header advert
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 6 | Pages 464 - 478
3 Jun 2024
Boon A Barnett E Culliford L Evans R Frost J Hansen-Kaku Z Hollingworth W Johnson E Judge A Marques EMR Metcalfe A Navvuga P Petrie MJ Pike K Wylde V Whitehouse MR Blom AW Matharu GS

Aims

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.

Methods

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.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 14 - 14
1 Oct 2022
Williamson E Boniface G Marian I Dutton S Maredza M Petrou S Garrett A Morris A Hansen Z Ward L Nicolson P Barker K Fairbank J Fitch J Rogers D Comer C French D Mallen C Lamb S
Full Access

Purpose and background

To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST programme) compared to physiotherapy assessment and advice (best practice advice [BPA]) for older adults with neurogenic claudication (NC) which is a debilitating spinal condition.

Methods and results

A randomised controlled trial of 438 participants. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months. Data was also collected at 6 months. Other outcomes included Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (symptoms), ODI walking item, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and falls. The analysis was intention-to-treat. We collected the EQ5D and health and social care use to estimate cost-effectiveness.

Participants were, on average, 74.9 years old (SD 6.0). There was no significant difference in ODI scores between groups at 12 months (adjusted mean difference (MD): −1.4 [95% Confidence Intervals (CI) −4.03,1.17]), but, at 6 months, ODI scores favoured the BOOST programme (adjusted MD: −3.7 [95% CI −6.27, −1.06]). Symptoms followed a similar pattern. The BOOST programme resulted in greater improvements in walking capacity (6MWT MD 21.7m [95% CI 5.96, 37.38]) and ODI walking item (MD −0.2 [95% CI −0.45, −0.01]) and reduced falls risk (odds ratio 0.6 [95% CI 0.40, 0.98]) compared to BPA at 12 months. Probability that the BOOST programme is cost-effective ranged from 67%–89% across cost-effectiveness thresholds.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 100-B, Issue SUPP_2 | Pages 12 - 12
1 Feb 2018
Sugavanam T Fordham B Hansen Z Williamson E Boniface G Usama A Richmond H Lamb S
Full Access

Purpose of study

To evaluate implementation of the Back Skills Training (BeST) programme in clinical practice within the National Health Service (NHS).

Background

The BeST programme is a group Cognitive Behavioural Approach (CBA) for people with persistent (≥6 weeks) low back pain (LBP). This intervention has been shown to be clinically and cost-effective in a large pragmatic trial. To aid implementation of the BeST programme, an online training intervention (iBeST) was developed.