Revision for prosthetic joint infection following hip arthroplasty:Evidence from the National Joint Registry

Objectives We used the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) to investigate the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty, the changes in risk over time, and the overall burden created by PJI. Methods We analysed revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed due to a diagnosis of PJI and the linked index procedures recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2014. The cohort analysed consisted of 623 253 index primary hip arthroplasties, 63 222 index revision hip arthroplasties and 7585 revision THAs performed due to a diagnosis of PJI. The prevalence, cumulative incidence functions and the burden of PJI (total procedures) were calculated. Overall linear trends were investigated with log-linear regression. Results We demonstrated a prevalence of revision THA due to prosthetic joint infection of 0.4/100 procedures following primary and 1.6/100 procedures following revision hip arthroplasty. The prevalence of revision due to PJI in the three months following primary hip arthroplasty has risen 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 4.1) between 2005 and 2013, and 3.0-fold (95% CI 1.1 to 8.5) following revision hip arthroplasty. Over 1000 procedures are performed annually as a consequence of hip PJI, an increase of 2.6-fold between 2005 and 2013. Conclusions Although the risk of revision due to PJI following hip arthroplasty is low, it is rising and, coupled with the established and further predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision hip arthroplasty, this represents a growing and substantial treatment burden. Cite this article: E. Lenguerrand, M. R. Whitehouse, A. D. Beswick, S. A. Jones, M. L. Porter, A. W. Blom. Revision for prosthetic joint infection following hip arthroplasty: Evidence from the National Joint Registry. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:391–398. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.66.BJR-2017-0003.R1. </jats:sec

The ASSIST Study - The BD Odon Device for assisted vaginal birth: a safety and feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Assisted vaginal birth is a vital health intervention that can result in better outcomes for mothers and their babies when complications arise in the second stage of labour. Unfortunately, instruments for assisted vaginal birth (forceps and ventouse) are often not utilised in settings where there is most clinical need, resulting in maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality which could have been prevented. The BD Odon Device is a new device for assisted vaginal birth that may be able to address this unmet need. However, before dissemination, the device requires evaluation in robust clinical trials. A feasibility study to investigate the clinical impact, safety, and acceptability of the BD Odon Device for assisted vaginal birth is therefore planned. This will provide further information on acceptability, recruitment, and the outcome data required to design a future randomised controlled trial of the BD Odon Device versus Kiwi ventouse. METHODS: Forty women who require an assisted vaginal birth for a recognised clinical indication will have the birth assisted with the BD Odon Device. The primary outcome is successful vaginal birth completed with the BD Odon Device. Secondary clinical outcomes include maternal and neonatal outcomes, and maternal and practitioner satisfaction. Safety data will be reviewed following every birth. DISCUSSION: A future randomised controlled trial of the BD Odon Device versus the current standard instrument (the Kiwi ventouse) is planned. The findings of the ASSIST Study will inform the randomised controlled trial design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN10203171 . Prospectively registered on 27 July 2018

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 effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital

Background Preparing healthcare providers to manage relatively rare life‐threatening emergency situations effectively is a challenge. Training sessions enable staff to rehearse for these events and are recommended by several reports and guidelines. In this review we have focused on interactive training, this includes any element where the training is not solely didactic but provides opportunity for discussions, rehearsals, or interaction with faculty or technology. It is important to understand the effective methods and essential elements for successful emergency training so that resources can be appropriately targeted to improve outcomes. Objectives To assess the effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life‐threatening emergencies in hospital on patient outcomes, clinical care practices, or organisational practices, and to identify essential components of effective interactive emergency training programmes. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ERIC and two trials registers up to 11 March 2019. We searched references of included studies, conference proceedings, and contacted study authors. Selection criteria We included randomised trials and cluster‐randomised trials comparing interactive training for emergency situations with standard/no training. We defined emergency situations as those in which immediate lifesaving action is required, for example cardiac arrests and major haemorrhage. We included all studies where healthcare workers involved in providing direct clinical care were participants. We excluded studies outside of a hospital setting or where the intervention was not targeted at practicing healthcare workers. We included trials irrespective of publication status, date, and language. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included trial. Due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity in outcome measures, we were unable to perform the planned meta‐analysis. We provide a structured synthesis for the following outcomes: survival to hospital discharge, morbidity rate, protocol or guideline adherence, patient outcomes, clinical practice outcomes, and organisation‐of‐care outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations for each outcome. Main results We included 11 studies that reported on 2000 healthcare providers and over 300,000 patients; one study did not report the number of participants. Seven were cluster randomised trials and four were single centre studies. Four studies focused on obstetric training, three on obstetric and neonatal care, two on neonatal training, one on trauma and one on general resuscitations. The studies were spread across high‐, middle‐ and low‐income settings. Interactive training may make little or no difference in survival to hospital discharge for patients requiring resuscitation (1 study; 30 participants; 98 events; low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain if emergency training changes morbidity rate, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 1778 participants; 57,193 patients, when reported). We are uncertain if training alters healthcare providers' adherence to clinical protocols or guidelines, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 156 participants; 558 patients). We are uncertain if there were improvements in patient outcomes following interactive training for emergency situations, as we assessed the evidence as very low‐certainty (5 studies, 951 participants; 314,055 patients). We are uncertain if training for emergency situations improves clinical practice outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (4 studies; 1417 participants; 28,676 patients, when reported). Two studies reported organisation‐of‐care outcomes, we are uncertain if interactive emergency training has any effect on this outcome as the certainty of the evidence is very low (634 participants; 179,400 patient population). We examined prespecified subgroups and found no clear commonalities in effect of multidisciplinary training, location of training, duration of the course, or duration of follow‐up. We also examined areas arising from the studies including focus of training, proportion of staff trained, leadership of intervention, and incentive/trigger to participate, and again identified no clear mediating factors. The sources of funding for the studies were governmental, local organisations, or philanthropic donors. Authors' conclusions We are uncertain if there are any benefits of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life‐threatening emergencies in hospital as the certainty of the evidence is very low. We were unable to identify any factors that may have allowed us to identify an essential element of these interactive training courses. We found a lack of consistent reporting, which contributed to the inability to meta‐analyse across specialities. More trials are required to build the evidence base for the optimum way to prepare healthcare providers for rare life‐threatening emergency events. These trials need to be conducted with attention to outcomes important to patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers. It is vitally important to develop high‐quality studies adequately powered and with attention to minimising the risk of bias