Explore the vast range of titles available.

The risk of re-operation, otherwise known as revision, following primary hip replacement depends in part on the prosthesis implant materials used. Current performance evidences are based on a broad categorisation grouping together different materials with potentially varying revision risks. We investigated the revision rate of primary total hip replacement (THR) reported in the National Joint Registry by specific types of bearing surfaces used. We analysed THR procedures across all orthopaedic units in England and Wales. All patients who received a primary THR between 2003 and 2019 in the public and private sectors were included. We investigated the all-cause and indication-specific risks of revision using flexible parametric survival analyses to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). We identified primary THRs with heads and monobloc cups or modular acetabular component THRs with head and shell/liner combinations. A total of 1,026,481 primary THRs were analysed (Monobloc: n = 378,979 and Modular: n = 647,502) with 20,869 (2%) of these primary THRs subsequently undergoing a revision episode (Monobloc: n = 7,381 and Modular: n = 13,488). For monobloc implants, compared to implants with a cobalt chrome head and highly crosslinked polyethylene (HCLPE) cup, the all-cause risk of revision for monobloc acetabular implant was higher for patients with cobalt chrome (hazard rate at 10 years after surgery: 1.28 95% confidence intervals [1.10, 1.48]) or stainless steel head (1.18 [1.02, 1.36]) and non-HCLPE cup. The risk of revision was lower for patients with a delta ceramic head and HCLPE cup implant, at any postoperative period (1.18 [1.02, 1.36]). For modular implants, compared to patients with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner primary THR, the all-cause risk of revision for modular acetabular implant varied non-constantly. THRs with a delta ceramic (0.79 [0.73, 0.85]) or oxidised zirconium (0.65 [0.55, 0.77]) head and HCLPE liner had a lower risk of revision throughout the entire postoperative period. Similar results were found when investigating the indication-specific risks of revision for both the monobloc and modular acetabular implants. While this large, nonselective analysis is the first to adjust for numerous characteristics collected in the registry, residual confounding cannot be rule out. Prosthesis revision is influenced by the prosthesis materials used in the primary procedure with the lowest risk for implants with delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and an HCLPE liner/cup. Further work is required to determine the association of implant bearing materials with the risk of rehospitalisation, re-operation other than revision, mortality, and the cost-effectiveness of these materials.

Untreated syphilis in pregnancy is associated with adverse clinical outcomes to the infant. In low- and middle-income countries in Asia and Latin America, 20%-30% of women are not tested for syphilis during pregnancy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of increasing the coverage for antenatal syphilis screening in 11 Asian and 20 Latin American countries, using a point-of-care immunochromatographic strip (ICS) test. The decision analytical cost-effectiveness models reported incremental costs per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted from the perspectives of the national health care payer. Clinical outcomes were stillbirths, neonatal deaths, and congenital syphilis. DALYs were computed using WHO disability weights. Costs included the ICS test, three injections of benzathine penicillin, and nurse wages. Country-specific inputs included the antenatal prevalence of syphilis and the proportion of women in the antenatal care setting that are screened for syphilis infection as reported in the 2014 WHO baseline report on global sexually transmitted infection surveillance. Country-specific data on the annual number of live births, proportion of women with at least one antenatal care visit, and per capita gross national income were also included in the model. The incremental cost/DALY averted of syphilis screening is US$53 (range: US$10-US$332; Prob<1*per capita GDP=99.71%) in Asia and US$60 (range: US$5-US$225; Prob<1*per capita GDP=99.77%) in Latin America. Universal screening may reduce the annual number of stillbirths by 20,344 and 4,270, neonatal deaths by 8,201 and 1,721, cases of congenital syphilis by 10,952 and 2,298, and avert 925,039 and 197,454 DALYs in the aggregate Asian and Latin American panel, respectively. Antenatal syphilis screening is highly cost-effective in all the 11 Asian and 20 Latin American countries assessed. Our findings support the decision to expand syphilis screening in countries with currently low screening rates or continue national syphilis screening programs in countries with high rates.

