Physical function in UK adults with osteogenesis imperfecta: a cross-sectional analysis of the RUDY study

© 2020, International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation. Summary: We describe the physical function in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) and explored clinical and non-clinical factors related to its impairment. Our data showed that physical dysfunction is a common feature of adults with OI, varying by OI severity, and mediated by the presence and quality of pain and fatigue symptoms. Introduction: There is a paucity of data describing physical function in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI). We investigated the effects of OI and its severity on physical function and explored the relationship between physical function and number of fractures and symptomatology. Methods: Adults with OI of different types were recruited from the RUDY study, an ongoing UK-based prospective cohort study. Participants completed demographic and clinical questions and questionnaires. These assessed physical function (SF-36), mobility (EQ-5D-5L and NEADL), fatigue (FACIT-F), and pain (SF-MQ-2). Scores were compared using parametric or non-parametric statistical analyses, whereas correlations between outcomes were examined using univariate and multivariate regression analysis. Results: Seventy-eight adults with OI aged 43.5 ± 14.5 years were enrolled (type I, 32; type III, 11; type IV, 10; unknown type, 26). Physical function (PCS, SF-36) was significantly lower in all participants than normative values (p < 0.001) and in type III than type I (p = 0.008). Mobility was significantly different across the types (EQ-5D-EL, p = 0.007; NEADL, p < 0.001), with type III having more severe problems, followed by types IV, unknown, and I. Physical function was associated with OI type (r = 0.26; p = 0.021), presence and quality of pain (r = − 0.57; p < 0.0001), and fatigue (r = − 0.51; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that physical function correlated independently with age, OI type, fatigue, and non-neuropathic pain. Conclusions: Individuals with OI display a marked deterioration in physical function during adulthood. This impairment varies in severity according to the OI phenotype and is associated with the presence of non-neuropathic pain and fatigue

Primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions: a comparison between patients with and without chronic pain after total knee replacement

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of patients experience chronic pain after total knee replacement (TKR). The impact of chronic pain after TKR on primary care services in the UK is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to compare primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions between patients with and without chronic pain after TKR. METHODS: Data from 5,055 patients who received TKR between 2009 and 2016 with anonymised linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold (CPRD) and English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) programme were analysed. The exposure time was from 10 years pre-operative to eight years post-operative. Patients with a score ≤ 14 on the Oxford Knee Score pain component scale at 6 months post-operative were classified as having chronic pain after TKR. Primary care consultations and prescribed pain medicines were quantified, and costs calculated based on national cost data. RESULTS: 721 patients (14%) had chronic pain after TKR. The prevalence and costs of primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions per year were consistently higher for patients with chronic pain after TKR compared with those without chronic pain after TKR; these differences were observed both before and after surgery. There was a substantial and sustained increase in the cost of opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients with chronic pain after TKR, peaking at seven years post-operative. CONCLUSIONS: Increased primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions associated with chronic pain after TKR represent a considerable financial cost to primary care services. Evaluation of interventions to reduce the risk of developing this pain condition and improve the early management of pain after TKR are needed to improve outcomes for patients and reduce costs to healthcare services. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05492-6

Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement: a population-based study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales

Objectives: To assess the value for money of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) compared with total knee replacement (TKR). Design: A lifetime Markov model provided the framework for the analysis. Setting: Data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales primarily informed the analysis. Participants: Propensity score matched patients in the NJR who received either a UKR or TKR. Interventions: UKR is a less invasive alternative to TKR, where only the compartment affected by osteoarthritis is replaced. Primary outcome measures: Incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare system costs. Results: The provision of UKR is expected to lead to a gain in QALYs compared with TKR for all age and gender subgroups (male: <60 years: 0.12, 60–75 years: 0.20, 75+ years: 0.19; female: <60 years: 0.10, 60–75 years: 0.28, 75+ years: 0.44) and a reduction in costs (male: <60: £−1223, 60–75 years: £−1355, 75+ years: £−2005; female: <60 years: £−601, 60–75 years: £−935, 75+ years: £−1102 per patient over the lifetime). UKR is expected to lead to a reduction in QALYs compared with TKR when performed by surgeons with low UKR utilisation but an increase among those with high utilisation (<10%, median 6%: −0.04, ≥10%, median 27%: 0.26). Regardless of surgeon usage, costs associated with UKR are expected to be lower than those of TKR (<10%: £−127, ≥10%: £−758). Conclusions: UKR can be expected to generate better health outcomes and lower lifetime costs than TKR. Surgeon usage of UKR does, however, have a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness of the procedure. To achieve the best results, surgeons need to perform a sufficient proportion of knee replacements as UKR. Low usage surgeons may therefore need to broaden their indications for UKR

Choosing between unicompartmental and total knee replacement: what can economic evaluations tell us? A Systematic Review

