Pain and Function Recovery Trajectories following Revision Hip Arthroplasty:Short-Term Changes and Comparison with Primary Hip Arthroplasty in the ADAPT Cohort Study

Patients report similar or better pain and function before revision hip arthroplasty than before primary arthroplasty but worse results are reported after revision surgery than after primary surgery. The trajectory of post-operative recovery during the first months and any differences by type of surgery have received little attention. We explored the trajectories of change in pain and function after revision hip arthroplasty to 12-months post-operatively and compare them with those observed after primary hip arthroplasty.This study is a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing primary (n = 80 with 92% for an indication of osteoarthritis) and revision (n = 43) hip arthroplasties. WOMAC pain and function scores and walking speed were collected pre-operatively, at 3 and 12-months post-operatively. Multilevel regression models were used to chart and compare the trajectories of change (0-3 months and 3-12 months) between types of surgery.The improvements in pain and function following revision arthroplasty occurred within the first 3-months with no evidence of further change beyond this initial period. While the pattern of recovery was similar to the one observed after primary arthroplasty, improvements in the first 3-months were smaller after revision compared to primary arthroplasty. Patients listed for revision surgery reported lower pre-operative pain levels but similar post-operative levels compared to those undergoing primary surgery. At 12-months post-operation patients who underwent a revision arthroplasty had not reached the same level of function achieved by those who underwent primary arthroplasty.The post-operative improvements in pain and function are larger following primary hip arthroplasty than following revision hip arthroplasty. Irrespectively of surgery type, most of the improvements occur in the first three post-operative months. More research is required to identify whether the recovery following revision surgery could be improved with specific post-operative interventions

Re-Infection Outcomes Following One- And Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Knee Prosthesis:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND:Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total knee arthroplasty. Two-stage revision is the most widely used technique and considered as the most effective for treating periprosthetic knee infection. The one-stage revision strategy is an emerging alternative option, however, its performance in comparison to the two-stage strategy is unclear. We therefore sought to ask if there was a difference in re-infection rates and other clinical outcomes when comparing the one-stage to the two-stage revision strategy. OBJECTIVE:Our first objective was to compare re-infection (new and recurrent infections) rates for one- and two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic knee infection. Our second objective was to compare between the two revision strategies, clinical outcomes as measured by postoperative Knee Society Knee score, Knee Society Function score, Hospital for Special Surgery knee score, WOMAC score, and range of motion. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, reference lists of relevant studies to August 2015, and correspondence with investigators. STUDY SELECTION:Longitudinal (prospective or retrospective cohort) studies conducted in generally unselected patients with periprosthetic knee infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and with re-infection outcomes reported within two years of revision surgery. No clinical trials comparing both revision strategies were identified. REVIEW METHODS:Two independent investigators extracted data and discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third investigator. Re-infection rates from 10 one-stage studies (423 participants) and 108 two-stage studies (5,129 participants) were meta-analysed using random-effect models after arcsine transformation. RESULTS:The rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 7.6% (3.4-13.1) in one-stage studies. The corresponding re-infection rate for two-stage revision was 8.8% (7.2-10.6). In subgroup analyses, re-infection rates remained generally similar for several study-level and clinically relevant characteristics. Postoperative clinical outcomes of knee scores and range of motion were similar for both revision strategies. LIMITATIONS:Potential bias owing to the limited number of one-stage revision studies and inability to explore heterogeneity in greater detail. CONCLUSIONS:Available evidence from aggregate published data suggest the one-stage revision strategy may be as effective as the two-stage revision strategy in treating infected knee prostheses in generally unselected patients. Further investigation is warranted. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015017327

Emergency training for in-hospital-based healthcare providers:effects on clinical practice and patient outcomes

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: 1. To assess the effects of emergency training for in‐hospital‐based healthcare providers on patient outcomes. 2. To assess the effects of emergency training for in‐hospital‐based healthcare providers on clinical care practices or organisational practice or both. 3. To identify any essential components of effective emergency training programmes for in‐hospital‐based healthcare providers