Background Hip fractures are devastating injuries causing disability, dependence, and institutionalisation, yet hospital care is highly variable. This study aimed to determine hospital organisational factors associated with recovery of mobility and change in patient residence after hip fracture. Methods A cohort of patients aged 60 + years in England and Wales, who sustained a hip fracture from 2016 to 2019 was examined. Patient-level Hospital Episodes Statistics, National Hip Fracture Database, and mortality records were linked to 101 factors derived from 18 hospital-level organisational metrics. After adjustment for patient case-mix, multilevel models were used to identify organisational factors associated with patient residence at discharge, and mobility and residence at 120 days after hip fracture. Results Across 172 hospitals, 165,350 patients survived to discharge, of whom 163,230 (99%) had post-hospital discharge destination recorded. 18,323 (11%) died within 120 days. Among 147,027 survivors, 58,344 (40%) across 143 hospitals had their residence recorded, and 56,959 (39%) across 140 hospitals had their mobility recorded, at 120 days. Nineteen organisational factors independently predicted residence on hospital discharge e.g., return to original residence was 31% (95% confidence interval, CI:17–43%) more likely if the anaesthetic lead for hip fracture had time allocated in their job plan, and 8–13% more likely if hip fracture service clinical governance meetings were attended by an orthopaedic surgeon, physiotherapist or anaesthetist. Seven organisational factors independently predicted residence at 120 days. Patients returning to their pre-fracture residence was 26% (95%CI:4–42%) more likely if hospitals had a dedicated hip fracture ward, and 20% (95%CI:8–30%) more likely if treatment plans were proactively discussed with patients and families on admission. Seventeen organisational factors predicted mobility at 120 days. More patients re-attained their pre-fracture mobility in hospitals where (i) care involved an orthogeriatrician (15% [95%CI:1-28%] improvement), (ii) general anaesthesia was usually accompanied by a nerve block (7% [95%CI:1-12%], and (iii) bedside haemoglobin testing was routine in theatre recovery (13% [95%CI:6-20%]). Conclusions Multiple, potentially modifiable, organisational factors are associated with patient outcomes up to 120 days after a hip fracture, these factors if causal should be targeted by service improvement initiatives to reduce variability, improve hospital hip fracture care, and maximise patient independence.

Background Surgical pain is managed with multi-modal anaesthesia in total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). It is unclear whether including local anaesthetic infiltration before wound closure provides additional pain control. Methods We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials of local anaesthetic infiltration in patients receiving THR or TKR. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL to December 2012. Two reviewers screened abstracts, extracted data, and contacted authors for unpublished outcomes and data. Outcomes collected were post-operative pain at rest and during activity after 24 and 48 hours, opioid requirement, mobilisation, hospital stay and complications. When feasible, we estimated pooled treatment effects using random effects meta-analyses. Results In 13 studies including 909 patients undergoing THR, patients receiving local anaesthetic infiltration experienced a greater reduction in pain at 24 hours at rest by standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.61 (95% CI -1.05, -0.16; p = 0.008) and by SMD -0.43 (95% CI -0.78 -0.09; p = 0.014) at 48 hours during activity. In TKR, diverse multi-modal regimens were reported. In 23 studies including 1439 patients undergoing TKR, local anaesthetic infiltration reduced pain on average by SMD -0.40 (95% CI -0.58, -0.22; p < 0.001) at 24 hours at rest and by SMD -0.27 (95% CI -0.50, -0.05; p = 0.018) at 48 hours during activity, compared with patients receiving no infiltration or placebo. There was evidence of a larger reduction in studies delivering additional local anaesthetic after wound closure. There was no evidence of pain control additional to that provided by femoral nerve block. Patients receiving local anaesthetic infiltration spent on average an estimated 0.83 (95% CI 1.54, 0.12; p = 0.022) and 0.87 (95% CI 1.62, 0.11; p = 0.025) fewer days in hospital after THR and TKR respectively, had reduced opioid consumption, earlier mobilisation, and lower incidence of vomiting. Few studies reported long-term outcomes. Conclusions Local anaesthetic infiltration is effective in reducing short-term pain and hospital stay in patients receiving THR and TKR. Studies should assess whether local anaesthetic infiltration can prevent long-term pain. Enhanced pain control with additional analgesia through a catheter should be weighed against a possible infection risk.