Background and objective Patients with anteromedial arthritis who require a knee replacement could receive either a unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) or a total knee replacement (TKR). This review has been undertaken to identify economic evaluations comparing UKR and TKR, evaluate the approaches that were taken in the studies, assess the quality of reporting of these evaluations, and consider what they can tell us about the relative value for money of the procedures. Methods A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database was undertaken in January 2016 to identify relevant studies. Study characteristics were described, the quality of reporting and methods assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, and study findings summarised. Results Twelve studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Five were within-study analyses, while another was based on a literature review. The remaining six studies were model-based analyses. All studies were informed by observational data. While methodological approaches varied, studies generally had either limited follow-up, did not fully account for baseline differences in patient characteristics or relied on previous research that did not. The quality of reporting was generally adequate across studies, except for considerations of the settings to which evaluations applied and the generalisability of the results to other decision-making contexts. In the short-term, UKR was generally associated with better health outcomes and lower costs than TKR. Initial cost savings associated with UKR seem to persist over patients’ lifetimes even after accounting for higher rates of revision. For older patients, initial health improvements also appear to be maintained, making UKR the dominant treatment choice. However, for younger patients findings for health outcomes and overall cost effectiveness are mixed, with the difference in health outcomes depending on the lifetime risk of revision and patient outcomes following revision. Conclusions UKR appears to be less costly than TKR. For older patients, UKR is also expected to lead to better health outcomes, making it the dominant choice; however, for younger patients health outcomes are more uncertain. Future research should better account for baseline differences in patient characteristics and consider how the relative value of UKR and TKR varies depending on patient and surgical factors

Ten-year patient-reported outcomes following total and minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis

Purpose For patients with medial compartment arthritis who have failed non-operative treatment, either a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can be undertaken. This analysis considers how the choice between UKA and TKA affects long-term patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods The Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT) and a cohort of patients who received a minimally invasive UKA provided data. Propensity score matching was used to identify comparable patients. Oxford Knee Score (OKS), its pain and function components, and the EuroQol 5 Domain (EQ-5D) index, estimated on the basis of OKS responses, were then compared over 10 years following surgery. Mixed-effects regressions for repeated measures were used to estimate the effect of patient characteristics and type of surgery on PROMs. Results Five-hundred and ninety UKAs were matched to the same number of TKAs. Receiving UKA rather than TKA was found to be associated with better scores for OKS, including both its pain and function components, and EQ-5D, with the differences expected to grow over time. UKA was also associated with an increased likelihood of patients achieving a successful outcome, with an increased chance of attaining minimally clinically important improvements in both OKS and EQ-5D, and an ‘excellent’ OKS. In addition, for both procedures, patients aged between 60 and 70 and better pre-operative scores were associated with better post-operative outcomes. Conclusion Minimally invasive UKAs performed on patients with the appropriate indications led to better patient-reported pain and function scores than TKAs performed on comparable patients. UKA can lead to better long-term quality of life than TKA and this should be considered alongside risk of revision when choosing between the procedures

Towards UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE): protocol for an evaluation of the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up, and the production of consensus-based recommendations

Introduction: Hip and knee arthroplasties have revolutionised the management of degenerative joint diseases and, due to an ageing population, are becoming increasingly common. Follow-up of joint prostheses is to identify problems in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients due to infection, osteolysis, bone loss or potential peri-prosthetic fracture, enabling timely intervention to prevent catastrophic failure at a later date. Early revision is usually more straight-forward surgically and less traumatic for the patient. However, routine long-term follow-up is costly and requires considerable clinical time. Therefore, some centres in the UK have curtailed this aspect of primary hip and knee arthroplasty services, doing so without an evidence-base that such disinvestment is clinically- or cost-effective. Methods: Given the timeline from joint replacement to revision, conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine potential consequences of disinvestment in hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up is not feasible. Furthermore the low revision rates of modern prostheses, less than 10% at 10 years, would necessitate thousands of patients to adequately power such a study. The huge variation in follow-up practice across the UK also limits the generalisability of an RCT. This study will therefore use a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence- and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Four interconnected work packages will be completed: 1) a systematic literature review; 2a) analysis of routinely-collected NHS data from five national datasets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery; 2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery; 3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models; 4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document which includes a stratification algorithm to determine appropriate follow-up care for an individual patient

Improving patient outcomes in fibrous dysplasia/McCune-Albright syndrome: an international multidisciplinary workshop to inform an international partnership.

Bone and mineral researc

Post-operative determinants of chronic pain after primary knee replacement surgery:Analysis of data on 258,386 patients from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR)

