloud’ interviews, to qualitatively explore the intervention, provide feedback on its relevance and quality and identify any extraneous content or omissions.Background:
Methods:
Joint aspiration is a useful tool during preoperative workup in suspected periprosthetic infection. The aim of this study was to review efficacy of joint aspiration in our unit and compare results with the published literature. We undertook a retrospective review of 153 consecutive patients who underwent joint aspirations for suspected periprosthetic infection between 03/2011 and 10/2012 who were identified from the hospital electronic database. As per protocol, joint fluid was sent in an EDTA tube for cell count, Paediatric blood culture bottle and the remainder in a specimen pot. 105 (69%) were TKRs and 48 (31%) were THRs. Intraoperative samples were sent as per protocol in only 40 (26%) cases. The hit rate of positive cultures was 11/153 (7%) and specimens sent in paediatric culture bottles identified more positives than if it was omitted (10.5 Vs 5.5%). In conclusion, the hit rate of positive cultures is low in this study compared to the literature (7% Vs 33%) and this is likely due to blanket aspiration of all patients who are undergoing revision. In addition, specimens sent in paediatric culture bottles seem to identify more positives. We recommend cases are selected for aspiration according to AAOS guidelines.
The STarT Back Screening Tool (STarT) is a 9-item patient self-report questionnaire that classifies low back pain patients into low, medium or high risk of poor prognosis. When assessed by GPs, these subgroups can be used to triage patients into different evidence-based treatment pathways. The objective of this study was to translate the English version of STarT into Danish (STarT-dk) and test its discriminative validity. Translation was performed using methods recommended by best practice translation guidelines. Psychometric validation of the discriminative ability was performed using the AUC statistic. The AUC was calculated for seven of the nine items where reference standards were available and compared with the original English version.Objective
Methods
One untested back pain treatment model is to stratify management depending on prognosis (low, medium or high-risk). This 2-arm RCT investigated: (i) overall clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention), versus non-stratified current best practice (control); and (ii) whether low-risk patients had non-inferior outcomes, and medium/high-risk groups had superior outcomes. 1573 adults with back pain (+/− radiculopathy) consulting at 10 general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic, at which 851 eligible participants were randomised (intervention n=568; control n=283). Primary outcome using intention-to-treat analysis was the difference in change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included 4-month RMDQ change between arms overall, and at risk-group level at both time-points. The economic evaluation estimated incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and back pain-related health care costs.Background
Methods
The STarT Back trial demonstrated that targeting back pain treatment according to patient prognosis (low, medium or high-risk subgroups) is effective. However, the mechanisms leading to these improved treatment outcomes remain unknown. This study aimed to identify which psychological variables included in the study were mediating treatment outcome for all patients and within the low, medium and high-risk subgroups. Secondary analysis was conducted on 466 patients randomised to the active treatment arm with 4-month follow-up available. Psychological variables included depression (HADs), fear (TSK), catastrophising (PCS), bothersomeness and illness perception constructs (IPQ brief) e.g. personal control. Treatment outcome was characterised using change in disability score (RMDQ) at 4-months. Residualised change scores were calculated for each variable and Pearson's correlations were calculated overall and at the subgroup level to determine potential mediating variables for disability improvement.Introduction
Methods
Following the publication in 2007 of the guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) for patients undergoing surgery, concerns were raised by British orthopaedic surgeons as to the appropriateness of the recommendations for their clinical practice. In order to address these concerns NICE and the British Orthopaedic Association agreed to engage a representative panel of orthopaedic surgeons in the process of developing expanded VTE guidelines applicable to all patients admitted to hospital. The functions of this panel were to review the evidence and to consider the applicability and implications in orthopaedic practice in order to advise the main Guideline Development Group in framing recommendations. The panel considered both direct and indirect evidence of the safety and efficacy, the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis and its implication in clinical practice for orthopaedic patients. We describe the process of selection of the orthopaedic panel, the evidence considered and the contribution of the panel to the latest guidelines from NICE on the prophylaxis against VTE, published in January 2010.
The diffusion of Fucidin, gentamicin, and clindamycin from acrylic cement was tested in an in vitro system. The activity of Fucidin was very short-lived and only against gram-positive organisms; gentamicin inhibited gram-positive and gram-negative organisms for twenty-two and eleven days respectively; clindamycin had significant action only against gram-positive organisms and retained some activity for fifty-six days. We suggest that the destruction of organisms in the tissues is more likely to be achieved by topical and intravenous administration of antibiotics during the operation than by incorporation of antibiotic in the cement.