Robust evidence on the effectiveness of peri-operative local anaesthetic infiltration (LAI) is required before it is incorporated into the pain management regimen for patients receiving total hip replacement (THR). We assessed the effectiveness of LAI using a systematic review and a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) with economic evaluation. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for RCTs of peri-operative LAI in patients receiving THR. Two reviewers screened abstracts, extracted data, and liaised with authors. Outcomes were pain, opioid use, mobilisation, hospital stay and complications. If feasible, we conducted meta-analysis. In the APEX RCT, we randomised 322 patients awaiting THR to receive additional peri-operative LAI (60mls 0.25% bupivacaine plus adrenaline) or standard anaesthesia alone. Post-operatively, all patients received patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was joint pain severity (WOMAC-Pain) at 12 months. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to allocation. Within APEX, cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health and social-care perspective in relation to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and WOMAC-Pain at 12-months. Resource use was collected from hospital records and patient questionnaires. In the systematic review, we identified 13 studies (909 patients). Patients undergoing THR receiving LAI experienced greater pain reduction at 24 hours at rest, standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.61 (95%CI −1.05, −0.16; p=0.008) and at 48 hours during activity, SMD −0.43 (95%CI −0.78, −0.09; p=0.014). Patients receiving LAI spent fewer days in hospital, used less opioids and mobilised earlier. Complications were similar between groups. Long-term outcomes were not a focus of these studies. In the APEX RCT, pain levels in hospital were broadly similar between groups, probably due to patient-controlled analgesia. Opioid use was similar between groups. Time to mobilisation and discharge were largely dependent on local protocols and did not differ between groups. Patients receiving LAI were less likely to report severe pain at 12 months than those receiving standard care, odds ratio 10.2 (95%CI 2.1, 49.6; p=0.004). Complications were similar between groups. In the economic evaluation, LAI was associated with lower costs and greater cost-effectiveness than standard care. Using a £20,000 per QALY threshold, the incremental net monetary benefit was £1,125 (95%CI £183, £2,067) and the probability of being cost-effective was greater than 98 %. The evidence suggests that peri-operative LAI is a cost-effective intervention for reducing acute and chronic post-surgical pain after THR

Robust evidence on the effectiveness of peri-operative local anaesthetic infiltration (LAI) is required before it is incorporated into the pain management regimen for patients receiving total knee replacement (TKR). To assess the effectiveness of peri-operative LAI for pain management in patients receiving TKR we conducted a systematic review, fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for RCTs of peri-operative LAI in patients receiving TKR. Two reviewers screened abstracts and extracted data. Outcomes were pain, opioid use, mobilisation, hospital stay and complications. Authors were contacted if required. When feasible, we conducted meta-analysis with studies analysed separately if a femoral nerve block (FNB) was provided. In the APEX RCT, we randomised 316 patients awaiting TKR to standard anaesthesia which included FNB, or to the same regimen with additional peri-operative LAI (60mls 0.25% bupivacaine plus adrenaline). Post-operatively, all patients received patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was joint pain severity (WOMAC-Pain) at 12 months. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to allocation. Within APEX, cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health and social-care perspective in relation to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and WOMAC-Pain at 12-months. Resource use was collected from hospital records and patient questionnaires. In the systematic review, 23 studies including 1,439 patients were identified. Compared with patients receiving no intervention, LAI reduced WOMAC-Pain by standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.40 (95%CI −0.58, −0.22; p<0.001) at 24 hours at rest and by SMD −0.27 (95%CI −0.50, −0.05; p=0.018) at 48 hours during activity. In three studies there was no difference in pain at any time point between randomised groups where all patients received FNB. Patients receiving LAI spent fewer days in hospital, used less opioids and mobilised earlier. Complications were similar between groups. Few studies reported long-term outcomes. In the APEX RCT, pain levels in hospital were broadly similar between groups. Overall opioid use was similar between groups. Time to mobilisation and discharge were largely dependent on local protocols and did not differ between groups. There were no differences in pain outcomes between groups at 12 months. In the economic evaluation, LAI was marginally associated with lower costs. Using the NICE £20,000 per QALY threshold, the incremental net monetary benefit was £264 (95%CI, −£710, £1,238) and the probability of being cost-effective was 62%. Although LAI appeared to have some benefit for reduced pain in hospital after TKR there was no evidence of pain control additional to that provided by femoral nerve block, however it would be cost-effective at the current NICE thresholds

