Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with an accelerated recovery, improved functional outcomes, and retention of anatomical knee kinematics when compared to manual total knee arthroplasty (mTKA). UKA is not universally employed by all surgeons as there is a higher revision risk when compared to mTKA. Robotic arm-assisted (ra) UKA enables the surgeon to position the prosthesis more accurately when compared to manual UKA, and is associated with improved functional outcomes and a lower early revision risk. Non-randomized data suggests that, when compared to mTKA, raUKA has a clinically meaningful greater functional benefit. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial that aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of raUKA compared to mTKA for individuals with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA). The total versus robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (TRAKER) trial is a patient- and assessor-blinded, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary knee arthroplasty for primary medial compartment OA at a single NHS hospital (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05290818). Participants will be randomly allocated on a 1:2 basis to either raUKA or mTKA, respectively. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) six months after surgery. Secondary outcomes measured at three, six, and 12 months include the OKS, Forgotten Joint Score, patient expectations, EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), and EQ-visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), patient satisfaction, range of motion, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and financial costs. Cost-effectiveness will be measured over a ten-year time span. A total of 159 patients will be randomized (n = 53 raUKA vs n = 106 mTKA) to obtain 80% power to detect a five-point difference in OKS between the groups six months after surgery.Aims
Methods
During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. The PAtellar Resurfacing Trial (PART) is a patient- and assessor-blinded multicentre, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary TKR for primary osteoarthritis at NHS hospitals in England, with an embedded internal pilot phase (ISRCTN 33276681). Participants will be randomly allocated intraoperatively on a 1:1 basis (stratified by centre and implant type (cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-sacrificing)) to always resurface or selectively resurface the patella, once the surgeon has confirmed sufficient patellar thickness for resurfacing and that constrained implants are not required. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures at three months, six months, and one year (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, OKS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and costs). Cost-effectiveness will be measured for the lifetime of the patient. Overall, 530 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a four-point difference in OKS between the groups one year after surgery, assuming up to 40% resurfacing in the selective group.Aims
Methods
Hand trauma accounts for one in five of emergency department attendances, with a UK incidence of over five million injuries/year and 250,000 operations/year. Surgical site infection (SSI) in hand trauma surgery leads to further interventions, poor outcomes, and prolonged recovery, but has been poorly researched. Antimicrobial sutures have been recognized by both the World Health Organization and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as potentially effective for reducing SSI. They have never been studied in hand trauma surgery: a completely different patient group and clinical pathway to previous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of these sutures. Antimicrobial sutures are expensive, and further research in hand trauma is warranted before they become standard of care. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a feasibility study of antimicrobial sutures in patients undergoing hand trauma surgery to establish acceptability, compliance, and retention for a definitive trial. A two-arm, multicentre feasibility RCT of 116 adult participants with hand and wrist injuries, randomized to either antimicrobial sutures or standard sutures. Study participants and outcome assessors will be blinded to treatment allocation. Outcome measures will be recorded at baseline (preoperatively), 30 days, 90 days, and six months, and will include SSI, patient-reported outcome measures, and return to work.Aims
Methods
