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

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

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

Women’s experiences of the Odon Device to assist vaginal birth and participation in intrapartum research:a qualitative study in a maternity unit in the Southwest of England

OBJECTIVE: To investigate women’s experiences of having a birth assisted by the Odon Device (an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth) and participation in intrapartum research. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews and observations undertaken in the context of case study work embedded in the ASSIST feasibility study. SETTING: A tertiary referral National Health Service (NHS) maternity unit in the Southwest of England, between 8 October 2018 and 26 January 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Eight women, four operators and 11 midwives participated with eight observations of the assisted vaginal birth, eight interviews with women in the postnatal period, 39 interviews/reflections with operators and 19 interviews with midwives. Women in the case study research were recruited from participants in the main ASSIST Study. INTERVENTION: The Odon Device, an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth. RESULTS: Thirty-nine case studies were undertaken. Triangulation of data sources (participant observation, interviews with women, operators and midwives) enabled the exploration of women’s experiences of the Odon Device and recruitment in the intrapartum trial. Experiences were overwhelmingly positive. Women were motivated to take part by a wish for a kinder birth, and because they perceived both the recruitment and research processes (including observation) to be highly acceptable, regardless of whether the Odon-assisted birth was successful or not. CONCLUSIONS: Interviews and observations from multiple stakeholders enabled insight into women’s experiences of an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth. Applying these qualitative methods more broadly may illuminate perspectives of key stakeholders in future intrapartum intervention research and beyond. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10203171; ASSIST Study registration; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10203171

Association of social support with patient-reported outcomes after joint replacement:A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Identifying prognostic factors for outcomes after joint replacement could improve the provision of stratified care. This systematic review evaluated whether social support is a prognostic factor for better patient-reported outcomes after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2019. Cohort studies evaluating the association between social support and patient-reported outcomes at three months or longer after THR or TKR were included. Data were extracted from study reports. Study quality was assessed using the QUIPS tool. Data were synthesized using meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016041485). FINDINGS: Searches identified 5,810 articles and 56 studies with data from 119,165 patients were included. In meta-analysis, the presence of social support had a beneficial effect on long-term post-operative WOMAC (mean difference 2.88; 95% CIs 1.30; 4.46) and Oxford Knee Score (0.29; 0.12, 0.45). Social support measured using a validated questionnaire was found to be associated with WOMAC pain (0.04; 0.00, 0.08) but not WOMAC function (-0.01; -0.12, 0.11). The presence of social support had a positive association with some SF-36 subscales but not others. For all outcomes, results of narrative synthesis were inconsistent. INTERPRETATION: There is evidence that social support is a prognostic factor for some outcomes after joint replacement. Development and evaluation of complex interventions to improve social support and social integration is warranted. FUNDING: This study was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol

Novel device for assisted vaginal birth:using integrated qualitative case study methodology to optimise Odon Device use within a feasibility study in a maternity unit in the Southwest of England

OBJECTIVE: When novel devices are used ‘in human’ for the first time, their optimal use is uncertain because clinicians only have experience from preclinical studies. This study aimed to investigate factors that might optimise use of the Odon Device for assisted vaginal birth. DESIGN: We undertook qualitative case studies within the ASSIST Study, a feasibility study of the Odon Device. Each ‘case’ was defined as one use of the device and included at least one of the following: observation of the attempted assisted birth, and an interview with the obstetrician, midwife or woman. Data collection and thematic analysis ran iteratively and in parallel. SETTING: Tertiary referral National Health Service maternity unit in the Southwest of England. PARTICIPANTS: Women requiring a clinically indicated assisted vaginal birth. INTERVENTION: The Odon Device, an innovative device for assisted vaginal birth. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Determining the optimal device technique, device design and defining clinical parameters for use. RESULTS: Thirty-nine cases involving an attempted Odon-assisted birth were included in this study, of which 19 resulted in a successful birth with the device. Factors that improved use included optimisation of device technique, device design and clinical parameters for use. Technique adaptations included: applying the device during, rather than between, contractions; having a flexible approach to the application angle; and deflating the air cuff sooner than originally proposed. Three design modifications were proposed involving the deflation button and sleeve. Although use of the device was found to be appropriate in all fetal positions, it was considered contraindicated when the fetal station was at the ischial spines. CONCLUSIONS: Case study methodology facilitated the acquisition of rapid insights into device function in clinical practice, providing key insights regarding use, design and key clinical parameters for success. This methodology should be considered whenever innovative devices are introduced into clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10203171

Similar risk of complete revision for infection with single-dose versus multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee:results of an observational cohort study in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register in 242,179 patients

Background and purpose - The optimal type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee are subject to debate. We compared the risk of complete revision (obtained by a 1- or 2-stage procedure) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty between patients receiving a single dose of prophylactic antibiotics and patients receiving multiple doses of antibiotics for prevention of PJI. Patients and methods - A cohort of 130,712 primary total hip and 111,467 knee arthroplasties performed between 2011 and 2015 in the Netherlands was analyzed. We linked data from the Dutch arthroplasty register to a survey collected across all Dutch institutions on hospital-level antibiotic prophylaxis policy. We used restricted cubic spline Poisson models adjusted for hospital clustering to compare the risk of revision for infection according to type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis received. Results - For total hip arthroplasties, the rates of revision for infection were 31/10,000 person-years (95% CI 28-35), 39 (25-59), and 23 (15-34) in the groups that received multiple doses of cefazolin, multiple doses of cefuroxime, and a single dose of cefazolin, respectively. The rates for knee arthroplasties were 27/10,000 person-years (95% CI 24-31), 40 (24-62), and 24 (16-36). Similar risk of complete revision for infection among antibiotic prophylaxis regimens was found when adjusting for confounders. Interpretation - In a large observational cohort we found no apparent association between the type or duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and the risk of complete revision for infection. This does question whether there is any advantage to the use of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis beyond a single dose.Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Rehabilitatio