Introduction. Approximately 20-25% of patients having joint replacement in the UK have moderate-severe frailty. Frailty is associated with poorer outcomes after joint replacement. Targeting frailty pre-operatively with exercise and protein supplementation could improve post-operative outcomes. Prior to conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT), a feasibility study was necessary to inform trial design and delivery. Method. We conducted a randomised feasibility study with embedded qualitative work. Patients aged ≥65 years, frail and undergoing THR or TKR were recruited from three UK hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated on a 1:1 ratio to the intervention or usual care group. The intervention group had a 1:1 appointment with a physiotherapist and were provided with a home-based, tailored daily exercise programme and a daily protein supplement for 12 weeks before their operation, supported by six telephone calls from a physiotherapist. Questionnaires were administered at baseline and 12 weeks after randomisation. Interviews were conducted with 19 patients. Feasibility outcomes were eligibility and recruitment rates, intervention adherence, and acceptability of the trial and the intervention. Result. 411 patients were sent a screening pack. Of the 168 patients who returned a screening questionnaire, 79 were eligible and consented to participate, and 64 were randomised. Of the 33 participants randomised to the intervention, 26 attended the intervention appointment. Eighteen participants (69%) received all six intervention follow-up telephone calls. Nineteen participants completed an intervention adherence log; 13 (68%) adhered to the exercise programme and 11 (58%) adhered to the protein supplementation. The overall retention rate was 86% at 12 weeks. The 12-week follow-up questionnaire was returned by 84% of participants who were sent a questionnaire. Interviews found that the trial and intervention were generally acceptable, but areas of potential improvements were identified. Conclusion. This study demonstrated that a larger study is possible and has identified improvements to optimise the design of a RCT

Around 1% of total hip replacements are follow by prosthetic joint infection (PJI). There is uncertainty about best treatment method for PJI, and the most recent high quality systematic reviews in unselected patients indicates that re-infection rates following one-stage and two-stage revision arthroplasty are relatively similar. In the absence of evidence randomised controlled trials will help to identify the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for PJI. Before such trials are conducted, there is a need to establish reasons for current practice and to identify whether trials are feasible. This study aimed to deliver research that would inform trial design. Specifically, we aimed to characterise consultant orthopaedic surgeons' decisions about performing either one-stage or two-stage exchange arthroplasty for patients with PJI after hip replacement and to identify whether a randomised trial comparing one-stage with two-stage revision would be possible. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 consultant surgeons from 5 high-volume National Health Service (NHS) orthopaedic departments in the UK. Surgeons were sampled on the basis that they perform revision surgery for PJI after hip arthroplasty and final sample size was justified on the basis of thematic saturation. Surgeons were interviewed face-to-face (n=2) or via telephone (n=10). The interview study took place before design of a multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial comparing patient and clinical outcomes after one-stage or two-stage revision arthroplasty. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using a thematic approach, with 25% of transcripts independently double-coded. Results: There is no standard surgical response to the treatment of PJI and surgeons manage a complex balance of factors when choosing a surgical strategy. These include multiple patient-related factors, their own knowledge and expertise, available infrastructure and the infecting organism. Surgeons questioned whether evidence supports the emergence of two-stage revision as a method. They described the use of loosely cemented articulating spacers as a way of managing uncertainty about best treatment method. All surgeons were supportive of a randomised trial to compare one-stage and two-stage revision surgery for PJI after hip replacement. Surgeons reported that they would put patients forward for randomisation when there was uncertainty about best treatment. Surgeons highlighted the need for evidence to support their choice of revision. Some surgeons now use revision methods that can better address both clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life, such as loosely cemented articulating spacers. Surgeons thought that a randomised controlled trial comparing one-stage and two-stage exchange joint replacement is needed and that randomisation would be feasible. The next stage of the work was to design a multi-centre randomised controlled trial, this has been achieved and the trial is now ongoing in the UK

Total hip replacement (THR) is a common elective surgical procedure and can be effective for reducing chronic pain. However, waiting times for THR can be considerable, and patients often experience significant pain during this time. A pain self-management intervention may provide patients with the skills to enable them to manage their pain and its impact more effectively before surgery. However, studies of arthritis self-management programmes have faced challenges because of low recruitment rates, poor intervention uptake, and high attrition rates. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group-based pain self-management course for patients undergoing THR. Specific objectives were to assess trial design, ascertain recruitment and retention rates, identify barriers to participation, refine data collection methods, and evaluate uptake and patient satisfaction with the course. Patients listed for THR in an elective orthopaedic centre Bristol, UK were sent a postal invitation about the study. Participants were randomised to attend a pain self-management course plus standard care or standard care only using a computer-generated randomisation system. The pain self-management course was delivered by Arthritis Care and consisted of two half-day group sessions prior to surgery and one full-day group session 2–4 months after surgery. A structured course evaluation questionnaire was completed by participants. Outcomes assessment was by postal questionnaire prior to surgery and 1-month, 3-months and 6-months after surgery. Self-report resource use data were collected using a diary prior to surgery and inclusion of resource use questions in the 3-month and 6-month post-operative questionnaires. Brief telephone interviews were conducted with non-participants to explore barriers to participation. Postal invitations were sent to 385 eligible patients and 88 patients consented to participate (23% recruitment rate). Participants had a mean age of 66 years and 65% were female. Brief interviews with 57 non-participants revealed the most common reasons for non-participation were perceptions about the intervention and difficulties in getting to the hospital for the course. Of the 43 patients randomised to the intervention group, 28 attended the pre-operative pain self-management sessions and 11 attended the post-operative sessions. Participant satisfaction with the course was high, and patients enjoyed the group format. Retention of participants was acceptable, with 83% completing follow-up. Questionnaire return rates were high (76–93%), with the exception of the pre-operative resource use diary (35%). Completion rates for the resource use questions varied by category and allowed for an economic perspective from the health and social care payer to be taken. Undertaking feasibility work for a RCT is labour-intensive; however this study highlights the importance of conducting such work. Postal recruitment resulted in a low recruitment rate and brief interviews with non-participants provided valuable information on barriers to participation. Embedding collection of resource use data within questionnaires resulted in higher completion rates than using resource use diaries. While patients who attended the course gave positive feedback, attendance was low. Findings from this feasibility study enable us to design successful definitive group-based RCTs in the future

