Two exhibitions of photographs

An exhibition of photographs held at the Fine Arts Gallery in 197

The effectiveness of non-pharmacological sleep interventions for people with chronic pain:a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: About two thirds of people with chronic pain report problems sleeping. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological sleep interventions for improving sleep in people with chronic pain. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of non-pharmacological and non-invasive interventions to improve sleep quality or duration for adults with chronic non-cancer pain evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. Our primary outcome of interest was sleep; secondary outcomes included pain, health-related quality of life, and psychological wellbeing. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to April 2020. After screening, two reviewers evaluated articles and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. RESULTS: We included 42 trials involving 3346 people randomised to 94 groups, of which 56 received an intervention targeting sleep. 10 studies were of fair and 32 of good methodological quality. Overall risk of bias was judged to be low in 11, high in 10 and unclear in 21 studies. In 9 studies with 385 people randomised, cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia showed benefit post-treatment compared with controls for improved sleep quality, standardised mean difference − 1.23 (95%CI -1.76, − 0.70; p < 0.00001). The effect size was only slightly reduced in meta-analysis of 3 studies at low risk of bias. The difference between groups was lower at 3 and 6 months after treatment but still favoured cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia. Pain, anxiety and depression were reduced post-treatment, but evidence of longer term benefit was lacking. There was no evidence that sleep hygiene interventions were effective in improving sleep and there was some evidence in comparative studies to suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia was more effective than sleep hygiene. Numerous other interventions were evaluated in small numbers of studies, but evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia is an effective treatment to improve sleep for people with chronic pain, but further high-quality primary research is required to explore combined CBT content that will ensure additional improvements to pain, quality of life and psychological health and longer-term maintenance of benefits. Primary research is also needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for which insufficient evidence exists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019093799. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05318-5

Rest Pain and Movement-Evoked Pain as Unique Constructs in Hip and Knee Replacements

OBJECTIVE: There is limited information about the extent to which the association between preoperative and chronic postoperative pain is mediated via pain‐on‐movement or pain‐at‐rest. We explored these associations in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: A total of 322 and 316 patients receiving THR and TKR, respectively, were recruited into a single‐center UK cohort (Arthroplasty Pain Experience) study. Preoperative, acute postoperative, and 12‐month pain severity was measured using self‐reported pain instruments. The association between preoperative/acute pain and chronic postoperative pain was investigated using structural equation modeling (SEM). RESULTS: Patients with high levels of preoperative pain were more likely to report chronic pain after THR (β = 0.195, P = 0.02) and TKR (β = 0.749, P < 0.0001). Acute postoperative pain‐on‐movement was not associated with chronic pain after TKR or THR after adjusting for preoperative pain; however, acute pain‐at‐rest was associated with chronic pain after THR (β = 0.20, P < 0.0002) but not TKR after adjusting for preoperative pain. Analysis of pain‐at‐rest and pain‐on‐movement highlighted differences between THR and TKR patients. Chronic pain‐at‐rest after THR was weakly associated with pain‐at‐rest during the preoperative (β = 0.11, P = 0.068) and acute postoperative period (β = 0.21, P < 0.0001). In contrast, chronic pain‐on‐movement after TKR was strongly associated with the severity of pain‐on‐movement during the preoperative period (β = 0.51, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: SEM illustrated the different patterns of association between measures of pain over time in patients undergoing THR and TKR for osteoarthritis. These findings highlight the importance of future work that explores the mechanisms underlying pain‐on‐movement and pain‐at‐rest

