Factors affecting ventriculoperitoneal shunt revision: a post hoc analysis of the British Antibiotic and Silver Impregnated Catheter Shunt multicenter randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The British Antibiotic and Silver Impregnated Catheter Shunt (BASICS) trial established level I evidence of the superiority of antibiotic-impregnated catheters in the prevention of infection of newly implanted ventriculoperitoneal shunts (VPSs). A wealth of patient, shunt, and surgery-specific data were collected from trial participants beyond that of the prespecified trial objectives. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the BASICS survival data explores the impact of patient age, hydrocephalus etiology, catheter type, valve type, and previous external ventricular drain on the risk of infection or mechanical failure. Time to failure was analyzed using Fine and Gray survival regression models for competing risk. RESULTS: Among 1594 participants, 75 patients underwent revision for infection and 323 for mechanical failure. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an increased risk of shunt infection associated with patient ages < 1 month (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 4.48, 95% CI 2.06-9.72; p < 0.001) and 1 month to < 1 year (sHR 2.67, 95% CI 1.27-5.59; p = 0.009), as well as for adults with posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus (sHR 2.75, 95% CI 1.21-6.26; p = 0.016). Age ≥ 65 years was found to be independently associated with reduced infection risk (sHR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.69; p = 0.007). Antibiotic-impregnated catheter use was also associated with reduced infection risk (sHR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22-0.84; p = 0.014). Independent risk factors predisposing to mechanical failure were age < 1 month (sHR 1.51, 95% CI 1.03-2.21; p = 0.032) and 1 month to < 1 year (sHR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95-1.81; p = 0.046). Age ≥ 65 years was demonstrated to be the only independent protective factor against mechanical failure risk (sHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.40-0.94; p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Age is the predominant risk for VPS revision for infection and/or mechanical failure, with neonates and infants being the most vulnerable.

Managing clustering effects and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised surgical trials: a review of existing guidance.

BACKGROUND: The complexities associated with delivering randomised surgical trials, such as clustering effects, by centre or surgeon, and surgical learning, are well known. Despite this, approaches used to manage these complexities, and opinions on these, vary. Guidance documents have been developed to support clinical trial design and reporting. This work aimed to identify and examine existing guidance and consider its relevance to clustering effects and learning curves within surgical trials. METHODS: A review of existing guidelines, developed to inform the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials, is undertaken. Guidelines were identified using an electronic search, within the Equator Network, and by a targeted search of those endorsed by leading UK funding bodies, regulators, and medical journals. Eligible documents were compared against pre-specified key criteria to identify gaps or inconsistencies in recommendations. RESULTS: Twenty-eight documents were eligible (12 Equator Network; 16 targeted search). Twice the number of guidance documents targeted design (n/N=20/28, 71%) than analysis (n/N=10/28, 36%). Managing clustering by centre through design was well documented. Clustering by surgeon had less coverage and contained some inconsistencies. Managing the surgical learning curve, or changes in delivery over time, through design was contained within several documents (n/N=8/28, 29%), of which one provided guidance on reporting this and restricted to early phase studies only. Methods to analyse clustering effects and learning were provided in five and four documents respectively (N=28). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first review as to the extent to which existing guidance for designing and analysing randomised surgical trials covers the management of clustering, by centre or surgeon, and the surgical learning curve. Twice the number of identified documents targeted design aspects than analysis. Most notably, no single document exists for use when designing these studies, which may lead to inconsistencies in practice. The development of a single document, with agreed principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios, is needed.