Objective: To identify post-operative risk factors for the development of chronic pain after knee replacement. Design: Primary knee replacements in persons aged ≥18 years between April 2008 and December 2016 from the National Joint Registry, linked with English Hospital Episode Statistics data, and Patient Reported Outcome Measures. The outcome was chronic pain 6-months after surgery (Oxford Knee pain score). Logistic regression modelling identified risk factors for chronic pain outcome. Results: 258,386 patients; 56.7% women; average age 70.1 years (SD ​± ​8.8 years). 43,702 (16.9%) were identified as having chronic pain 6-months post-surgery. Within 3 months of surgery complications were uncommon: intra-operative complications 1224 (0.5%); ≥1 medical complication 6073 (2.4%)); 32,930 (12.7%) hospital readmissions; 3848 (1.5%) re-operation; 835 (0.3%) revision. Post-surgical risk factors of chronic pain were: mechanical complication of prosthesis odds ratio (OR) 1.56 (95% Confidence Interval 1.35, 1.80); surgical site infection OR 1.13 (0.99, 1.29); readmission OR 1.47 (1.42, 1.52); re-operation OR 1.39 (1.27, 1.51); revision OR 1.92 (1.64, 2.25); length of stay e.g. 6+ vs. <2 days OR 1.48 (1.35, 1.63), blood transfusion OR 0.47 (0.26, 0.86) and myocardial infarction OR 0.69 (0.49, 0.97). Discriminatory ability of the model was only fair (c-statistic 0.71) indicating that post-surgical predictors explain a limited amount of variability in chronic pain. Conclusions: We identified a number of post-operative factors relating to the operation and early recovery that are associated with chronic pain following primary knee replacement. The model had weak discriminatory ability indicating that there remains considerable unexplained variability in chronic pain outcome

UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE): what does analysis of linked, routinely collected national datasets tell us about mid-late term revision risk after knee replacement?

OBJECTIVE: To identify patients at risk of mid-late term revision of knee replacement (KR) to inform targeted follow-up. DESIGN: Analysis of linked national datasets from primary and secondary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD), National Joint Registry (NJR), English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)). PARTICIPANTS: Primary elective KRs aged ≥18 years. EVENT OF INTEREST: Revision surgery ≥5 years (mid-late term) postprimary KR. STATISTICAL METHODS: Cox regression modelling to ascertain risk factors of mid-late term revision. HRs and 95% CIs assessed association of sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, medication, surgical variables and PROMs with mid-late term revision. RESULTS: NJR-HES-PROMs data were available from 2008 to 2011 on 188 509 KR. CPRD GOLD-HES data covered 1995-2011 on 17 378 KR. Patients had minimum 5 years postprimary surgery to end 2016. Age and gender distribution were similar across datasets; mean age 70 years, 57% female. In NJR, there were 8607 (4.6%) revisions, median time-to-revision postprimary surgery 1.8 years (range 0-8.8), with 1055 (0.6%) mid-late term revisions; in CPRD GOLD, 877 (5.1%) revisions, median time-to-revision 4.2 years (range 0.02-18.3), with 352 (2.0%) mid-late term revisions.Reduced risk of revision after 5 years was associated with older age (HR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.95 to 0.96), obesity (0.70; 0.56 to 0.88), living in deprived areas (0.71; 0.58 to 0.87), non-white ethnicity (0.58; 0.43 to 0.78), better preoperative pain and functional limitation (0.42; 0.33 to 0.53), better 6-month postoperative pain and function (0.33; 0.26 to 0.41) or moderate anxiety/depression (0.73; 0.63 to 0.83) at primary surgery.Increased risk was associated with male gender (1.32; 1.04 to 1.67); when anticonvulsants (gabapentin and pregabalin) (1.58; 1.01 to 2.47) or opioids (1.36; 1.08 to 1.71) were required prior to primary surgery.No implant factors were identified. CONCLUSION: The risk of mid-late term KR revision is very low. Increased risk of revision is associated with patient case-mix factors, and there is evidence of sociodemographic inequality

Association between outpatient follow-up and incidence of revision after knee and hip replacements: a population-based cohort study

Background: Follow-up visits 5 or 7 years after surgery were recommended for people having primary hip or knee replacement. The benefits of this practice to patients and the healthcare system, however, have not yet been specifically examined. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between long-term follow-up outpatient hospital visits and revision rates for patients who undergo primary knee or hip replacement surgery. Methods: Cohorts were identified for patients undergoing knee or hip replacement surgery using medical records from primary care practices within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD dataset linked to hospital records from the English Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data. Two groups of patients were compared in terms of revision and mortality rates: those with at least one long-term (between five and 10 years since primary surgery) follow-up visit at the orthopaedic department (‘Follow-up’ group), and those without (‘No follow-up’ group). Results: A total of 9856 (4349 in the Follow-up group) patients with knee replacement and 10,837 (4870 in the Follow-up group) with hip replacement were included in the analysis. For knee replacement, the incidence of revision was 3.6% for those followed-up and 0.6% for those not followed-up. An adjusted regression model confirmed the difference in the hazard ratio (HR) for revision was statistically significant (HR: 5.65 [95% CI 3.62 to 8.81]). Mortality at 4 years was lower for the Follow-up (17%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but this difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.95 [0.84 to 1.07]). For hip replacement, the incidence of revision rates were 3.2 and 1.4% for the follow-up and not follow-up groups, respectively, the difference being statistically significant (HR: 2.34 [1.71 to 3.20]). Mortality was lower for the Follow-up (15%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.91 [0.81 to 1.02]). Conclusion: Patients attending follow-up orthopaedic consultations show a higher risk of revision surgery compared to those who are not followed-up. A cause for this difference could not be identified in this study but a likely explanation is that surgeons play an effective role as ultimate arbitrators when identifying patients to be included in long-term follow-up lists