Trajectories of Pain and Function after Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty:The ADAPT Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Pain and function improve dramatically in the first three months after hip and knee arthroplasty but the trajectory after three months is less well described. It is also unclear how pre-operative pain and function influence short- and long-term recovery. We explored the trajectory of change in function and pain until and beyond 3-months post-operatively and the influence of pre-operative self-reported symptoms. METHODS:The study was a prospective cohort study of 164 patients undergoing primary hip (n = 80) or knee (n = 84) arthroplasty in the United Kingdom. Self-reported measures of pain and function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index were collected pre-operatively and at 3 and 12 months post-operatively. Hip and knee arthroplasties were analysed separately, and patients were split into two groups: those with high or low symptoms pre-operatively. Multilevel regression models were used for each outcome (pain and function), and the trajectories of change were charted (0-3 months and 3-12 months). RESULTS:Hip: Most improvement occurred within the first 3 months following hip surgery and patients with worse pre-operative scores had greater changes. The mean changes observed between 3 and twelve months were statistically insignificant. One year after surgery, patients with worse pre-operative scores had post-operative outcomes similar to those observed among patients with less severe pre-operative symptoms. Knee: Most improvement occurred in the first 3 months following knee surgery with no significant change thereafter. Despite greater mean change during the first three months, patients with worse pre-operative scores had not 'caught-up' with those with less severe pre-operative symptoms 12 months after their surgery. CONCLUSION:Most symptomatic improvement occurred within the first 3 months after surgery with no significant change between 3-12 months. Further investigations are now required to determine if patients with severe symptoms at the time of their knee arthroplasty have a different pre-surgical history than those with less severe symptoms and if they could benefit from earlier surgical intervention and tailored rehabilitation to achieve better post-operative patient-reported outcomes

Comparison of Group-based Outpatient Physiotherapy With Usual Care After Total Knee Replacement: a Feasibility Study For a Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial comparing group-based outpatient physiotherapy with usual care in patients following total knee replacement. Design: A feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial. Setting: One secondary-care hospital orthopaedic centre, Bristol, UK. Participants: A total of 46 participants undergoing primary total knee replacement. Interventions: The intervention group were offered six group-based exercise sessions after surgery. The usual care group received standard postoperative care. Participants were not blinded to group allocation. Outcome measures: Feasibility was assessed by recruitment, reasons for non-participation, attendance, and completion rates of study questionnaires that included the Lower Extremity Functional Scale and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Results: Recruitment rate was 37%. Five patients withdrew or were no longer eligible to participate. Intervention attendance was high (73%) and 84% of group participants reported they were ‘very satisfied’ with the exercises. Return of study questionnaires at six months was lower in the usual care (75%) than in the intervention group (100%). Mean (standard deviation) Lower Extremity Functional Scale scores at six months were 45.0 (20.8) in the usual care and 57.8 (15.2) in the intervention groups. Conclusion: Recruitment and retention of participants in this feasibility study was good. Group-based physiotherapy was acceptable to participants. Questionnaire return rates were lower in the usual care group, but might be enhanced by telephone follow-up. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale had high responsiveness and completion rates. Using this outcome measure, 256 participants would be required in a full-scale randomized controlled trial

Effect of local anaesthetic infiltration on chronic postsurgical pain after total hip and knee replacement:The APEX randomised controlled trials

Total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) are usually effective at relieving pain; however, 7% to 23% of patients experience chronic postsurgical pain. These trials aimed to investigate the effect of local anaesthetic wound infiltration on pain severity at 12 months after primary THR or TKR for osteoarthritis. Between November 2009 and February 2012, 322 patients listed for THR and 316 listed for TKR were recruited into a single-centre double-blind randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive local anaesthetic infiltration and standard care or standard care alone. Participants and outcomes assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was pain severity on the WOMAC Pain Scale at 12 months after surgery. Analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches. In the hip trial, patients in the intervention group had significantly less pain at 12 months postoperative than patients in the standard care group (differences in means: 4.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-8.54; P = 0.015), although the difference was not clinically significant. Post hoc analysis found that patients in the intervention group were more likely to have none to moderate pain than severe pain at 12 months than those in the standard care group (odds ratio: 10.19; 95% CI: 2.10-49.55; P = 0.004). In the knee trial, there was no strong evidence that the intervention influenced pain severity at 12 months postoperative (difference in means: 3.83; 95% CI: −0.83 to 8.49; P = 0.107). In conclusion, routine use of infiltration could be beneficial in improving long-term pain relief for some patients after THR