The Impact of Radiotherapy on Patient-reported Outcomes of Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction With and Without Mesh.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of PMRT on PROs of IBBR performed with and without mesh. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PMRT is increasingly given to improve breast cancer outcomes but can adversely impact complications after IBBR.Little; however, is known about the impact of PMRT on the PROs of IBBR, especially when mesh is used. METHODS: The implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation prospective cohort study recruited consecutive women undergoing immediate IBBR from 81 UK breast and plastic surgical units. Demographic, operative, oncological, and 3-month complication data were collected, and patients consented to receive validated PRO questionnaires at 18-months. The association between IBBR, PMRT, and PROs were investigated using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for clinically-relevant confounders and including a random-effect to account for potential clustering by center. RESULTS: A total of 1163 women consented to receive 18-month questionnaires of whom 730 (63%) completed it. Patients undergoing PMRT (214 patients) reported worse PROs in 3 BREAST-Q domains: satisfaction with breasts [-6.27 points, P = 0.008, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-10.91, -1.63)], satisfaction with outcome [-7.53 points, P = 0.002, CI (-12.20, -2.85)] and physical well-being [-6.55 points, P < 0.001, CI (-9.43, -3.67)]. Overall satisfaction was worse in the PMRT group [OR 0.497, P = 0.002, CI (0.32, 0.77)]. These effects were not ameliorated by mesh use. CONCLUSIONS: PMRT may adversely affect PROs after IBBR irrespective of whether mesh is used. These findings should be discussed with all patients considering IBBR and when indications for PMRT are borderline to enable informed decision-making regarding oncological and reconstructive treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN37664281.

Infant hydrocephalus: what valve first?

PURPOSE: To review the use of different valve types in infants with hydrocephalus, in doing so, determining whether an optimal valve choice exists for this patient cohort. METHODS: We conducted (1) a literature review for all studies describing valve types used (programmable vs. non-programmable, valve size, pressure) in infants (≤ 2 years) with hydrocephalus, (2) a review of data from the pivotal BASICS trial for infant patients and (3) a separate, institutional cohort study from Alder Hey Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The primary outcome was any revision not due to infection. RESULTS: The search identified 19 studies that were included in the review. Most did not identify a superior valve choice between programmable and non-programmable, small compared to ultra-small, and differential pressure compared to flow-regulating valves. Five studies investigated a single-valve type without a comparator group. The BASICS data identified 391 infants, with no statistically significant difference between gravitational and programmable subgroups. The institutional data from our tertiary referral centre did not reveal any significant difference in failure rate between valve subtypes. CONCLUSION: Our review highlights the challenges of valve selection in infant hydrocephalus, reiterating that the concept of an optimal valve choice in this group remains a controversial one. While the infant-hydrocephalic population is at high risk of valve failure, heterogeneity and a lack of direct comparison between valves in the literature limit our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. Data that does exist suggests at present that there is no difference in non-infective failure rate are increasing in number, with the British valve subtypes in infant hydrocephalus, supported by both the randomised trial and institutional data in this study.

Neurosurgical CSF Diversion in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: A Narrative Review.

The prevalence of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), a complex disorder, is increasing globally in association with obesity. The IIH syndrome occurs as the result of elevated intracranial pressure, which can cause permanent visual impairment and loss if not adequately managed. CSF diversion via ventriculoperitoneal and lumboperitoneal shunts is a well-established strategy to protect vision in medically refractory cases. Success of CSF diversion is compromised by high rates of complication; including over-drainage, obstruction, and infection. This review outlines currently used techniques and technologies in the management of IIH. Neurosurgical CSF diversion is a vital component of the multidisciplinary management of IIH.

A randomised controlled trial comparing palate surgery at 6 months versus 12 months of age (the TOPS trial): a statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Cleft palate is among the most common birth abnormalities. The success of primary surgery in the early months of life is crucial for successful feeding, hearing, dental development, and facial growth. Over recent decades, age at palatal surgery in infancy has reduced. The Timing Of Primary Surgery for cleft palate (TOPS) trial aims to determine whether, in infants with cleft palate, it is better to perform primary surgery at age 6 or 12 months (corrected for gestational age). METHODS/DESIGN: The TOPS trial is an international, two-arm, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. The primary outcome is insufficient velopharyngeal function at 5 years of age. Secondary outcomes, measured at 12 months, 3 years, and 5 years of age, include measures of speech development, safety of the procedure, hearing level, middle ear function, dentofacial development, and growth. The analysis approaches for primary and secondary outcomes are described here, as are the descriptive statistics which will be reported. The TOPS protocol has been published previously. DISCUSSION: This paper provides details of the planned statistical analyses for the TOPS trial and will reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias and data-driven results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00993551 . Registered on 9 October 2009.

