Aims. Urgent referral to a specialist centre for patients with a soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) has been recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK since 2006. However, the impact of this recommendation on the prognosis for these patients remains unclear. We aimed to determine the impact of the NICE guidelines on the disease-specific survival (DSS) of patients with an STS. Methods. A total of 2,427 patients with an STS referred to a supraregional centre in the ten-year periods before (n = 1,386) and after (n = 1,041) the issue of the NICE guidelines were evaluated. Results. The mean size of the tumour was significantly smaller at the time of diagnosis (10.3 cm (SD 6.5) vs 9.1 cm (SD 6.2); p < 0.001) and the number of patients who had undergone an inadvertent excision significantly decreased (28% (n = 389) vs 20% (n = 204); p < 0.001) following the introduction of the NICE guidelines. The five-year DSS was 63% in the pre-NICE and 71% in post-NICE groups (p < 0.001). The improved survival was more significant for those with a high-grade tumour (pre-NICE, 48%; post-NICE, 68%; p < 0.001). In those with a high-grade tumour, the mean size of the tumour (11.6 cm (SD 6.2) vs 9.6 cm (SD 5.8); p < 0.001) and the number of patients with metastasis at the time of diagnosis (15% (n = 124 vs 10% (n = 80); p = 0.007) significantly decreased in the post-NICE group. Conclusion. An improvement in survival was seen after the introduction of the NICE guidelines, especially in patients with a high-grade STS. More patients were referred at an earlier stage, indicating a clearer pathway after the issue of national policy for the management of STSs in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):569–577

Nice guidelines recommend VTE prophylaxis to patients in below knee casts following foot and ankle surgery following risk assessment. The guidelines are controversial and BOFAS recommendations reiterate the risk factors but highlight poor evidence to support these guidelines. Implementation has been variable dependent on interpretation. 58 patients who underwent hindfoot procedures and were immobilised in a cast were identified. These patients were under the care of two consultants, one of whom anticoagulates with daily enoxaparin and one who does not, providing a de facto case-control design. The patients were followed up to identify those who subsequently suffered a DVT or PE, and the clinical circumstances. 2 cases of VTE events were noted in 58 patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery. Both were elective cases managed postoperatively in cast and treated with prophylaxic enoxaparin. Both of these presented to hospital with signs of VTE greater than 6 weeks following surgery after cast removal and discontinuation of enoxaparin. No patients were considered high risk according to NICE guidelines. None of the patients who received no thromboprophylaxis had a clinical DVT. Within our study group we found that VTE thromboprophylaxis does not influence clinically evident VTE rates. Patients who developed VTE were not considered high risk by definition of NICE guidelines but only at increased risk due to their immobility. The VTE events were initiated while the patients were receiving thromboprophylaxis. The effectiveness of the guidelines in predicting patients who would benefit from chemoprophylaxis is questionable from this study. NICE guidelines on VTE thromboprophylaxis have been received with some concerns. Although this investigation studied only a relatively small number of patients, it raises issues about the clinical effectiveness of the guidelines in foot and ankle patients

Purpose of Study. To investigate current practice of thromboprophylaxis in major UK spinal centres for both trauma and elective surgery, and to asses compliance with NICE guidelines. Methods. A telephonic survey was carried out which comprised of questions relating to current practice of thromboprophylaxis in major spinal units across the UK. Questions probed practice with regard to trauma versus elective surgery, agents used, timing of prophylaxis, length of treatment and whether practice has changed since the introduction of NICE guidelines. Results. Thirty specialised centres were contacted. Twenty eight centres followed NICE recommendations, with 2 centres using their own protocol. Four centres made changes to their existing protocols after the emergence of NICE guidelines. GCS (Graduated compression stockings) were uniformly used by all, with most centres using flowtron boots and/or foot in addition. The practices are differing within centres for elective versus trauma surgery. Of note, in patients with an acute cord injury, 20 centres used combined pre operative prophylaxis whereas 10 centres used only mechanical prophylaxis. Three units (10 %) describe a noticeable rise in complications related to chemoprophylaxis, whilst only one unit has reported a PE death within the last year. Discussion. Our survey assesses compliance to the NICE guidelines by the UK's spinal units. Mechanical prophylaxis appears to be the most common mode of prophylaxis understandably due to predictable safety profile. Use of chemo-prophylaxis varies amongst different surgeons and centres. Rather than a result of evidence based practice, the decision appears to be related to the previous experiences of that unit. Although the NICE guidelines provide a reasonable platform to the practice of thromboprophylaxis, more studies are required to evaluate the risks of thrombosis and bleeding events in spinal surgery