Objective To compare the survival of different implant combinations for primary total hip replacement (THR). Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the EU Clinical Trials Register.Review methods Published randomised controlled trials comparing different implant combinations. Implant combinations were defined by bearing surface materials (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, or metal-on-metal), head size (large ≥36 mm or small <36 mm), and fixation technique (cemented, uncemented, hybrid, or reverse hybrid). Our reference implant combination was metal-on-polyethylene (not highly cross linked), small head, and cemented. The primary outcome was revision surgery at 0-2 years and 2-10 years after primary THR. The secondary outcome was the Harris hip score reported by clinicians.Results 77 studies were included in the systematic review, and 15 studies (3177 hips) in the network meta-analysis for revision. There was no evidence that the risk of revision surgery was reduced by other implant combinations compared with the reference implant combination. Although estimates are imprecise, metal-on-metal, small head, cemented implants (hazard ratio 4.4, 95% credible interval 1.6 to 16.6) and resurfacing (12.1, 2.1 to 120.3) increase the risk of revision at 0-2 years after primary THR compared with the reference implant combination. Similar results were observed for the 2-10 years period. 31 studies (2888 patients) were included in the analysis of Harris hip score. No implant combination had a better score than the reference implant combination.Conclusions Newer implant combinations were not found to be better than the reference implant combination (metal-on-polyethylene (not highly cross linked), small head, cemented) in terms of risk of revision surgery or Harris hip score. Metal-on-metal, small head, cemented implants and resurfacing increased the risk of revision surgery compared with the reference implant combination. The results were consistent with observational evidence and were replicated in sensitivity analysis but were limited by poor reporting across studies.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42015019435.

ObjectivesTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of using a removable boot versus a cast following ankle fracture from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services (NHS+PSS) payer and societal perspectives and explore the impact of both treatments on participants’ activities of daily living.DesignCost-effectiveness analyses and qualitative interviews performed alongside a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial.SettingEight UK NHS secondary care trusts.Participants243 participants (60.5% female, on average 48.2 years of age (SD 16.4)) with ankle fracture. Qualitative interviews with 16 participants. Interventions removable air boot versus plaster cast 2 weeks after surgery weight bearing as able with group-specific exercises.Primary and secondary outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life years (QALYs) estimated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, costs and incremental net monetary benefit statistics measured 12 weeks after surgery, for a society willing-to-pay £20 000 per QALY.ResultsCare in the boot group cost, on average, £88 (95% CI £22 to £155) per patient more than in the plaster group from the NHS+PSS perspective. When including all societal costs, the boot saved, on average, £676 per patient (95% CI −£337 to £1689). Although there was no evidence of a QALY difference between the groups (−0.0020 (95% CI −0.0067 to 0.0026)), the qualitative findings suggest participants felt the boot enhanced their quality of life. Patients in the boot felt more independent and empowered to take on family responsibilities and social activities.ConclusionsWhile the removable boot is slightly more expensive than plaster cast for the NHS+PSS payer at 12 weeks after surgery, it reduces productivity losses and the need for informal care while empowering patients. Given that differences in QALYs and costs to the NHS are small, the decision to use a boot or plaster following ankle surgery could be left to patients’ and clinicians’ preferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN15497399, South Central—Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee (reference 14/SC/1409).