Adding a fourth rater to three had little impact in pre-linguistic outcome classification.

The consequence of differing levels of agreement across raters is rarely studied. Subsequently, knowledge is limited on how number of raters affects the outcome. The present study aimed to examine the impact on pre-linguistic outcome classifications of 12-month-old infants when using four raters compared to three. Thirty experienced Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) from five countries assessed 20 minute video recordings of four 12-month-old infants during a play session with a parent. One recording was assessed twice. A naturalistic listening method in real time was used. This involved: (1) assessing, each syllable as canonical or non-canonical, and (2) following the recording, assessing if the infant was babbling canonically and listing the syllables the infant produced with command. The impact that four raters had on outcome, compared to three, was explored by classifying the outcome based on all possible combinations of three raters and determining the frequency that the outcome assessment changed when a fourth assessor was added. Results revealed that adding a fourth rater had a minimal impact on canonical babbling ratio assessment. Presence/absence of canonical babbling and size of consonant inventory showed a negligible impact on three out of four recordings, whereas the size of syllable inventory and presence/absence of canonical babbling was minimally affected in one recording by adding a fourth rater. In conclusion, adding a forth rater in assessment of pre-linguistic utterances in 12-month-old infants with naturalistic assessment in real time does not affect outcome classifications considerably. Thus, using three raters, as opposed to four, is recommended.

Managing clustering effects and learning effects in the design and analysis of multicentre randomised trials: a survey to establish current practice.

BACKGROUND: Patient outcomes can depend on the treating centre, or health professional, delivering the intervention. A health professional's skill in delivery improves with experience, meaning that outcomes may be associated with learning. Considering differences in intervention delivery at trial design will ensure that any appropriate adjustments can be made during analysis. This work aimed to establish practice for the allowance of clustering and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised multicentre trials. METHODS: A survey that drew upon quotes from existing guidelines, references to relevant publications and example trial scenarios was delivered. Registered UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units were invited to participate. RESULTS: Forty-four Units participated (N = 50). Clustering was managed through design by stratification, more commonly by centre than by treatment provider. Managing learning by design through defining a minimum expertise level for treatment provider was common (89%). One-third reported experience in expertise-based designs. The majority of Units had adjusted for clustering during analysis, although approaches varied. Analysis of learning was rarely performed for the main analysis (n = 1), although it was explored by other means. The insight behind the approaches used within and reasons for, or against, alternative approaches were provided. CONCLUSIONS: Widespread awareness of challenges in designing and analysing multicentre trials is identified. Approaches used, and opinions on these, vary both across and within Units, indicating that approaches are dependent on the type of trial. Agreeing principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios should be considered.