In January 2005, NICE published their guidelines on secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures. This audit aims to assess our compliance with these in the outpatient setting. The records of all new patients attending fracture clinic in a large teaching hospital, over a one month period, were reviewed. All patients who required screening or treatment for osteoporosis (females greater than 50 years old sustaining a fragility fracture) were reviewed at one year to assess compliance with the guidelines. Of the 454 patients reviewed, 90 females over the age of 50 (19%) were identified. These were further subdivided into females between the age of 50 to 75 years (Group A, n=62) and those over 75 (Group B, n=28). The inclusion criteria was presence of a fragility fracture (Group A, n=30 and Group B, n=15). Group A was investigated with DEXA scans in only 26.7% (n=8). Of these, only six were managed as per NICE guidelines and compliant at one-year. Seven patients in Group B were subsequently treated with medical therapies, but only three were managed as per NICE guidelines and compliant. Therefore of the 45 patients included in the audit, only nine were managed appropriately at one-year (20%). One patient suffered a further fracture – who had been fully compliant with treatment. NICE guidelines have been introduced to help the nation’s health using evidence based criteria. There has been no specific extra funding to enable the setting up of additional pathways and investigations for the targeted population. Even in a busy department where systems were implemented to follow the guidelines, the overall compliance with the pathway is less than a quarter. When new guidance is produced for healthcare, there should be advice, support and funding for their implementation

Peninsula Spinal Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation NHS Trust, Exeter, UK. A retrospective audit in 2000 of cases presenting with metastatic cord compression (MSCC) was conducted. In June 2009 we introduced the role of MSCC coordinator. We present the preliminary results from a 6 month comparative audit and discuss whether implementation of the NICE Guidelines have improved the care pathway. Prospective cohort study with retrospective controlled group. Adults with suspected MSCC. Length of time to MR imaging. % referred for surgical opinion. Length of time on bed rest. % undergoing surgery. Retrospective audit 2000. 38 cases confirmed MSCC. 11 did not have MRI and were treated on the basis of clinical symptoms. Average time from admission to MRI 42 hours. 8 patients (21%) referred for surgical opinion. None had surgery. 38 had radiotherapy. Spinal stability documented on 1 patient. 5.5 days average bed rest. Prospective audit 2009. 54 patients referred to co-ordinator as suspected MSCC. 52 had MRI and 2 had CT. Average time from referral to MRI 41 hours. Average time for patients with neurological deficit 7.6 hours. 54 patients (100%) referred for surgical opinion. 12 patients had surgery (22%). 100% patients had spinal stability documented. Average length of time on bed rest 2 days. It is uncertain whether these results are attributed to the introduction of the NICE guidelines or improved awareness of condition. However we feel that NICE guidelines have improved the care pathway of patients with MSCC. Statement of ethics and interests: Study was approved and registered with audit department

Aim: To assess the implications of implementation of the NICE Guidelines for indication for CT scan in head injury patients. Methods and Materials: A retrospective audit of the patients attending our district general hospital with head injuries over a period of one year from October 2004 till Sept 2005. A total of 3150 patients attending the A & E during the study period were diagnosed to have head injuries. The study involved review of the case notes and radiology results of the 135 patients requiring inpatient treatment for head injury. During this tenure the CT scan was requested depending of the clinical judgement of the attending physician. Results: Rigid compliance with the NICE Guidelines during the study tenure would have entailed an additional workload of 36 patients requiring a CT scan, of which 28 patients justified the scan during out of hours period. One elderly patient with a fatal intracerebral bleed was found to have justified an early CT scan on the criteria of more than one vomiting episode and a history of unconsiousness. Discussion: The NICE Guidelines were found to be implemented in most cases admitted during working hours. A reluctance to perform CT scan was encountered during out of hours. A strict compliance with the guidelines would entail on average one additional CT scan every fortnight during the ‘out of hours’ period. Implementation of NICE Guidelines was found to tighten the net (justify CT scan) in order not to miss subtle early signs of potentially fatal head injuries