Effect of hands-on interprofessional simulation training for local emergencies in Scotland:the THISTLE stepped-wedge design randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the implementation of an intrapartum training package (PROMPT (PRactical Obstetric Multi-Professional Training)) across a health service reduced the proportion of term babies born with Apgar score <7 at 5 min (<75mins). // DESIGN: Stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Twelve randomised maternity units with ≥900 births/year in Scotland. Three additional units were included in a supplementary analysis to assess the effect across Scotland. The intervention commenced in March 2014 with follow-up until September 2016. // INTERVENTION: The PROMPT training package (Second edition), with subsequent unit-level implementation of PROMPT courses for all maternity staff. // MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of term babies with Apgar<75mins. // RESULTS: 87 204 eligible births (99.2% with an Apgar score), of which 1291 infants had an Apgar<75mins were delivered in the 12 randomised maternity units. Two units did not implement the intervention. The overall Apgar<75mins rate observed in the 12 randomised units was 1.49%, increasing from 1.32% preintervention to 1.59% postintervention. Once adjusted for a secular time trend, the 'intention-to-treat' analysis indicated a moderate but non-significant reduction in the rate of term babies with an Apgar scores <75mins following PROMPT training (OR=0.79 95%CI(0.63 to 1.01)). However, some units implemented the intervention earlier than their allocated step, whereas others delayed the intervention. The content and authenticity of the implemented intervention varied widely at unit level. When the actual date of implementation of the intervention in each unit was considered in the analysis, there was no evidence of improvement (OR=1.01 (0.84 to 1.22)). No intervention effect was detected by broadening the analysis to include all 15 large Scottish maternity units. Units with a history of higher rates of Apgar<75mins maintained higher Apgar rates during the study (OR=2.09 (1.28 to 3.41)) compared with units with pre-study rates aligned to the national rate. // CONCLUSIONS: PROMPT training, as implemented, had no effect on the rate of Apgar <75mins in Scotland during the study period. Local implementation at scale was found to be more difficult than anticipated. Further research is required to understand why the positive effects observed in other single-unit studies have not been replicated in Scottish maternity units, and how units can be best supported to locally implement the intervention authentically and effectively

Impacted fetal head at caesarean section:a national survey of practice and training

This is a national survey of UK obstetric trainees and consultant labour ward leads designed to investigate the current practice and training for an impacted foetal head (IFH) at Caesarean Section (CS). An anonymous, on-line survey was disseminated to trainees via Postgraduate Schools and RCOG trainee representatives, and to labour ward leads via their national network. Three hundred and forty-five obstetric trainees and consultants responded. The results show that IFH is variably defined and encountered by most UK obstetricians (98% had encountered IFH and 76% had experienced it before full cervical dilatation). There is significant variation in management strategies, although most respondents would use a vaginal push up to assist delivery prior to reverse breech extraction. Responses revealed a paucity of training and lack of confidence in disimpaction techniques: over one in ten respondents had not received any training for IFH and less than half had received instruction in reverse breech extraction.Impact statement What is already known on the subject? IFH is an increasingly recognised, technically challenging complication of intrapartum CS. A recent report suggested that birth injuries associated with IFH are now as common as with shoulder dystocia. However, there is no consensus nor guidelines regarding the best practice for management or training. What do the results of this study add? This study demonstrates that IFH is poorly defined and commonly encountered by UK obstetricians. It highlights that IFH is not restricted to CS at full dilatation and reveals the ubiquity of the vaginal push method in UK practice. We found evidence that UK obstetricians are using techniques which have not been investigated and are not recommended for managing an IFH. Moreover, this survey is an eye-opener as to the paucity of training, highlighting that UK obstetric trainees are not adequately prepared to manage this emergency. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? There is a pressing need to standardise the definition, guidance and training for IFH at CS. Further research should clarify the appropriate techniques for IFH and establish consensus for the best practice. An evidence-based simulation training package, which allows clinicians to learn and practice recognised disimpaction techniques is urgently required

A model-based cost-utility analysis of multi-professional simulation training in obstetric emergencies

ObjectiveTo determine the cost-utility of a multi-professional simulation training programme for obstetric emergencies-Practical Obstetric Multi-Professional Training (PROMPT)-with a particular focus on its impact on permanent obstetric brachial plexus injuries (OBPIs).DesignA model-based cost-utility analysis.SettingMaternity units in England.PopulationSimulated cohorts of individuals affected by permanent OBPIs.MethodsA decision tree model was developed to estimate the cost-utility of adopting annual, PROMPT training (scenario 1a) or standalone shoulder dystocia training (scenario 1b) in all maternity units in England compared to current practice, where only a proportion of English units use the training programme (scenario 2). The time horizon was 30 years and the analysis was conducted from an English National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services perspective. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainties in the model parameters.Main outcome measuresOutcomes for the entire simulated period included the following: total costs for PROMPT or shoulder dystocia training (including costs of OBPIs), number of OBPIs averted, number of affected adult/parental/dyadic quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and the incremental cost per QALY gained.ResultsNationwide PROMPT or shoulder dystocia training conferred significant savings (in excess of £1 billion ($1.5 billion)) compared to current practice, resulting in cost-savings of at least £1 million ($1.5 million) per any type of QALY gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated similar findings.ConclusionIn this model, national implementation of multi-professional simulation training for obstetric emergencies (or standalone shoulder dystocia training) in England appeared to both be cost-saving when evaluating their impact on permanent OBPIs