Silver-impregnated, antibiotic-impregnated or non-impregnated ventriculoperitoneal shunts to prevent shunt infection: the BASICS three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt to treat hydrocephalus is one of the most common neurosurgical procedures worldwide. Shunt infection affects up to 15% of patients, resulting in long hospital stays, multiple surgeries and reduced cognition and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this trial was to determine whether or not antibiotic-impregnated ventriculoperitoneal shunts (hereafter referred to as antibiotic shunts) (e.g. impregnated with rifampicin and clindamycin) or silver-impregnated ventriculoperitoneal shunts (hereafter referred to as silver shunts) reduce infection compared with standard ventriculoperitoneal shunts (hereafter referred to as standard shunts). DESIGN: This was a three-arm, superiority, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Patients and a central primary outcome review panel, but not surgeons or operating staff, were blinded to the type of ventriculoperitoneal shunt inserted. SETTING: The trial was set in 21 neurosurgical wards across the UK and the Republic of Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were patients with hydrocephalus of any aetiology who were undergoing insertion of their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were allocated 1 : 1 : 1 by pressure-sealed envelope to receive a standard non-impregnated, silver-impregnated or antibiotic-impregnated ventriculoperitoneal shunt at the time of insertion. Ventriculoperitoneal shunts are medical devices, and were used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions for their intended purpose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure due to infection. Secondary outcomes were time to failure for any cause, reason for failure (infection, mechanical), types of ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection, rate of infection after first clean (non-infected) revision and health economics. Outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between 26 June 2013 and 9 October 2017, 1605 patients from neonate to 91 years of age were randomised to the trial: n = 36 to the standard shunt, n = 538 to the antibiotic shunt and n = 531 to the silver shunt. Patients who did not receive a ventriculoperitoneal shunt (n = 4) or who had an infection at the time of insertion (n = 7) were not assessed for the primary outcome. Infection occurred in 6.0% (n = 32/533) of those who received the standard shunt, in 2.2% (n = 12/535) of those who received the antibiotic shunt and in 5.9% (n = 31/526) of those who received the silver shunt. Compared with the standard shunt, antibiotic shunts were associated with a lower rate of infection (cause-specific hazard ratio 0.38, 97.5% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.80) and a decreased probability of infection (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.38, 97.5% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.80). Silver shunts were not associated with a lower rate of infection than standard shunts (cause-specific hazard ratio 0.99, 97.5% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.74). The ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure rate attributable to any cause was 25.0% overall and did not differ between arms. Antibiotic shunts save £135,753 per infection avoided. There were no serious adverse events. LIMITATIONS: It was not possible to blind treating neurosurgeons to the ventriculoperitoneal shunt type. The return rate for patient-reported outcomes was low. Limitations to the economic evaluation included failure to obtain Hospital Episode Statistics data from NHS Digital, as per protocol. Reliance on patient-level information and costing systems data mitigated these limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic shunts have a reduced infection rate compared with standard shunts, whereas silver shunts do not. Antibiotic shunts are cost-saving. FUTURE WORK: A sample collection has been established that will enable the study of surrogate markers of ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection in cerebrospinal fluid or blood using molecular techniques. A post hoc analysis to study factors related to shunt failure will be performed as part of a future study. An impact analysis to assess change in practice is planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49474281. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Hydrocephalus (commonly known as 'water on the brain') is a condition that can affect all age groups, from babies to the elderly. In hydrocephalus, there is an accumulation of the normal brain fluid in the fluid cavities (ventricles) of the brain. Untreated, hydrocephalus can be life-threatening. The most common treatment involves an operation to insert a tube into the swollen ventricles to drain off the excess fluid. This is called a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. In the UK, 3000­3500 shunt operations are performed each year. The main risks of a shunt operation are infection (surgical meningitis) and blockage without infection. Infection results in the need for at least two further surgeries, antibiotic treatment and a prolonged hospital stay (minimum of 2 weeks). Shunt infections can affect mental abilities and can be life-threatening. People who have blockages without infection, on the other hand, usually need only a single operation to replace the blocked part and only a few days in hospital. Two new types of shunt catheter have been introduced to try to reduce shunt infection: antibiotic-impregnated shunts and silver-impregnated shunts. This study was designed to assess whether or not either of these new shunts reduce infection compared with standard shunts. This study also included an analysis of the cost and health benefits of the different shunts used. A total of 1605 children and adults, who were treated in neurosurgical units across the UK and the Republic of Ireland, participated in this study. Consent was provided by all participants in the trial. Each participant had an equal chance of receiving one of the three shunt types. Shunt infection occurred in 6% of participants receiving standard shunts, 5.9% of participants receiving silver-impregnated shunts and 2.2% of participants receiving antibiotic-impregnated shunts. This study has demonstrated a major reduction in shunt infections in new shunts when using antibiotic-impregnated shunts compared with standard or silver-impregnated shunts. A health economic analysis has indicated that antibiotic-impregnated shunts are cost-saving.