NICE guidelines state patients undergoing elective TKR receive post-operative chemical prophylaxis unless contraindicated, following guideline implementation our aim was to determine VTE incidence and wound complication outcomes related to administration of Rivaroxaban or Enoxaparin. From April to October 2010 we prospectively studied 294 patients having primary or revision TKR. Each received either Rivaroxoban (n=219), Enoxaparin (n=68), UHF 5000 units (n=4) or no thromboprohylaxis (n=3) post-operatively. Primary outcome was identification of symptomatic post-operative VTE incidence and compared incidence over the same period in 2009 when aspirin was the standard chemical prophylaxis for VTE. Secondary outcomes were prolonged wound oozing rates and wound washout. VTE occurred in 3 of 219 patients (2 PE, 1 DVT) receiving Rivaroxaban, and 1 PE in a patient who did not receive any thromboprophylaxis. No patients prescribed Enoxaparin developed VTE. In the same period 2009 there were 21 confirmed PEs in 512 patients undergoing TKR. This was statistically significant (Chi squared test p=0.02). Prolonged oozing was noted in 3 patients receiving Enoxaparin, and 17 patients receiving Rivaroxaban. 6 patients treated with Rivaroxaban returned to theatre, 3 for continuous ooze, 2 for wound dehiscence and 1 for infection. During the same period in 2009, there was only 1 return to theatre for haematoma washout. (Chi squared test; p=0.02). Following the NICE guidelines, there is a reduction in the PE rate following TKR but there is an increase in the overall return to theatre rate

Aim: According to NICE guidelines, only indication for arthroscopy of the knee, in patients with OA is clear history of ‘mechanical locking’. Are we meeting NICE guidelines?. Method: This was a retrospective study. Data was collected from the patient’s notes and WebPacs. All the patients aged more than 70 years who had knee arthroscopy in a year were included. Indications for arthroscopy, preservation of knee joint space at the time of procedure, complications and further follow up, were recorded. Results: There were 77 patients with 79 arthroscopic procedures. Indications noted were true locking, mechanical symptoms, loose bodies, degenerative meniscus, OA, knee pain, and diagnostic procedure. Only 6 patients had mechanical locking. 30 patients had joint space less than 2 mm, 33 had between 2 to 4 mm. There were 3 complications including DVT (2) and recurrent knee swelling (1). Many patients were symptomatic. Out of 77 patients, 31 were already waiting to have, or had, arthroplasty at the time of study. Conclusion: For patients aged more than 70 years with less than 2 mm joint space, arthroscopy of the knee is rarely indicated

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published the guidelines on the selection of prostheses for primary hip replacement in 2000. They supported the use of cemented hip prostheses to the exclusion of uncemented and hybrid implants. The information from the Trent (and Wales) Regional Arthroplasty Study has been examined to identify retrospectively the types of hip prostheses used between 1990 and 2005, and to assess the impact that the guidelines have had on orthopaedic practice. The results show that the publication of the NICE guidelines has had little impact on clinical practice, with the use of uncemented prostheses increasing from 6.7% (137) in 2001 to 19.2% (632) in 2005. The use of hybrid prostheses has more than doubled from 8.8% (181) to 22% (722) of all hips implanted in the same period. The recommendations made by NICE are not being followed, which calls into question their value

