There is a 20% dissatisfaction rate with knee replacements. Calls for tools that can pre-operatively identify patients at risk of being dissatisfied postoperatively have been widespread. However, it is unclear what sort of information patients would want from such a tool, how it would affect their decision making process, and at what part of the pathway such a tool should be used. Using focus groups involving 12 participants and in-depth interviews with 10 participants, we examined the effect outcome prediction has by providing fictitious predictions to patients at different stages of treatment. A qualitative analysis of themes, based on a constant comparative method, is used to analyse the data. This study was approved by the Dyfed Powys Research Ethics Committee (13/WA/0140).Background
Methods
Knee replacement surgery is currently facing three dilemmas: a high dissatisfaction rate; increasing demand with financial constraints; and variation in utilisation. A patient centred approach, usually achieved through shared decision-making, has the potential to help address these dilemmas. However, such an approach requires an understanding of the factors involved in patient decision-making. This is the first study examining decision-making in knee replacements that includes patients at different stages of decision-making – this is critical when considering decision-making as a process. We base our findings in a theoretical model, proposed by Elwyn et al, that highlights the distinction between deliberation and decision-making, and propose modifications to this model specific to knee replacement decision-making. This study used two focus groups of six patients each and in-depth interviews with 10 patients to examine the factors that affect patient decision-making and their interaction at different points in the decision-making process. A qualitative analysis of themes, based on a constant comparative method, is used to analyse the data. This study was approved by the Dyfed Powys Research Ethics Committee (13/WA/0140).Background
Methods
Total Knee Replacement (TKR) is an effective treatment for knee arthritis. One long held principle of TKRs is positioning the components in alignment with the mechanical axis to restore the overall limb alignment to 180 ± 3 degrees. However, this view has been challenged recently. Given the high number of replacements performed, clarity on this integral aspect is necessary. Our objective was to investigate the association between malalignment and outcome (both PROMs and revision) following primary TKR. A systematic review of MEDLINE, CINHAL, and EMBASE was carried out to identify studies published from 2000 onwards. The study protocol including search strategy can be found on the PROSPERO database for systematic reviews.Background
Metod
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. 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.Study aim
Study design