Antibiotic or silver versus standard ventriculoperitoneal shunts (BASICS): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt for hydrocephalus is one of the commonest neurosurgical procedures worldwide. Infection of the implanted shunt affects up to 15% of these patients, resulting in prolonged hospital treatment, multiple surgeries, and reduced cognition and quality of life. Our aim was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antibiotic (rifampicin and clindamycin) or silver shunts compared with standard shunts at reducing infection. METHODS: In this parallel, multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, we included patients with hydrocephalus of any aetiology undergoing insertion of their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt irrespective of age at 21 regional adult and paediatric neurosurgery centres in the UK and Ireland. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1 in random permuted blocks of three or six) to receive standard shunts (standard shunt group), antibiotic-impregnated (0·15% clindamycin and 0·054% rifampicin; antibiotic shunt group), or silver-impregnated shunts (silver shunt group) through a randomisation sequence generated by an independent statistician. All patients and investigators who recorded and analysed the data were masked for group assignment, which was only disclosed to the neurosurgical staff at the time of operation. Participants receiving a shunt without evidence of infection at the time of insertion were followed up for at least 6 months and a maximum of 2 years. The primary outcome was time to shunt failure due the infection and was analysed with Fine and Gray survival regression models for competing risk by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN 49474281. FINDINGS: Between June 26, 2013, and Oct 9, 2017, we assessed 3505 patients, of whom 1605 aged up to 91 years were randomly assigned to receive either a standard shunt (n=536), an antibiotic-impregnated shunt (n=538), or a silver shunt (n=531). 1594 had a shunt inserted without evidence of infection at the time of insertion (533 in the standard shunt group, 535 in the antibiotic shunt group, and 526 in the silver shunt group) and were followed up for a median of 22 months (IQR 10-24; 53 withdrew from follow-up). 32 (6%) of 533 evaluable patients in the standard shunt group had a shunt revision for infection, compared with 12 (2%) of 535 evaluable patients in the antibiotic shunt group (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR] 0·38, 97·5% CI 0·18-0·80, p=0·0038) and 31 (6%) of 526 patients in the silver shunt group (0·99, 0·56-1·74, p=0·96). 135 (25%) patients in the standard shunt group, 127 (23%) in the antibiotic shunt group, and 134 (36%) in the silver shunt group had adverse events, which were not life-threatening and were mostly related to valve or catheter function. INTERPRETATION: The BASICS trial provides evidence to support the adoption of antibiotic shunts in UK patients who are having their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt insertion. This practice will benefit patients of all ages by reducing the risk and harm of shunt infection. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Timing Of Primary Surgery for cleft palate (TOPS): protocol for a randomised trial of palate surgery at 6 months versus 12 months of age.

INTRODUCTION: Cleft palate is among the most common birth abnormalities. The success of primary surgery in the early months of life is crucial for successful feeding, speech, hearing, dental development and facial growth. Over recent decades, age at palatal surgery in infancy has reduced. This has led to palatal closure in one-stage procedures being carried out around the age of 12 months, but in some cases as early as 6 months. The primary objective of the Timing Of Primary Surgery for Cleft Palate (TOPS)trial is to determine whether surgery for cleft palate performed at 6 or 12 months of age is most beneficial for speech outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Infants with a diagnosis of non-syndromic isolated cleft palate will be randomised to receive standardised primary surgery (Sommerlad technique) for closure of the cleft at either 6 months or 12 months, corrected for gestational age. The primary outcome will be perceived insufficient velopharyngeal function at 5 years of age. Secondary outcomes measured across 12 months, 3 years and 5 years will include growth, safety of the procedure, dentofacial development, speech, hearing level and middle ear function. Video and audio recordings of speech will be collected in a standardised age-appropriate manner and analysed independently by multiple speech and language therapists. The trial aims to recruit and follow-up 300 participants per arm. Data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle using a 5% significance level. All analyses will be prespecified within a full and detailed statistical analysis plan. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been sought in each participating country according to country-specific procedures. Trial results will be presented at conferences, published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated through relevant patient support groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00993551; Pre-results.

