15 research outputs found

    Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. FINDINGS: Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference -1·3 points (95% CI -3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5-5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8-6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). INTERPRETATION: Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. FUNDING: Arthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England)

    Chlorhexidine bathing and Clostridium difficile infection in a surgical intensive care unit

    No full text
    Background Clostridium difficile is the most common causative pathogen for hospital-acquired infections in the intensive care unit. This study evaluated the effect of chlorhexidine bathing every other day in preventing hospital-acquired C. difficile infection (CDI) using data from the CHlorhexidine Gluconate BATHing (CHG-BATH) randomized trial. Methods The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients acquiring CDIs among patients at risk for incident CDIs. Infections detected >48 h after randomization were classified as incident CDIs. Infections detected before or within 48 h of randomization were classified as prevalent CDIs. Results Of 38 patients (11.7%) who met criteria for potential CDI and underwent adjudication, 24 (7.4%) received oral or enema vancomycin, 18 (5.5%) had a positive C. difficile molecular assay, 14 (4.3%) received an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code for CDI, and 2 (0.6%) had possible pseudomembranous colitis on histopathology reports. The prevalence of CDI was 3.7% (6 of 164) in the soap and water arm and 4.3% (7 of 161) in the chlorhexidine arm. Compared with daily soap and water bathing, 2% chlorhexidine bathing every other day was not associated with the prevention of hospital-acquired CDI (1.3% [2 of 152] soap and water versus 2.0% [3 of 148] chlorhexidine, P = 0.68). Conclusions It is inconclusive if there was an association between chlorhexidine bathing and incidence of CDI among surgical intensive care unit patients in this study as statistical power was limited. There are limited published data evaluating the association between chlorhexidine bathing and CDI, and this study provides data for future systematic reviews and meta-analyses

    Chlorhexidine bathing and Clostridium difficile infection in a surgical intensive care unit

    No full text
    Background Clostridium difficile is the most common causative pathogen for hospital-acquired infections in the intensive care unit. This study evaluated the effect of chlorhexidine bathing every other day in preventing hospital-acquired C. difficile infection (CDI) using data from the CHlorhexidine Gluconate BATHing (CHG-BATH) randomized trial. Methods The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients acquiring CDIs among patients at risk for incident CDIs. Infections detected >48 h after randomization were classified as incident CDIs. Infections detected before or within 48 h of randomization were classified as prevalent CDIs. Results Of 38 patients (11.7%) who met criteria for potential CDI and underwent adjudication, 24 (7.4%) received oral or enema vancomycin, 18 (5.5%) had a positive C. difficile molecular assay, 14 (4.3%) received an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code for CDI, and 2 (0.6%) had possible pseudomembranous colitis on histopathology reports. The prevalence of CDI was 3.7% (6 of 164) in the soap and water arm and 4.3% (7 of 161) in the chlorhexidine arm. Compared with daily soap and water bathing, 2% chlorhexidine bathing every other day was not associated with the prevention of hospital-acquired CDI (1.3% [2 of 152] soap and water versus 2.0% [3 of 148] chlorhexidine, P = 0.68). Conclusions It is inconclusive if there was an association between chlorhexidine bathing and incidence of CDI among surgical intensive care unit patients in this study as statistical power was limited. There are limited published data evaluating the association between chlorhexidine bathing and CDI, and this study provides data for future systematic reviews and meta-analyses

    Should the nail plate be replaced or discarded after nail bed repair in children? Nail bed INJury Analysis (NINJA) randomised controlled trial: a health economic and statistical analysis plan

    No full text
    BACKGROUND:Nail bed trauma is one of the most common surgically treated paediatric hand injuries in the UK. Despite surgeons generally expressing a preference to replace the nail plate after repairing the nail bed, there is limited evidence to support this practice. We describe a statistical and health economic analysis plan (SHEAP) for the Nail bed INJury Analysis (NINJA) randomised controlled trial. METHODS/DESIGN:NINJA is a multicentre, pragmatic, superiority, parallel group randomised controlled trial of the treatment of nail bed injury in participants 16 years old or younger. The study aims to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of replacing the nail plate compared to discarding it following the repair of a nail bed injury. Surgical site infection at 7-10 days post-randomisation and cosmetic appearance of the nail are the co-primary outcomes for NINJA. Surgical site infection at 7-10 days post-randomisation will be evaluated using a logistic regression model adjusting for site as the sole stratification factor and allowing for intra-site correlation. Cosmetic appearance will be assessed via the newly developed Oxford Finger Nail Appearance Score and will be evaluated by use of a Mann-Whitney U test. An ordinal logistic regression model will also be used to assess the Oxford Finger Nail Appearance Score, adjusting for site and allowing for intra-site correlation. Secondary outcomes are measured at 7-10 days and 4 months and include the EQ-5D-Y questionnaire, pain at first dressing change, cost-effectiveness, late surgical site infection, and participant/parent satisfaction with nail healing. Missing primary outcome data will be summarised by treatment arm and investigated through a sensitivity analysis. Full details of the planned methods of analysis and descriptive statistics are described in this paper. The NINJA study protocol has been published previously. DISCUSSION:The planned analysis strategy for the NINJA trial has been set out here to reduce the risk of reporting bias and data-driven analysis. Any deviations from the SHEAP described in this paper will be detailed and justified fully in the final report of the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN, ISRCTN44551796 . Registered on 23 April 2018

    Grass vegetation of some old parks of Cherkassy region

    No full text
    The characteristic of the grass vegetation of some old parks of Cherkassy region is given

    Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial

    No full text
    Background: Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. Findings: Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5–5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8–6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). Interpretation: Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. </p

    Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL SNNAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

    No full text
    Background Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common debilitating injury that can cause instability of the knee. We aimed to investigate the best management strategy between reconstructive surgery and non-surgical treatment for patients with a non-acute ACL injury and persistent symptoms of instability. Methods We did a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial in 29 secondary care National Health Service orthopaedic units in the UK. Patients with symptomatic knee problems (instability) consistent with an ACL injury were eligible. We excluded patients with meniscal pathology with characteristics that indicate immediate surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either surgery (reconstruction) or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment), stratified by site and baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—4 domain version (KOOS4). This management design represented normal practice. The primary outcome was KOOS4 at 18 months after randomisation. The principal analyses were intention-to-treat based, with KOOS4 results analysed using linear regression. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10110685, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02980367. Findings Between Feb 1, 2017, and April 12, 2020, we recruited 316 patients. 156 (49%) participants were randomly assigned to the surgical reconstruction group and 160 (51%) to the rehabilitation group. Mean KOOS4 at 18 months was 73·0 (SD 18·3) in the surgical group and 64·6 (21·6) in the rehabilitation group. The adjusted mean difference was 7·9 (95% CI 2·5–13·2; p=0·0053) in favour of surgical management. 65 (41%) of 160 patients allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent surgery according to protocol within 18 months. 43 (28%) of 156 patients allocated to surgery did not receive their allocated treatment. We found no differences between groups in the proportion of intervention-related complications. Interpretation Surgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with non-acute ACL injury with persistent symptoms of instability was clinically superior and more cost-effective in comparison with rehabilitation management
    corecore