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
The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence and patterns of neuropathic pain over one year in a cohort of patients with chronic post-surgical pain at three months following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Between 2016 and 2019, 363 patients with troublesome pain, defined as a score of ≤ 14 on the Oxford Knee Score pain subscale, three months after TKA from eight UK NHS hospitals, were recruited into the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) clinical trial. Self-reported neuropathic pain and postoperative pain was assessed at three, nine, and 15 months after surgery using the painDETECT and Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaires collected by postal survey.Aims
Methods
Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme. We used a consensus process consisting of an evidence review to generate items for the guidelines and online consensus questionnaire and virtual face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the guidelines.Aims
Methods
This editorial considers the shortcomings of assessing outcome after joint replacement only by the survival of the implant.
We undertook a randomised controlled trial to compare the outcomes of skin adhesive and staples for skin closure in total hip replacement. The primary outcome was the cosmetic appearance of the scar at three months using a surgeon-rated visual analogue scale. In all, 90 patients were randomised to skin closure using either skin adhesive (n = 45) or staples (n = 45). Data on demographics, surgical details, infection and oozing were collected during the in-patient stay. Further data on complications, patient satisfaction and evaluation of cosmesis were collected at three-month follow-up, and a photograph of the scar was taken. An orthopaedic and a plastic surgeon independently evaluated the cosmetic appearance of the scars from the photographs. No significant difference was found between groups in the cosmetic appearance of scars at three months (p = 0.172), the occurrence of complications (p = 0.3), or patient satisfaction (p = 0.42). Staples were quicker and easier to use than skin adhesive and also less expensive. Skin adhesive and surgical staples are both effective skin closure methods in total hip replacement.
We compared patient-reported outcomes of the Kinemax fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee replacement in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised to the fixed- or the mobile-bearing prosthesis via a sealed envelope method after the bone cuts had been made in the operating theatre. Randomisation was stratified by centre and diagnosis. Patients were assessed pre-operatively and at eight to 12 weeks, one year and two years post-operatively. Validated questionnaires were used which included the Western Ontario MacMasters University, Short-Form 12, Mental Health Index-5, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Knee-Related Quality of Life and Function in Sport and Recreation scales and a validated scale of satisfaction post-operatively. In total, 242 patients (250 knees) with a mean age of 68 years (40 to 80) were recruited from four NHS orthopaedic centres. Of these, 132 patients (54.5%) were women. No statistically significant differences could be identified in any of the patient-reported outcome scores between patients who received the fixed-bearing or the mobile-bearing knee up to two-years post-operatively.
Our aim was to determine the pre-operative sporting profiles of patients undergoing primary joint replacement and to establish if they were able to return to sport after surgery. A postal survey was completed by 2085 patients between one and three years after operation. They had undergone one of five operations, namely total hip replacement, hip resurfacing, total knee replacement, unicompartmental knee replacement or patellar resurfacing. In the three years before operation 726 (34.8%) patients were participating in sport, the most common being swimming, walking and golf. A total of 446 (61.4%) had returned to their sporting activities by one to three years after operation and 192 (26.4%) were unable to do so because of their joint replacement, with the most common reason being pain. The largest decline was in high-impact sports including badminton, tennis and dancing. After controlling for the influence of age and gender, there was no significant difference in the rate of return to sport according to the type of operation.
Thromboprophylaxis after elective orthopaedic surgery remains controversial. Recent guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) have suggested that low molecular weight heparin should be given to all patients undergoing total hip replacement. The British Orthopaedic Association is currently debating this guideline with NICE, as it is not clear whether published evidence supports this view. We present the early mortality in our unit after total hip replacement using aspirin as chemical thromboprophylaxis. The 30-day and 90-day mortality after primary total hip arthroplasty was zero. We compare this with that reported previously from our unit without using chemical thromboprophylaxis. With the introduction of routine aspirin thromboprophylaxis, deaths from cardiovascular causes have dropped from 0.75% to zero. These results demonstrate that there is a strong argument for the routine administration of aspirin after elective total hip replacement.