Funders improved the management of learning and clustering effects through design and analysis of randomized trials involving surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide insight into current practice in planning for, and acknowledging, the presence of learning and clustering effects, by treating center and surgeon, when developing randomized surgical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Complexities associated with delivering surgical interventions, such as clustering effects, by center or surgeon, and surgical learning should be considered at trial design. Main trial publications, within the wider literature, under-report these considerations. Funded applications, within a 4-year period, from a leading UK funding body were searched. Data were extracted on considerations for learning and clustering effects and the driver, funder, or applicant, behind these. RESULTS: Fifty trials were eligible. Managing learning through establishing predefined center and surgeon credentials was common. One planned exploratory analysis of learning within center, and two within surgeon. Clustering, by site and surgeon, was often managed through stratifying randomization, with 81% and 60%, respectively, also planning to subsequently adjust analysis. One-third of responses to referees contained funder led changes accounting for learning and/or clustering. CONCLUSION: This review indicates that researchers do consider impact of learning and clustering, by center and surgeon, during trial development. Furthermore, the funder is identified as a potential driver of considerations.

Visual Function Questionnaire as an outcome measure for homonymous hemianopia: subscales and supplementary questions, analysis from the VISION trial.

BACKGROUND: We conduct supplementary analyses of the NEI VFQ-25 data to evaluate where changes occurred within subscales of the NEI VFQ-25 leading to change in the composite scores between the three treatment arms, and evaluate the NEI VFQ-25 with and without the Neuro 10 supplement. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, parallel, single-blind, three-arm RCT of fourteen UK acute stroke units was conducted. Stroke survivors with homonymous hemianopia were recruited. Interventions included: Fresnel prisms for minimum 2 h, 5 days/week over 6-weeks (Arm a), Visual search training for minimum 30 min, 5 days/week over 6-weeks (Arm b) and standard care-information only (Arm c). Primary and secondary outcomes (including NEI VFQ-25 data) were measured at baseline, 6, 12 and 26 weeks after randomisation. RESULTS: Eighty seven patients were recruited (69% male; mean age (SD) equal to 69 (12) years). At 26 weeks, outcomes for 24, 24 and 22 patients, respectively, were compared to baseline. NEI VFQ-25 (with and without Neuro 10) responses improved from baseline to 26 weeks with visual search training compared to Fresnel prisms and standard care. In subscale analysis, the most impacted across all treatment arms was 'driving' whilst the least impacted were 'colour vision' and 'ocular pain'. CONCLUSIONS: Composite scores differed systematically for the NEI VFQ-25 (Neuro 10) versus NEI VFQ-25 at all time points. For subscale scores, descriptive statistics suggest clinically relevant improvement in distance activities and vision-specific dependency subscales for NEI VFQ-25 scores in the visual search treatment arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05956042.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Use of biological or synthetic mesh might improve outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-breast reconstruction with implants or expanders at the time of mastectomy-but there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the safety or effectiveness of the technique. We aimed to establish the short-term safety of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction performed with and without mesh, to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future randomised clinical trial comparing different breast reconstruction techniques. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we consecutively recruited women aged 16 years or older who had any type of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction for malignancy or risk reduction, with any technique, at 81 participating breast and plastic surgical units in the UK. Data about patient demographics and operative, oncological, and complication details were collected before and after surgery. Outcomes of interest were implant loss (defined as unplanned removal of the expander or implant), infection requiring treatment with antibiotics or surgery, unplanned return to theatre, and unplanned re-admission to hospital for complications of reconstructive surgery, up to 3 months after reconstruction and assessed by clinical review or patient self-report. Follow-up is complete. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN37664281. FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, 2108 patients had 2655 mastectomies with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction at 81 units across the UK. 1650 (78%) patients had planned single-stage reconstructions (including 12 patients who had a different technique per breast). 1376 (65%) patients had reconstruction with biological (1133 [54%]) or synthetic (243 [12%]) mesh, 181 (9%) had non-mesh submuscular or subfascial implants, 440 (21%) had dermal sling implants, 42 (2%) had pre-pectoral implants, and 79 (4%) had other or a combination of implants. 3-month outcome data were available for 2081 (99%) patients. Of these patients, 182 (9%, 95% CI 8-10) experienced implant loss, 372 (18%, 16-20) required re-admission to hospital, and 370 (18%, 16-20) required return to theatre for complications within 3 months of their initial surgery. 522 (25%, 95% CI 23-27) patients required treatment for an infection. The rates of all of these complications are higher than those in the National Quality Standards (<5% for re-operation, re-admission, and implant loss, and <10% for infection). INTERPRETATION: Complications after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction are higher than recommended by national standards. A randomised clinical trial is needed to establish the optimal approach to immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Association of Breast Surgery, and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

