Background. Prosthetic implants used in primary total hip replacements have a range of bearing surface combinations (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, metal-on-metal); head sizes (small <36mm, large 36mm+); and fixation techniques (cemented, uncemented, hybrid, reverse hybrid), which influence prosthesis survival, patient quality of life, and healthcare costs. This study compared the lifetime cost-effectiveness of implants to determine the optimal choice for patients of different age and gender profiles. Methods. In an economic decision Markov model, the probability that patients required one or more revision surgeries was estimated from analyses of UK and Swedish hip joint registries, for males and females aged <55, 55–64, 65–74, 75–84, and 85+ years. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from hospital procurement prices, national tariffs, and the literature. Quality-adjusted life years were calculated using utility estimates, taken from Patient-Reported Outcome Measures data for hip procedures in the UK. Results. Optimal choices varied between traditionally used cemented metal-on-polyethylene and cemented ceramic-on-polyethylene implants. Small head cemented ceramic-on-polyethylene implants were optimal for males and females aged under 65. The optimal choice for adults aged 65 and older was small head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants. Conclusions. The older the patient, the higher the probability that small head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants are optimal. Small head cemented ceramic-on-polyethelyne implants are optimal for adults aged under 65. Our findings can influence NICE guidance, clinical practice, and commissioning of services. Funding. NIHR Research for Patient Benefit programme PB-PG-0613-31032

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.