Background. In 2009, NICE CG 88 guideline on the management of non-specific low back pain was published. We looked at whether the introduction of these guidelines has had an impact on the management of back pain within primary care. Methods. Patients with non-specific low back pain (> 6 weeks but < 12 months) attending spinal outpatient clinic in UHL between 2008 and 2011 were asked to complete questionnaires. Two groups were studied, the first prior to the publication of NICE guidelines, and the second afterwards. Patients with radicular, stenotic and red flag symptoms were excluded. Key audited treatment standards assessed included manual therapy, acupuncture, focused structured back exercise program, supervised group exercise program and lastly referral to a combined physical and psychological treatment program. Compliance with not using X-ray or MRI and treatment modalities such as injections, laser therapy, ultrasound therapy, lumbar supports, traction and TENS therapy was assessed. Secondary outcomes included VAS (back, leg pain), Oswestry Disability Index, MSP and MZD. Primary outcomes analyzed using 1-sided Fisher's exact test and secondary outcomes using two sample t tests. Results. 46 patients (pre-guidelines) and 34 patients (post-guidelines) were studied. Key findings showed significant deterioration in the institution of manual therapy in the post guidelines group (p value = 0.032) and an increase in use of MRI scan in post guidelines group (p value = 0.005). Deterioration in the mean presenting VAS for leg pain in post guidelines group noted. No significant difference between groups in the mean scores for VAS for back pain, ODI, MSP and MZDI. Conclusion. Our study suggests that the introduction of NICE guidelines on the management of low back pain has not yet influenced management in primary care. This may be due to lack of awareness of its implementation or due to adherence to local guidelines

Introduction. ‘VTE disease is the new MRSA’, with much attention received in the media and the political world. Following the 2010 NICE guidelines all patients admitted to hospital should have VTE prophylaxis considered and a formal VTE risk assessment done with documentation and review in a 24 hour period. We carried out a completed audit cycle to identify our adherence to these guidelines and introduced a novel method to ensure compliance. Materials/Methods. An audit of 400 patients admitted to the orthopaedic department was carried out with review of case notes. Three key parameters were investigated: Firstly the compliance of carrying out a risk assessment for VTE disease with correct documentation, secondly investigating how many patients got re-assessed in 24 hours and finally if patients received appropriate VTE prophylaxis. The data was re-audited following the introduction of a new drug chart with a box section for VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis on the chart itself. Results. In the first cycle VTE risk assessments were carried out in 2.5% with 0% having a re-assessment in 24 hours and 93.5% of patients having correctly prescribed VTE prophylaxis. Following the new drug charts, the risk assessments were carried out in 79%, re-assessment in 50% and correct prescribed prophylaxis in 99% of the patients. Conclusions. We recommend all hospitals should have a section in the drug chart itself for VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis as this greatly improves compliance to the NICE guidelines. This ensures optimal patient care and protects the trust from litigations

Aim. To assess whether oncologists are adhering to the NICE guidelines on MSCC. Methods and Results. All patients who received radiotherapy for metastatic spinal cord compression from 1. st. June 2009 – 1. st. June 2010 were identified. This information was then compared to the data collected via the MSCC Coordinator. The notes and radiological investigations were reviewed by the spinal consultant. 34 patients received radiotherapy for MSCC, 15 patients were not referred to the spinal team prior to radiotherapy. On reviewing each individual case 2 patients may have potentially benefited from surgical intervention. Conclusion. Many patients are still not referred for spinal opinion. The vast majority of these patients would not have been suitable for surgery, however, a small number may have potentially benefited