Randomized trials involving surgery did not routinely report considerations of learning and clustering effects.

OBJECTIVES: To establish current practice of the management of learning and clustering effects, by treating center and surgeon, in the design and analysis of randomized surgical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The need for more surgical randomized trials is well recognized, and in recent years conduct has grown. Rigorous design, conduct, and analyses of such studies is important. Two methodological challenges are clustering effects, by center or surgeon, and surgical learning on trial outcomes. Sixteen leading journals were searched for randomized trials published within a two-year period. Data were extracted on considerations for learning and clustering effects. RESULTS: A total of 247 eligible studies were identified. Trials accounted for learning with 2% using an expertise-based design and 39% accounting for expertise by predefining surgeon credentials. One study analyzed learning. Clustering, by site and surgeon, was commonly managed by stratifying randomization, although one-third of center and 40% of surgeon stratified trials did not also adjust analysis. CONCLUSION: Considerations for surgical learning and clustering effects are often unclear. Methods are varied and demonstrate poor adherence to established reporting guidelines. It is recommended that researchers consider these issues on a trial-by-trial basis, and report methods or justify where not needed to inform interpretation of results.

Nerve root block versus surgery (NERVES) for the treatment of radicular pain secondary to a prolapsed intervertebral disc herniation: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect over 3% of the UK population at any time and is often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc (PID). Although the duration and severity of symptoms can vary, pain persisting beyond 6 weeks is unlikely to recover spontaneously and may require investigation and treatment. Currently, there is no specific care pathway for sciatica in the National Health Service (NHS), and no direct comparison exists between surgical microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). The NERVES (NErve Root block VErsus Surgery) trial aims to address this by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical microdiscectomy and TFESI to treat sciatica secondary to a PID. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 163 patients were recruited from NHS out-patient clinics across the UK and randomised to either microdiscectomy or TFESI. Adult patients (aged 16-65 years) with sciatic pain endured for between 6 weeks and 12 months are eligible if their symptoms have not been improved by at least one form of conservative (non-operative) treatment and they are willing to provide consent. Patients will be excluded if they present with neurological deficit or have had previous surgery at the same level. The primary outcome is patient-reported disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks post randomisation and secondary outcomes include disability and pain scales using numerical pain ratings, modified Roland-Morris and Core Outcome Measures Index at 12-weekly intervals, and patient satisfaction at 54 weeks. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life (QOL) will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5 L and self-report cost data at 12-weekly intervals and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. Adverse event data will be collected. Analysis will follow the principle of intention-to-treat. DISCUSSION: NERVES is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy to local anaesthetic and steroid administered via TFESI. The results of this research may facilitate the development of an evidence-based treatment strategy for patients with sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN04820368 . Registered on 5 June 2014. EudraCT EudraCT2014-002751-25. Registered on 8 October 2014.

Adherence to best practice consensus guidelines for implant-based breast reconstruction: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire survey.