Background. The Arthroplasty Pain Experience (APEX) studies are two randomised controlled trials in primary total hip (THR) and knee replacement (TKR) at a large UK orthopaedics centre. APEX investigated the effect of local anaesthetic wound infiltration (LAI), administered before wound closure, in addition to standard analgesia, on pain severity at 12 months. This abstract reports results of the within-trial economic evaluations. Methods. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health and social care payer perspective in relation to quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Resource use was collected from hospital records and patient-completed postal questionnaires, and valued using unit cost estimates from local NHS Trust and national tariffs. Missing data were imputed using chained equations. Costs and outcomes were compared per trial arm and plotted in cost-effectiveness planes. The economic results were bootstrapped incremental net monetary benefit statistics (INMB) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses explored any methodological uncertainty. Results. In both trials, LAI was cost-saving and more effective than standard care. Using the £20,000 per QALY threshold, in THR, the INMB was £1,125 (95%BCI, £183 to £2,067) and the probability of being cost-effective was over 98%. In TKR, the INMB was £264 (95%BCI, −£710 to £1,238), with only 62% probability of being cost-effective. Considering an NHS perspective only, LAI was no longer dominant in THR, but still highly cost-effective, with an INMB of £961 (95%BCI, £50 to £1,873). Conclusions. Administering LAI is a cost-effective treatment option in THR and TKR surgeries. The evidence is stronger for THR, because of larger QALY gain. In TKR, there is more uncertainty around the economic result, and smaller QALY gains, but results point to LAI being cheaper than standard analgesia, which includes a femoral nerve block. Trial Registration. ISRCTN96095682, 29/04/2010. Funding. NIHR Programme Grant for Applied Research RP-PG-0407-10070

Background. In the UK, over 160,000 total joint replacements are performed annually. About 1% of patients subsequently develop a deep bacterial infection and, if untreated, this can result in severe pain, disability, and death. Costs to the NHS are substantial. The INFORM (Infection Orthopaedic Management) programme aims to address gaps in knowledge relating to treatment of deep prosthetic joint infection through six work packages. The programme is supported by a patient forum and patient-partners working on oversight groups. Methods. Literature reviews and meta-analysis of individual patient data from cohort studies of patients treated for prosthetic hip infection. Analysis of the National Joint Registry to observe trends in infection rates, and identify risk markers for infection and effective treatments. Qualitative interviews with patients and health professionals exploring the impact of infection and its treatment. A multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare patient-centred outcomes after one- or two-stage revision for prosthetic hip infection. An economic evaluation to assess cost-effectiveness of treatments. A survey of patients to explore individuals’ preferences for treatments. Results. Individual patient data has been provided by UK and international centres. Data on over 1.4 million procedures is available from the National Joint Registry. Interviews conducted with 19 patients with prosthetic hip infection and 12 treating surgeons. Information has advised randomised controlled trial methodology. Seven major UK centres recruiting patients to the INFORM randomised controlled trial. Methods for assessment of costs from a health service and societal perspective developed for the randomised controlled trial. Qualitative studies have contributed to the design of a discrete choice questionnaire. Conclusions. Findings from INFORM will establish how patient care and outcomes can be optimised after prosthetic joint infection. Guidance on best clinical practice will be developed. Level of evidence 1–3. Funding statement This abstract presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (grant number: RP-PG-1210-12005). The views expressed in this abstract are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

Background. 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. Methods. 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. Results. Overall, between-group differences in RMDQ adjusted mean change scores significantly favoured stratified care; 1·8 (95%CI 1·1, 2·6) at 4-months and 1·1 (95%CI 0·3, 1·9) at 12-months. Stratified care was associated with an increase in generic health benefit (0.039 additional QALYs) and cost savings. Low-risk patients had non-inferior outcomes compared with controls, and there were significant between-group differences in RMDQ adjusted mean change scores for medium-risk patients at 4 (1·99 [95%CI 0·75, 3·22]) and 12 months (1·33 [95%CI 0·15, 2·52]), and high-risk patients at 4 months (2·53 [95%CI 0·90, 4·16]). Conclusion. A stratified approach of prognostic screening with treatment matched pathways for patients in primary care with back pain provides significant improvements in clinical and economic outcomes compared to current best practice. Conflicts of Interest. None. Source of Funding. Arthritis Research UK. This abstract has been presented at 3 international conferences but not yet at a national conference. It has also been accepted for publication in the Lancet – but is not yet published

This protocol describes a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic and open surgery in the management of rotator cuff tears. This trial began in 2007 and was modified in 2010, with the removal of a non-operative arm due to high rates of early crossover to surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:155–60.