Disfigurement (visible difference) from wide-ranging congenital or acquired conditions, injuries, or treatments can negatively impact adolescents' psychological well-being, education and health behaviours. Alongside medical interventions, appearance-specific cognitive behavioural and social skills training to manage stigma and appearance anxiety may improve psychosocial outcomes. YP Face IT (YPF), is a Web-based seven session self-help program plus booster quiz, utilising cognitive behavioural and social skills training for young people (YP) struggling with a visible difference. Co-designed by adolescents and psychologists, it includes interactive multimedia and automated reminders to complete sessions/homework. Adolescents access YPF via a health professional who determines its suitability and remotely monitors clients' usage. To establish the feasibility of evaluating YPF for 12-17 year olds self-reporting appearance-related distress and/or bullying associated with a visible difference. Randomized controlled trial with nested qualitative and economic study evaluating YPF compared with usual care (UC). Feasibility outcomes included: viability of recruiting via general practitioner (GP) practices (face to face and via patient databases) and charity advertisements; intervention acceptability and adherence; feasibility of study and data collection methods; and health professionals' ability to monitor users' online data for safeguarding issues. Primary psychosocial self-reported outcomes collected online at baseline, 13, 26, and 52 weeks were as follows: appearance satisfaction (Appearance Subscale from Mendleson et al's (2001) Body Esteem Scale); social anxiety (La Greca's (1999) Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents). Secondary outcomes were; self-esteem; romantic concerns; perceived stigmatization; social skills and healthcare usage. Participants were randomised using remote Web-based allocation. Thirteen charities advertised the study yielding 11 recruits, 13 primary care practices sent 687 invitations to patients on their databases with a known visible difference yielding 17 recruits (2.5% response rate), 4 recruits came from GP consultations. Recruitment was challenging, therefore four additional practices mass-mailed 3,306 generic invitations to all 12-17 year old patients yielding a further 15 participants (0.5% response rate). Forty-seven YP with a range of socioeconomic backgrounds and conditions were randomised (26% male, 91% white, mean age 14 years (SD 1.7)); 23 to YPF, 24 to UC). At 52 weeks, 16 (70%) in the intervention and 20 (83%) in UC groups completed assessments. There were no intervention-related adverse events; most found YPF acceptable with three withdrawing because they judged it was for higher-level concerns; 12 (52%) completed seven sessions. The study design was acceptable and feasible, with multiple recruitment strategies. Preliminary findings indicate no changes from baseline in outcome measures among the UC group and positive changes in appearance satisfaction and fear of negative evaluation among the YPF group when factoring in baseline scores and intervention adherence. YPF is novel, safe and potentially helpful. Its full psychosocial benefits should be evaluated in a large-scale RCT, which would be feasible with wide-ranging recruitment strategies. ISRCTN registry ISRCTN40650639; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN40650639.

Background Excessive drinking leads to poor absorption of nutrients and homeless problem-drinkers often have nutritionally inadequate diets. Depletion of nutrients such as vitamin B1 can lead to cognitive impairment, which can hinder efforts to reduce drinking or engage with services. This review aimed to assess effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent or treat malnutrition in homeless problem-drinkers. Methods We systematically searched nine electronic databases and 13 grey literature sources for studies evaluating interventions to improve nutrition in homeless populations, without regional or language restrictions. Screening for inclusion was done in duplicate. One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias, and another checked the extractions. Primary outcomes were nutrition status/deficiency, liver damage, and cognitive function. Secondary outcomes included abstinence, comorbidities, resource use, acceptability and engagement with intervention. Results were synthesised narratively. Results We included 25 studies (2 Randomised Controlled Trials; 15 uncontrolled before and after; 7 surveys; 1 case-control). Nine studies evaluated educational and support interventions, five food provision, and three supplement provision. Eight studies evaluated a combination of these interventions. No two interventions were the same, and all studies were at high risk of bias. Nutritional status (intake/ deficiency) were reported in 11 studies and liver function in one. Fruit and vegetable intake improved with some education and support interventions ( n  = 4 studies) but not others ( n  = 2). Vitamin supplements appeared to improve vitamin deficiency levels in the blood ( n  = 2). Free or subsidised meals ( n  = 4) and food packs ( n  = 1) did not always fulfil dietary needs, but were usually considered acceptable by users. Some multicomponent interventions improved nutrition ( n  = 3) but acceptability varied ( n  = 3). No study reported cost effectiveness. Conclusions The evidence for any one intervention for improving malnutrition in homeless problem-drinkers was based on single studies at high risk of bias. Various food and supplement provision interventions appear effective in changing nutritional status in single studies. Educational and multicomponent interventions show improved nutritional behaviour in some studies but not others. Further better quality evidence is required before these interventions can be recommended for implementation. Any future studies should seek the end user input in their design and conduct. Trial registration Registered with PROSPERO: CRD42015024247 .

