Background. To aid recovery, rehabilitation is an important adjunct to surgery. Acknowledging the MRC framework for complex interventions we assessed the evidence-base for components of comprehensive rehabilitation in total hip (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) pathways. Methods. We conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCT) of pre-surgical exercise and education, occupational therapy and post-operative physiotherapy. In feasibility RCTs we explored acceptability of pain self-management and occupational therapy before THR, and physiotherapy after TKR. We searched trial registers for ongoing RCTs. Results. Pre-surgical interventions. Systematic review identified 38 interventions targeting physical function before THR and TKR. Interventions showed functional benefit compared with controls, standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32 (95% CI 0.20, 0.44; p<0.00001). In 27 studies targeting in-hospital recovery, intervention patients had lower anxiety, SMD 0.38 (95% CI 0.13, 0.63; p=0.003), and earlier mobilisation by 4 hours (95% CI 0.04, 0.30; p=0.009). In 20 studies, interventions targeting long-term recovery showed no benefit for function or pain. We randomised 88 patients into a feasibility RCT of group-based pain self-management. Attendees were highly satisfied but participation was low. Pre-operatively, many patients may perceive that only surgery can treat their symptoms. Occupational therapy. Systematic review identified 7 small RCTs in THR. Function improved in patients receiving occupational therapy, SMD 0.40 (95%CI 0.09, 0.70; p=0.01) but this was not sustained post-surgery. In our feasibility study with 44 patients randomised to pre-operative provision of aids and appliances or usual care, the intervention was delivered successfully and acceptable to participants. We identified no ongoing studies. Post-discharge physiotherapy. Systematic review identified 7 small studies suggesting that physiotherapy after TKR gives functional benefit at 3–4 months, SMD 0.37 (95%CI 0.12, 0.62; p=0.004) but not at later follow up. As noted in a recent review in THR, quality of evidence was limited. Our feasibility study evaluated six weeks of group-based activity-orientated rehabilitation in 46 TKR patients. The programme was well-received and attendance good. A fully-powered RCT is underway. We identified two ongoing studies targeting patients at risk of, or with, poor recovery. Conclusion. The evidence-base for comprehensive rehabilitation in THR and TKR is growing. Pre-surgical interventions may be effective but, in isolation, not acceptable to many patients. Ongoing definitive trials in TKR physiotherapy will guide future care. Well-designed trials of physiotherapy after THR and occupational therapy are needed. Ultimately, rehabilitation interventions throughout THR and TKR pathways may provide optimal care but this will need appropriate evaluation

Around 1% of the 185,000 primary hip and knee arthroplasties performed in the UK are followed by prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Although PJI affects a small percentage of patients, it is one of the most devastating complications associated with this procedure. Treatment usually involves further major surgery which can adversely affect patients' quality of life. Understanding current service provision provides valuable information needed to design and evaluate support interventions for patients. The aim of this survey was to identify usual care pathways and support in UK NHS orthopaedic centres for this population. The 20 highestvolume UK NHS orthopaedic centresfor hip and knee arthroplasty account for 33–50% of all cases treated for prosthetic joint infection. Infection leads at each centre were invited to participate in a survey about usual care provision and support for PJI. Questions exploredfollow up time-points; use of standard outcome measures; multidisciplinary care plans; supportive in-patient care and care after treatment; and onward referrals. Survey responses were recorded on a standardised proforma. Data were entered into Excel for analysis, then reviewed and coded into categories and frequency statistics to describe categorical data. A descriptive summary was developed based on these categories. Eleven of the highestvolume orthopaedic centres completed the survey. Follow-up of patients varied greatly across centres; some centres reviewed patients at weekly or 2 week intervals, while all centres saw patients at 6 weeks. Long-term follow-up varied across centres from 3–4 monthsto 12 monthly. Length of follow-up period varied from until the infection had cleared toindefinitely. Follow-up timepoints were only standardised in 4 out of 11 centres. Only 1 centre had a dedicated infection clinic. Advice on who patients should contact if they had concerns included the consultant, community nurse, extended scope practitioner or the ward, while 3 centres told patients to avoid calling their GP. Only half of the centres routinely used standardised outcome measures with patients with PJI. The majority of centres provided standard physiotherapy and occupational therapy (OT) to in-patients while approximately half also offered social support. Only one centre provided dedicated physiotherapy and OT on a separate infection ward. Three centres provided hospital at home or community services to patients in-between operative stages. Only 3 out of 11 centres stated they had specific multidisciplinary care plans in place for patients. Once discharged most patients were provided with physiotherapy, OT and social services if needed. Common barriersto referral included complexities of referring patients outside the hospital catchment area;lack of availability of community services, and shortage of staff including physiotherapists. Delays in rehab and social services could also be problematic. Findings show wide variation intreatment pathways and support for patients treated for PJI, both as inpatients and in the community. Only one of the 11 centreswho participated had a dedicated infection clinic. Only one centre suggested they individualised their physiotherapy support. A number of barriers exist to referring patients on to other support services after revision surgery

To collate and present epidemiological data collected by Scottish National Brachial Injury Service over the past decade. The Brachial Plexus Injury Service is based at the Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow and has been a designated National Service since 2004. It provides an integrated multidisciplinary service for traumatic brachial plexus injury and plexus tumours. The Service maintains an active archive recording details of all clinical referrals and procedures conducted by the Service over the past decade. The data presented here was derived from analysis of this database and information contained in the National Brachial Plexus Injury Service Annual Report 2010/11 & 2011/12. Data shows that there has been a steady rate in the number of referrals to the Service, particularly since 2004, with an average of 50 cases referred per annum. Of these, approximately 25% required formal surgical exploration for traumatic injury and a further 10% required surgery for brachial plexus tumour removal. The vast majority of referred cases are treated non-operatively, with appropriate support from specialist physiotherapy and occupational therapy. Referrals to the Service appear well distributed from around Scotland. However, data from 2011 shows that Greater Glasgow & Clyde is the greatest individual source of referrals and subsequent hospital admissions for surgical treatment. The commonest mechanism of brachial plexus injury appears to be secondary to falls and motorcycle RTA. Using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score, improved functional outcomes have been demonstrated consistently in patients who have undergone surgery for brachial plexus injuries within the Service. Over the past decade, the Brachial Plexus Injury Service has had a steady patient referral record from across the Scotland, particularly Glasgow. Data indicates that there is an on-going clinical need for provision of the service with improved outcomes and reduced functional disability in patients treated by the service. It is envisaged that data from the Service will also act as a useful planning model for the provision of UK national services in the future