INTRODUCTION: The 2008 National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit demonstrated marked variation in the practice and outcomes of breast reconstruction in the UK. To standardise practice and improve outcomes for patients, the British professional associations developed best-practice guidelines with specific guidance for newer mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. We explored the degree of uptake of best-practice guidelines within units performing implant-based reconstruction (IBBR) as the first phase of the implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) study. METHODS: A questionnaire developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Simple summary statistics were calculated for each survey item to assess compliance with current best-practice guidelines. RESULTS: 81 units from 79 NHS Trusts completed the questionnaire. Marked variation was observed in adherence to guidelines, especially those relating to clinical governance and infection prevention strategies. Less than half (n = 28, 47%) of units obtained local clinical governance board approval prior to offering new mesh-based techniques and prospective audit of the clinical, cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes of surgery was infrequent. Most units screened for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus prior to surgery but fewer than 1 in 3 screened for methicillin-sensitive strains. Laminar-flow theatres (recommended for IBBR) were not widely-available with less than 1 in 5 units having regular access. Peri-operative antibiotics were widely-used, but the type and duration were highly-variable. CONCLUSIONS: The iBRA national practice questionnaire has demonstrated variation in reported practice and adherence to IBBR guidelines. High-quality evidence is urgently required to inform best practice.

A cohort examination to establish reporting of the remit and function of Trial Steering Committees in randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The DAMOCLES project established a widely used Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) Charter for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Typically, within the UK, the DMC is advisory and recommends to another executive body; the Trial Steering Committee (TSC). Despite the executive role of the TSC, the CONSORT Statement does not explicitly require reporting of TSC activity, although is included as an example of good reporting. A lack of guidance on TSC reporting can impact transparency of trial oversight, ultimately leading to a misunderstanding regarding role and, subsequently, further variation in practice. This review aimed to establish reporting practice of TSC involvement in RCTs, and thus make recommendations for reporting. METHODS: A cohort examination identifying reporting practice was undertaken. The cohort comprised RCTs published in three leading medical journals (the British Medical Journal, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine) within 6 months in 2012 and the full NIHR HTA Monograph series. Details of TSC constitution and impact were extracted from main publications and published supplements. RESULTS: Of 415 publications, 264 were eligible. These were typical in terms of trial design. Variations in reporting between journals and monographs was notable. TSC presence was identified in approximately half of trials (n = 144), of which 109 worked alongside a DMC. No publications justified not convening a TSC. When reported, the role of the committee and examples of impact in design, conduct and analysis were summarised. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first review of reporting TSC activity in the published academic literature. An absence of reporting standards with regards to TSC constitution, activity and impact on trial conduct was identified which can influence transparency of reporting trial oversight. Consistent reporting is vital for the benefits and impact of the TSC role to be understood to support adoption of this oversight structure and reduce global variations in practice.

A Randomised Controlled Trial of Treatment for Post-Stroke Homonymous Hemianopia: Screening and Recruitment.

The authors report the screening process and recruitment figures for the VISION (Visual Impairment in Stroke; Intervention Or Not) trial. This is a prospective, randomised, single-blinded, three-arm controlled trial in 14 UK acute hospital stroke units. Stroke teams identified stroke survivors suspected as having homonymous hemianopia. Interventions included Fresnel prisms versus visual search training versus standard care (information only). Primary outcome was change in visual field assessment from baseline to 26 weeks. Secondary measures included change in quality-of-life questionnaires. Recruitment opened in May 2011. A total of 1171 patients were screened by the local principal investigators. Of 1171 patients, 178 (15.2%) were eligible for recruitment: 87 patients (7.4%) provided consent and were recruited; 91 patients (7.8%) did not provide consent, and 993 of 1171 patients (84.8%) failed to meet the eligibility criteria. Almost half were excluded due to complete/partial recovery of hemianopia (43.6%; n = 511). The most common ineligibility reason was recovery of hemianopia. When designing future trials in this area, changes in eligibility criteria/outcome selection to allow more patients to be recruited should be considered, e.g., less stringent levels of visual acuity/refractive error. Alternative outcomes measurable in the home environment, rather than requiring hospital attendance for follow-up, could facilitate increased recruitment.