Management of adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care (UK FROST): a multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised clinical trial

Manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release are costly and invasive treatments for frozen shoulder, but their effectiveness remains uncertain. We compared these two surgical interventions with early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection. In this multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised trial, patients referred to secondary care for treatment of primary frozen shoulder were recruited from 35 hospital sites in the UK. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation (≥50%) in the affected shoulder. Participants were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive manipulation under anaesthesia, arthroscopic capsular release, or early structured physiotherapy. In manipulation under anaesthesia, the surgeon manipulated the affected shoulder to stretch and tear the tight capsule while the participant was under general anaesthesia, supplemented by a steroid injection. Arthroscopic capsular release, also done under general anaesthesia, involved surgically dividing the contracted anterior capsule in the rotator interval, followed by manipulation, with optional steroid injection. Both forms of surgery were followed by postprocedural physiotherapy. Early structured physiotherapy involved mobilisation techniques and a graduated home exercise programme supplemented by a steroid injection. Both early structured physiotherapy and postprocedural physiotherapy involved 12 sessions during up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS; 0-48) at 12 months after randomisation, analysed by initial randomisation group. We sought a target difference of 5 OSS points between physiotherapy and either form of surgery, or 4 points between manipulation and capsular release. The trial registration is ISRCTN48804508. Between April 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2017, we screened 914 patients, of whom 503 (55%) were randomly assigned. At 12 months, OSS data were available for 189 (94%) of 201 participants assigned to manipulation (mean estimate 38·3 points, 95% CI 36·9 to 39·7), 191 (94%) of 203 participants assigned to capsular release (40·3 points, 38·9 to 41·7), and 93 (94%) of 99 participants assigned to physiotherapy (37·2 points, 35·3 to 39·2). The mean group differences were 2·01 points (0·10 to 3·91) between the capsular release and manipulation groups, 3·06 points (0·71 to 5·41) between capsular release and physiotherapy, and 1·05 points (-1·28 to 3·39) between manipulation and physiotherapy. Eight serious adverse events were reported with capsular release and two with manipulation. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, manipulation under anaesthesia had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0·8632, compared with 0·1366 for physiotherapy and 0·0002 for capsular release). All mean differences on the assessment of shoulder pain and function (OSS) at the primary endpoint of 12 months were less than the target differences. Therefore, none of the three interventions were clinically superior. Arthoscopic capsular release carried higher risks, and manipulation under anaesthesia was the most cost-effective. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Publishedx by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Radiological outcomes following surgical fixation with wires versus moulded cast for patients with a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius: a radiographic analysis from the DRAFFT2 trial.

AIMS: The primary aim of this study was to report the radiological outcomes of patients with a dorsally displaced distal radius fracture who were randomized to a moulded cast or surgical fixation with wires following manipulation and closed reduction of their fracture. The secondary aim was to correlate radiological outcomes with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the year following injury. METHODS: Participants were recruited as part of DRAFFT2, a UK multicentre clinical trial. Participants were aged 16 years or over with a dorsally displaced distal radius fracture, and were eligible for the trial if they needed a manipulation of their fracture, as recommended by their treating surgeon. Participants were randomly allocated on a 1:1 ratio to moulded cast or Kirschner wires after manipulation of the fracture in the operating theatre. Standard posteroanterior and lateral radiographs were performed in the radiology department of participating centres at the time of the patient's initial assessment in the emergency department and six weeks postoperatively. Intraoperative fluoroscopic images taken at the time of fracture reduction were also assessed. RESULTS: Patients treated with surgical fixation with wires had less dorsal angulation of the radius versus those treated in a moulded cast at six weeks after manipulation of the fracture; the mean difference of -4.13° was statistically significant (95% confidence interval 5.82 to -2.45). There was no evidence of a difference in radial shortening. However, there was no correlation between these radiological measurements and PROMs at any timepoint in the 12 months post-injury. CONCLUSION: For patients with a dorsally displaced distal radius fracture treated with a closed manipulation, surgical fixation with wires leads to less dorsal angulation on radiographs at six weeks compared with patients treated in a moulded plaster cast alone. However, the difference in dorsal angulation was small and did not correlate with patient-reported pain and function

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Carbon fibre reinforced PEEK versus traditional metallic implants for orthopaedic trauma surgery: A systematic review.

Introduction: There is no literature review comparing outcomes of fixation using carbon-fibre-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR PEEK) compared to metal implants used in orthopaedic extremity trauma surgery. A systematic review was performed to compare CFR PEEK to metal implants for clinically-important fracture outcomes. Methods: A search of the online databases of PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Database was conducted. A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A meta-analyses was performed for functional outcomes in proximal humerus fractures converting the score differences to standard mean difference units. GRADE approach was used to determine the level of certainty of the estimates. Results: Two prospective randomised controlled trials and seven comparative observational studies with a total of 431 patients were included. Of the nine studies included, four compared the use of CFR PEEK against metal plates in proximal humerus fractures. Aggregated functional scores across the proximal humerus studies, there was a small signal of better improvement with CFR PEEK (SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.47, p = 0.08, low certainty). Greater odds of adverse events occurred in the metal group (OR 2.34, 95% CI 0.73 to 7.55, p = 0.15, low certainty). Conclusions: Low to very low certainty evidence suggests a small improvement in functional recovery with CFR PEEK in proximal humerus fractures. This may be mediated through a small reduction in major adverse events related to fracture healing and stability. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the widespread use of CFR PEEK implants in fracture fixation. Level of evidence: Level IV