Explore the vast range of titles available.

Total joint replacements for end-stage osteoarthritis of the hip and knee are cost-effective and demonstrate significant clinical improvement. However, robust population based lifetime-risk data for implant revision are not available to aid patient decision making, which is a particular problem in young patient groups deciding on best-timing for surgery. We did implant survival analysis on all patients within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink who had undergone total hip replacement or total knee replacement. These data were adjusted for all-cause mortality with data from the Office for National Statistics and used to generate lifetime risks of revision surgery based on increasing age at the time of primary surgery. We identified 63 158 patients who had undergone total hip replacement and 54 276 who had total knee replacement between Jan 1, 1991, and Aug 10, 2011, and followed up these patients to a maximum of 20 years. For total hip replacement, 10-year implant survival rate was 95·6% (95% CI 95·3–95·9) and 20-year rate was 85·0% (83·2–86·6). For total knee replacement, 10-year implant survival rate was 96·1% (95·8–96·4), and 20-year implant survival rate was 89·7% (87·5–91·5). The lifetime risk of requiring revision surgery in patients who had total hip replacement or total knee replacement over the age of 70 years was about 5% with no difference between sexes. For those who had surgery younger than 70 years, however, the lifetime risk of revision increased for younger patients, up to 35% (95% CI 30·9–39·1) for men in their early 50s, with large differences seen between male and female patients (15% lower for women in same age group). The median time to revision for patients who had surgery younger than age 60 was 4·4 years. Our study used novel methodology to investigate and offer new insight into the importance of young age and risk of revision after total hip or knee replacement. Our evidence challenges the increasing trend for more total hip replacements and total knee replacements to be done in the younger patient group, and these data should be offered to patients as part of the shared decision making process. Oxford Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, National Institute for Health Research.

In this catalogue, leading scholars examine Johnson's artistic evolution and offer fresh perspectives on his work. From sculptures of underrepresented subjects to majestic architectural commissions - including a celebrated mural reproduced in lavish gatefold format - the book positions Johnson's oeuvre within an expansive framework of global modernism.

Knee-replacement surgery is frequently done and highly successful. It relieves pain and improves knee function in people with advanced arthritis of the joint. The most common indication for the procedure is osteoarthritis. We review the epidemiology of and risk factors for knee replacement. Because replacement is increasingly considered for patients younger than 55 years, improved decision making about whether a patient should undergo the procedure is needed. We discuss assessment of surgery outcomes based on data for revision surgery from national joint-replacement registries and on patient-reported outcome measures. Widespread surveillance of existing implants is urgently needed alongside the carefully monitored introduction of new implant designs. Developments for the future are improved delivery of care and training for surgeons and clinical teams. In an increasingly ageing society, the demand for knee-replacement surgery will probably rise further, and we predict future trends. We also emphasise the need for new strategies to treat early-stage osteoarthritis, which will ultimately reduce the demand for joint-replacement surgery.

The use of common surgical procedures varies widely across regions. Differences in illness burden, diagnostic practices, and patient attitudes about medical intervention explain only a small degree of regional variation in surgery rates. Evidence suggests that surgical variation results mainly from differences in physician beliefs about the indications for surgery, and the extent to which patient preferences are incorporated into treatment decisions. These two components of clinical decision making help to explain the so-called surgical signatures of specific procedures, and why some consistently vary more than others. Variation in clinical decision making is, in turn, affected by broad environmental factors, including technology diffusion, supply of specialists, local training frameworks, financial incentives, and regulatory factors, which vary across countries. Better scientific evidence about the comparative effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical interventions could help to mitigate regional variation, but broader dissemination of shared decision aids will be essential to reduce variation in preference-sensitive disorders.