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

The choice between hip prosthetic bearing surfaces in total hip replacement:a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic hip implants have many combinations of bearing surface materials, sizes, and fixation techniques, which can determine the quality of life of patients after primary total hip replacement (THR) and the likelihood of needing revision surgery. When an implant fails, patients require revision THR, which is distressing to the patient and expensive for the health care payer. Primary THR is one of the most common elective procedures performed worldwide, with over 300,000 performed annually in the USA and over 80,000 in England and Wales. It is important to review all available randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence to determine which implant bearing surface materials, size, and fixation technique are most effective for patients. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing outcomes of hip implant bearing surfaces, size, and fixation techniques used in THR. Implant combinations compared in the literature include four bearing surface combinations (metal-on-polyethylene, metal-on-metal, ceramic-on-polyethylene, and ceramic-on-ceramic); two femoral head sizes (large vs small heads); and four fixation techniques (uncemented, cemented, hybrid, and reverse hybrids). The primary outcome will be revision surgery. We will also collect data on patient characteristics, mortality, quality of life, and other outcomes. In network meta-analysis, we will estimate the relative effectiveness of every implant bearing surface, head size (large vs small), and fixation permutation, using evidence where implants have been compared directly in an RCT and indirectly through common comparators in different RCTs. DISCUSSION: There has been much debate about materials used for prosthetic implants in THR. Different combinations of prosthetic materials, sizes, and fixation, can vary widely in cost and fail at different rates for different patient groups. Given the number of THRs performed yearly, and the increasing use of expensive implants, it is important to review evidence to inform surgeons, patients, and health care providers of optimal implant bearing combinations for given patient characteristics. This review will inform a cost-effectiveness model that will include evidence from other sources, to determine the most effective and cost-effective implant bearing combination for patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD4201501943

Better post-operative prediction and management of chronic pain in adults after total knee replacement:the multidisciplinary STAR research programme including RCT

Background: The treatment of osteoarthritis with knee replacement aims to reduce pain and disability. However, some people experience chronic pain. Objectives: To improve outcomes for people with chronic pain after knee replacement by identifying post-surgical predictors and effective interventions, characterising patient pathways and resource use, developing and evaluating a new care pathway, and exploring non-use of services. Design: The programme comprised systematic reviews, national database analyses, a cohort study, intervention development, a randomised controlled trial, health economic analyses, qualitative studies and stakeholder engagement. Extensive and meaningful patient and public involvement underpinned all studies. Setting: NHS, secondary care, primary care. Participants: People with, or at risk of, chronic pain after knee replacement and health-care professionals involved in the care of people with pain. Interventions: A care pathway for the management of people with pain at 3 months after knee replacement. Main outcome measures: Patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness over 12 months. Data sources: Literature databases, the National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, patient- reported outcomes, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, the Clinical Outcomes in Arthroplasty Study, the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement randomised trial, interviews with 90 patients and 14 health-care professionals, and stakeholder events. Review methods: Systematic reviews of cohort studies or randomised trials, using meta-analysis or narrative synthesis. Results: In the Clinical Outcomes in Arthroplasty Study cohort, 14% of people experienced chronic pain 1 year after knee replacement. By 5 years, 65% reported no pain, 31% fluctuated and 4% remained in chronic pain. People with chronic pain had a worse quality of life, higher primary care costs, and more frequent analgesia prescriptions, particularly for opioids, than those not in chronic pain. People with chronic pain after knee replacement who made little or no use of services often felt nothing more could be done, or that further treatments may have no benefit or cause harm. People described a feeling of disconnection from their replaced knee. Analysis of UK databases identified risk factors for chronic pain after knee replacement. Pre- operative predictors were mild knee pain, smoking, deprivation, body mass index between 35 and 40 kg/m2 and knee arthroscopy. Peri- and post-operative predictors were mechanical complications, infection, readmission, revision, extended hospital stay, manipulation under anaesthetic and use of opioids or antidepressants. In systematic reviews, pre-operative exercise and education showed no benefit in relation to chronic pain. Peri-operative interventions that merit further research were identified. Common peri- operative treatments were not associated with chronic pain. There was no strong evidence favouring specific post-operative physiotherapy content. We evaluated the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement care pathway in a multicentre randomised controlled trial. We randomised 363 people with pain at 3 months after knee replacement from eight NHS Trusts in England and Wales. At 12 months’ follow-up, the intervention group had lower mean pain severity (adjusted difference –0.65, 95% confidence interval –1.17 to -0.13; p = 0.014) and pain interference (adjusted difference –0.68, 95% confidence interval –1.29 to -0.08; p = 0.026), as measured on the Brief Pain Inventory subscales (scale 0–10). People receiving the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway had lower NHS and Personal Social Services costs (–£724, 95% confidence interval –£150 to £51) and higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.03, 95% confidence interval –0.008 to 0.06) than those with usual care. The Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway was cost-effective with an incremental net monetary benefit at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold of £1256 (95% confidence interval £164 to £2348), indicating a 98.79% probability that the intervention is the cost-effective option. Participants found the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway acceptable, with opportunities to receive information and discuss concerns while ensuring further treatment and support. In systematic reviews considering treatments for chronic pain after surgery we identified some unifactorial interventions that merit further research after knee replacement. Health-care professionals delivering and implementing the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway valued its focus on neuropathic pain and psychosocial issues, enhanced patient care, formalised referrals, and improved pain management. Stakeholders supported pathway implementation. Limitations: Database analyses were limited to factors recorded in data sets. Pain was only measured 6 months after surgery. However, analyses including large numbers of centres and patients should be generalisable across the NHS. In many studies found in systematic reviews, long-term pain was not a key outcome. Conclusions: The Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway is a clinically effective and cost-effective, acceptable intervention for the management of chronic pain after knee replacement. Unifactorial interventions merit further study before inclusion in patient care. People with pain should be empowered to seek health care, with the support of health-care professionals. Future work: Future work should include research relating to the implementation of the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway into the NHS, an assessment of its long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and wider application, and an evaluation of new interventions for incorporation in the pathway. It will also be important to design and conduct research to improve communication between patients and health-care professionals before surgery; explore whether or not education and support can enable earlier recognition of chronic pain; consider research that may identify how to support people’s feelings of disconnectedness from their new knee; and design and evaluate a pre-surgical intervention based on risk factors. Study registration: All systematic reviews were registered on PROSPERO (CRD42015015957, CRD42016041374 and CRD42017041382). The Support and Treatment After joint Replacement randomised trial was registered as ISRCTN92545361. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