Implant choice was changed from cemented Thompson to Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS) for treatment of displaced intra-capsular neck of femur fractures in University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, United Kingdom (a major trauma center), following the NICE guidelines that advised about the use of a proven femoral stem design rather than Austin Moore or Thompson stems for hemiarthroplasties. The aim of our study was to compare the results of Thompson versus ETS hemiarthroplasty in Aintree. We initially compared 100 Thompson hemiarthroplasties that were performed before the start of ETS use, with 100 ETS hemiarthroplasties. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of patients' demographics (age, sex and ASA grade), intra-operative difficulties/complications, post op medical complications, blood transfusion, in-patient stay and dislocations. The operative time was statistically significantly longer in the ETS group (p= .0067). Worryingly, the 30 days mortality in ETS group was more than three times higher in ETS group (5 in Thompson group versus 16 in ETS group. P= .011). To corroborate our above findings we studied 100 more consecutive patients that had ETS hemiarthroplasty. The results of this group showed 30 day mortality of 8 percent. However the operative time was again significantly longer (p= .003) and there was 18 percent conversion to bipolar hemiarthropalsty. Moreover there was statistically significant increased rate of deep infection (7%, p = .03) and blood transfusion (27%, p = .007). This we feel may be due to longer and more surgically demanding operative technique including pressurised cementation in some patients with significant medical comorbidities. Our results raise the question whether ETS hemiarthoplasty implant is a good implant choice for neck of femur fracture patients. Randomised control trials are needed to prove that ETS implant is any better than Thompson hemiarthroplasty implants in this group of patients

NICE published the guidelines ‘Selection of prostheses for primary hip replacement’ in 2000. Essentially these guidelines made two recommendations: firstly to use prostheses which had attained the ‘10 year benchmark’ of a revision rate of 10% or less at 10 years, or had a minimum of three years revision rate experience that was on target to reach this benchmark; and secondly to use cemented hip prostheses to the exclusion of uncemented and hybrid prostheses. The information from the Trent Regional Arthroplasty Study (TRAS) has been used to retrospectively examine the types of hip prostheses used from 1990 – 2005, and assess the impact that the NICE guidelines have had on orthopaedic practice. This study revealed that the percentage of prostheses used which attained the ‘ten year benchmark’ has increased since the guidelines were published. In 2001, of the ten cups, which constituted 80% of the acetabular components used, only three attained this NICE benchmark, but by 2005 this number had risen to eight. Similarly in 2001, of the eight stems, which constituted almost 80% of the femoral components used, only five attained this NICE benchmark. In 2005 seven out of these eight stems had attained the minimum standard. However contrary to the recommendation made by NICE in 2000, to use cemented prostheses, the results indicate the use of uncemented prostheses has trebled (from 6.7% to 19.2%, n= 137 and 632 respectively), and the use of hybrid prostheses has more than doubled (from 8.8% to 22% of all prostheses, n= 181 and 722 respectively) since the guidelines were published. Therefore the recommendations made by NICE are not being followed, which calls the value of NICE guidelines into question

Abstract

Considerable debate exists regarding which agent(s) should be preferred for venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemical prophylaxis following joint replacement. We assessed the practice of surgeons regarding VTE chemical prophylaxis for primary THR and TKR, pre and post issuing of updated NICE guidance in 2018.

A survey, circulated through the British Hip Society and regional trainee networks/collaboratives, was completed by 306 UK surgeons at 187 units. VTE chemical prophylaxis prescribing patterns for surgeons carrying out primary THR (n=258) and TKR (n=253) in low-risk patients were assessed post publication of 2018 NICE recommendations. Prescribing patterns before and after the NICE publication were subsequently explored. Questions were also asked about surgeon equipoise for participation in future RCTs.

Following the new guidance, 34% (n=87) used low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) alone, 33% (n=85) aspirin (commonly preceded by LMWH), and 31% (n=81) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: with/without preceding LMWH) for THR. For TKR, 42% (n=105) used aspirin (usually monotherapy), 31% (n=78) LMWH alone, and 27% (n=68) DOAC (with/without preceding LMWH). NICE guidance changed the practice of 34% of hip and 41% of knee surgeons, with significantly increased use of aspirin preceded by LMWH for THR (before=25% vs. after=73%;p<0.001), and aspirin for TKR (before=18% vs. after=84%;p<0.001). Significantly more regimens were NICE guidance compliant after the 2018 update for THR (before=85.7% vs. after=92.6%;p=0.011) and TKR (before=87.0% vs. after=98.8%;p<0.001). Support from surgeons for future RCTs was dependent on the clinical question, ranging from 48% participation in trials (effectiveness of aspirin vs. a DOAC) to 79% (effectiveness of 14 days LMWH vs. 28 days LMWH).