Summary. Alignment results did not differ between PSG and conventional instrumentation. A small reduction in operation time and blood loss was found with the PSG system, but is unlikely of clinical significance. Length of hospital stay was identical for both groups. Introduction. Several techniques for aligning a TKA exist nowadays. Patient-specific guiding (PSG) has relatively recently been introduced to try to resolve the shortcomings of existing techniques while optimising the operative procedure. Still few reports have been published on the clinical outcome and on the peroperative results of this new technique. This prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial was designed to address the following research questions: 1. Is there a significant difference in outliers in alignment in the frontal and sagittal plane between PSG TKA and conventional TKA. 2. Is there a significant difference in operation time, blood loss and length of hospital stay between the 2 techniques. Patients & Methods. 180 patients were randomised for PSG TKA (group 1) or conventional TKA (group 2) in 2 centres. Patients were stratified per hospital. Alignment of the mechanical axis of the leg and flexion/extension and varus/valgus of the individual prosthesis components were measured on digital, standing, long-leg and standard lateral radiographs by 2 independent outcome assessors in both centres. Percentages of outliers, > 3°, were determined. We compared blood loss, operation time and length of hospital stay. Results. There was no statistically significant difference in mean mechanical axis or outliers in mechanical axis between groups. No statistically significant difference was found for the alignment of the individual components in the frontal plane, nor for the percentages of outliers. There was a statistically significant difference in outliers for the femoral component in the sagittal plane, with a higher percentage of outliers in the group 1 (p = 0.017). No such significant result was found for the tibial component in that plane. All interclass correlation coefficients were good. Blood loss was 100 mL less in group 1 (p = 0.000). Operation time was 5 minutes shorter in group 1 (p = 0.000). Length of hospital stay was almost identical with a mean of 3.6 days (p = 0.657). Discussion/Conclusions. The results in terms of obtaining a neutral mechanical axis and a correct position of the prosthesis components did not differ between groups. A small reduction in operation time and blood loss was found with the PSG system, but is unlikely of any clinical significance. Future research should especially focus on cost-effectiveness analysis and functional outcome of PSG TKA

Study aim. There is an ever increasing demand for quality clinical trials in surgery. Surgeons' co-operation and enthusiasm to participate are important, if not crucial in success of such studies, especially if they are multi-centred. Clinician's individual uncertainty (equipoise) about a case has been often cited as an ethical basis for inviting a patient to take part in a clinical trial. This study aims to establish current attitudes of surgeons participating in a national multi-centred randomised controlled trial and explores an on line tool for instant assessment of collective uncertainty (equipoise) for individual clinical cases eligible for a trial. Study design. Surgeons taking part in the UK Heel Fracture Trial were invited to take part. If agreed, they were asked to evaluate treatment prognosis for eligible for the trial anonymised cases of calcaneal fractures online by means of specially designed system. The cases were published on a password protected website on ad-hoc basis during the three years course of the trial. Their responses were submitted instantly on line. Results. 16 out of 24 surgeons agreed to participate. The participating surgeons were emailed links to cases (normally in butches of three) less than once a month. It took them 10-15 min to assess all three cases via interactive interface. Of those who agreed 12 submitted their opinion at least once. 7 voted consistently during the course of the trial. Seventy one cases had been published. The data collected from responses allowed to assess individual and collective uncertainty about clinical cases. 4 surgeons demonstrated tendency towards individual uncertainty, balanced by 4 who did not accept it. However, sufficient collective uncertainty was demonstrated in 84.5% of cases. Discussion. Level of surgeons' enthusiasm towards clinical research appears to be moderate in a selected population of orthopaedic surgeons who already agreed to take part in a randomised clinical trial, despite a very low research time burden of this study. It is important to continue to promote multi-centred studies in order to improve surgeons' attitude towards quality clinical research. Extra efforts by academic clinicians to develop further low research time burden methodologies may increase acceptance and volume of multi-centred clinical research. This study supports previously expressed view that individual uncertainty is a very unreliable and unnecessary justification to offer a subject to take part in a clinical trial. The system used in the study offers surgeons to express their opinions and preferences freely. The instant on line comparison of opinions provides a clear assessment of collective uncertainty, which can be returned to a treating surgeon and a patient him/herself within 48 hours. In absence of collective uncertainty it would be ethical to offer a patient the best treatment according to current opinion. These cases can then be followed up as part of an inclusive trial, if a subject agrees. We believe that using the system may improve decision making process in randomised controlled trials, for example in selected challenging cases

Objectives

This study reports on a secondary exploratory analysis of the early clinical outcomes of a randomised clinical trial comparing robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee with manual UKA performed using traditional surgical jigs. This follows reporting of the primary outcomes of implant accuracy and gait analysis that showed significant advantages in the robotic arm-assisted group.

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.