The STAR care pathway for patients with pain at 3 months after total knee replacement:a multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of people experience chronic pain after total knee replacement, but effective treatments are not available. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new care pathway for chronic pain after total knee replacement. METHODS: We did an unmasked, parallel group, pragmatic, superiority, randomised, controlled trial at eight UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. People with chronic pain at 3 months after total knee replacement surgery were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway plus usual care, or to usual care alone. The STAR intervention aimed to identify underlying causes of chronic pain and enable onward referrals for targeted treatment through a 3-month post-surgery assessment with an extended scope practitioner and telephone follow-up over 12 months. Co-primary outcomes were self-reported pain severity and pain interference in the replaced knee, assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference scales at 12 months (scored 0–10, best to worst) and analysed on an as-randomised basis. Resource use, collected from electronic hospital records and participants, was valued with UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from EQ-5D-5L responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN92545361. FINDINGS: Between Sept 6, 2016, and May 31, 2019, 363 participants were randomly assigned to receive the intervention plus usual care (n=242) or to receive usual care alone (n=121). Participants had a median age of 67 years (IQR 61 to 73), 217 (60%) of 363 were female, and 335 (92%) were White. 313 (86%) patients provided follow-up data at 12 months after randomisation (213 assigned to the intervention plus usual care and 100 assigned to usual care alone). At 12 months, the mean between-group difference in the BPI severity score was −0·65 (95% CI −1·17 to −0·13; p=0·014) and the mean between-group difference in the BPI interference score was −0·68 (−1·29 to −0·08; p=0·026), both favouring the intervention. From an NHS and personal social services perspective, the intervention was cost-effective (greater improvement with lower cost), with an incremental net monetary benefit of £1256 (95% CI 164 to 2348) at £20 000 per QALY threshold. One adverse reaction of participant distress was reported in the intervention group. INTERPRETATION: STAR is a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention to improve pain outcomes over 1 year for people with chronic pain at 3 months after total knee replacement surgery. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research