To present estimates of clinically meaningful or minimal important changes for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) after joint replacement surgery. Secondary data analysis of the NHS patient-reported outcome measures data set that included 82,415 patients listed for hip replacement surgery and 94,015 patients listed for knee replacement surgery was performed. Anchor-based methods revealed that meaningful change indices at the group level [minimal important change (MIC)], for example in cohort studies, were ∼11 points for the OHS and ∼9 points for the OKS. For assessment of individual patients, receiver operating characteristic analysis produced MICs of 8 and 7 points for OHS and OKS, respectively. Additionally, the between group minimal important difference (MID), which allows the estimation of a clinically relevant difference in change scores from baseline when comparing two groups, that is, for clinical trials, was estimated to be ∼5 points for both the OKS and the OHS. The distribution-based minimal detectable change (MDC90) estimates for the OKS and OHS were 4 and 5 points, respectively. This study has produced and discussed estimates of minimal important change/difference for the OKS/OHS. These estimates should be used in the power calculations and the interpretation of studies using the OKS and OHS. The MDC90 (∼4 points OKS and ∼5 points OHS) represents the smallest possible detectable change for each of these instruments, thus indicating that any lower value would fall within measurement error.

Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5–5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8–6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. Arthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).

ObjectivesTo define the population prevalence of rotator cuff tears and test their association with pain and function loss; determine if severity symptom correlates with tear stage severity, and quantify the impact of symptomatic rotator cuff tears on primary healthcare services in a general population cohort of women.DesignCross-sectional observational study.ParticipantsIndividuals were part of the Chingford 1000 Women cohort, a 20-year-old longitudinal population study comprising 1003 women aged between 64 and 87, and representative of the population of the UK.Main outcome measuresRotator cuff pathology prevalence on ultrasound, shoulder symptoms using the Oxford Shoulder Score and resultant number of general practitioner (GP) consultations.ResultsThe population prevalence of full-thickness tears was 22.2%, which increased with age (p=0.004) and whether it was the dominant arm (Relative Risk 1.64, OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.33, p=0.021).Although 48.4% of full-thickness tears were asymptomatic, there was an association between rotator cuff tears and patient-reported symptoms. Individuals with at least one full-thickness tear were 1.97 times more likely than those with bilateral normal tendons (OR 3.53, 95% CI 2.00 to 5.61, p<0.001) to have symptoms. Severity of symptoms was not related to the severity of the pathology until tears are >2.5 cm (p=0.009).In the cohort, 8.9% had seen their GP with shoulder pain and a full-thickness rotator cuff tear, 18.8% with shoulder pain and an abnormality and 29.3% with shoulder pain.ConclusionRotator cuff tears are common, and primary care services are heavily impacted. As 50% of tears remain asymptomatic, future research may investigate the cause of pain and whether different treatment modalities, aside from addressing the pathology, need further investigation.

Millions of people are now waiting and worried

All surgical meshes entering the U.S. market have been cleared for clinical use by the 510(k) process of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in which devices simply require proof of \"substantial equivalence\" to predicate devices, without the need for clinical trials. However, recalled meshes associated with adverse effects may, indirectly, continue to serve as predicates for new devices raising concerns over the safety of the 510(k) route. Here we assess the potential magnitude of this problem by determining the ancestral network of equivalence claims linking recently cleared surgical meshes. Using the FDA website we identified all surgical meshes cleared by the 510(k) route between January 2013 and December 2015 along with all listed predicates for these devices. Using a network approach, we trace the ancestry of predicates across multiple generations of equivalence claims and identify those meshes connected to devices that have since recalled from the market along with the reason for their recall. We find that the 77 surgical meshes cleared between 2013 and 2015 are based on 771 interconnected predicate claims of equivalence from 400 other devices. The vast majority of these devices (97%) are descended from only six surgical meshes that were present on the market prior to 1976. One of these ancestral meshes alone, provided the basis of 183 subsequent devices. Furthermore, we show that 16% of recently cleared devices are connected through equivalence claims to the 3 predicate meshes that have been recalled for design and material related flaws causing serious adverse events. Taken together, our results show that surgical meshes are connected through a tangled web of equivalency claims and many meshes recently cleared by the FDA have connections through chains of equivalency to devices which have been recalled from the market due to concerns over clinical safety. These findings raise concerns over the efficacy of the 510(k) route in ensuring patient safety.