IntroductionKnee replacements are highly successful for many people, but if a knee replacement fails, revision surgery is generally required. Surgeons and patients may choose from a range of implant components and combinations that make up knee replacement constructs, all with potential implications for how long a knee replacement will last. To inform surgeon and patient decisions, a comprehensive synthesis of data from randomised controlled trials is needed to evaluate the effects of different knee replacement implants on overall construct survival. Due to limited follow-up in trials, joint registry analyses are also needed to assess the long-term survival of constructs. Finally, economic modelling can identify cost-effective knee replacement constructs for different patient groups.Methods and analysisIn this protocol, we describe systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of knee replacement constructs used in total and unicompartmental knee replacement and analyses of two national joint registries to assess long-term outcomes. Knee replacement constructs are defined by bearing materials and mobility, constraint, fixation and patella resurfacing. For men and women in different age groups, we will compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of knee replacement constructs.Ethics and disseminationSystematic reviews are secondary analyses of published data with no ethical approval required. We will design a common joint registry analysis plan and provide registry representatives with information for submission to research or ethics committees. The project has been assessed by the National Health Service (NHS) REC committee and does not require ethical review.Study findings will be disseminated to clinicians, researchers and administrators through open access articles, presentations and websites. Specific UK-based groups will be informed of results including National Institute for Health Research and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as well as international orthopaedic associations and charities. Effective dissemination to patients will be guided by our patient–public involvement group and include written lay summaries and infographics.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019134059 and CRD42019138015.

IntroductionSubstantial variation in the delivery of hip fracture care, and patient outcomes persists between hospitals, despite established UK national standards and guidelines. Patients’ outcomes are partly explained by patient-level risk factors, but it is hypothesised that organisational-level factors account for the persistence of unwarranted variation in outcomes. The mixed-methods REducing unwarranted variation in the Delivery of high qUality hip fraCture services in England and Wales (REDUCE) study, aims to determine key organisational factors to target to improve patient care.Methods and analysisQuantitative analysis will assess the outcomes of patients treated at 172 hospitals in England and Wales (2016–2019) using National Hip Fracture Database data combined with English Hospital Episodes Statistics; Patient Episode Database for Wales; Civil Registration (deaths) and multiple organisational-level audits to characterise each service provider. Statistical analyses will identify which organisational factors explain variation in patient outcomes, and typify care pathways with high-quality consistent patient outcomes. Documentary analysis of 20 anonymised British Orthopaedic Association hospital-initiated peer-review reports, and qualitative interviews with staff from four diverse UK hospitals providing hip fracture care, will identify barriers and facilitators to care delivery. The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a major challenge to the resilience of services and interviews will explore strategies used to adapt and innovate. This system-wide understanding will inform the development, in partnership with key national stakeholders, of an ‘Implementation Toolkit’ to inform and improve commissioning and delivery of hip fracture services.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved: quantitative study by London, City and East Research Ethics Committee (20/LO/0101); and qualitative study by Faculty of Health Sciences University of Bristol Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 108284), National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (20/HRA/71) and each NHS Trust provided Research and Development approval. Findings will be disseminated through scientific conferences, peer-reviewed journals and online workshops.