Over one-third of surveyed surgeons changed their VTE chemical prophylaxis in response to 2018 NICE recommendations, with more THR and TKR surgeons now compliant with latest NICE guidance. The major change in practice was an increased use of aspirin for VTE chemical prophylaxis. Furthermore, there is an appetite amongst UK surgeons for participating in future RCTs, with a trial comparing standard versus extended duration LMWH likely feasible in current practice.

The 2007 National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) thromboprophylaxis guidelines concerning hip arthroplasty remain contentious. A survey among British Hip Society members was performed to investigate the impact of these guidelines. Information on thromboprophylactic measures before and after guideline publication was gathered in the three categories of Total Hip Replacement (THR), hip fracture and high-risk patients as defined by NICE. The response rate was 185/250 (74%). All responders used thromboprophylaxis, but only 44%, 22% and 7% indicated they were currently acting in accordance with guidance for THR, high risk and hip fracture groups respectively. 19%, 14% and 14% had changed their practice since publication of the guidance in THR, high risk and hip fracture groups respectively. The effects of the NICE guidance in influencing the responders’ thromboprophylactic protocols have been very limited. These results do not appear to endorse the authority of NICE in decisions made in this area.

Introduction. A GP may only encounter one sarcoma in their professional career. Early diagnosis and treatment will improve the outcomes of this rare and malignant disease. Guidelines designed to lead to earlier diagnosis of the most common cancers were introduced by NICE in 2000 and were updated in 2005. These advise and assist in the early referral of potential bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Prior to 2000 only ~10% of GP referrals were proven to be malignant. Methods. In a referral region of ∼3m, we reviewed the referral patterns of suspected sarcoma by General Practitioners since 2005 in an effort to determine whether the published NICE guidelines had influenced an improvement in the diagnosis and management of malignant disease. Results. 33.3% of all referrals made by General Practitioners using the Thames Valley Cancer Network referral proforma were malignant. Discussion. NICE sarcoma guidelines for GPs have been effective in improving the diagnosis of malignant disease with suspected sarcoma albeit as a triage for malignancy rather than specifically for sarcoma

The management of patients with displaced intra-capsular hip fractures is usually a hip hemiarthoplasty procedure. NICE guideline 124 published in 2011 suggested that Total Hip Replacement (THR) surgery should be considered in a sub group of patients with no cognitive impairment, who walk independently and are medically fit for a major surgical procedure.

The Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital manages approximately 600 patients every year who have sustained a fracture of neck of femur, of which approximately 90 patients fit the above criteria. Prior to the guideline less than 20% of this sub-group were treated with a THR whereas after the guideline over 50% of patients were treated with THR, performed by sub-specialist Hip surgeons. This change was achieved by active leadership, incorporation of ‘Firebreak’ lists, looking for cases, flexible use of theatre time and operating lists and the nomination of an individual senior doctor who was tasked with a mission to improve practice.

This practice is financially viable; the Trust makes over £1000 per THR for fracture. Complete outcome data at 120 days show significantly fewer patients stepping down a rung in terms of both independent living and independent walking.

Symptomatic and asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common complication of knee replacement, with an incidence of up to 85% in the absence of prophylaxis. National guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in knee replacement are derived from total knee replacement (TKR) data. No guidelines exist specific to unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). We investigated whether the type of knee arthroplasty (TKR or UKR) was related to the incidence of DVT and discuss the applicability of existing national guidelines for prophylaxis following UKR.

Data were collected prospectively on 3449 knee replacements, including procedure type, tourniquet time, surgeon, patient age, use of drains and gender. These variables were related to the incidence of symptomatic DVT.

The overall DVT rate was 1.6%. The only variable that had an association with DVT was operation type, with TKR having a higher incidence than UKR (2.2% versus 0.3%, p < 0.001). These data show that the incidence of DVT after UKR is both clinically and statistically significantly lower than that after TKR.

TKR and UKR patients have different risk profiles for symptomatic DVT. The risk-benefit ratio for TKR that has been used to produce national guidelines may not be applicable to UKR. Further research is required to establish the most appropriate form of prophylaxis for UKR.