The association between conditioned pain modulation and psychological factors in people with chronic spinal pain: A systematic review.

Chronic spinal pain has negative effects on physical and mental well-being. Psychological factors can influence pain tolerance. However, whether these factors influence descending modulatory control mechanisms measured by conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in people with chronic spinal pain is unclear. This systematic review investigated the association between CPM response and psychological factors in people with chronic spinal pain. Published and unpublished literature databases were searched from inception to 23rd October 2023 included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PubMed. Studies assessing the association between CPM response and psychological factors in people with chronic spinal pain were eligible. Data were pooled through meta-analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the AXIS tool and the certainty of evidence measured through GRADE. From 2172 records, seven studies (n = 598) were eligible. Quality of included studies was moderate. There was very low certainty of evidence that depression (r = 0.01 [95% CI -0.10 to 0.12], I2 = 0%), and anxiety (r = -0.20 [95% CI -0.56 to 0.16], I2 = 84%), fear avoidance (r = -0.10 [95% CI -0.30 to 0.10], I2 = 70%) had no statistical associations with CPM responder status. Higher pain catastrophising was associated with CPM non-responder status (r = -0.19; 95% CI: -0.37 to -0.02; n = 545; I2: 76%) based on a very low certainty of evidence measured by GRADE. There is currently limited available evidence demonstrating an association between CPM response and psychological factors for people with chronic pain. Managing an individual's chronic pain symptoms irrespective of comorbid psychological distress, should continue until evidence offer insights that more targeted interventions are needed.

Surgical fixation methods for tibial plateau fractures.

BACKGROUND: Tibial plateau fractures, which are intra-articular injuries of the knee joint, are often difficult to treat and have a high complication rate, including early-onset osteoarthritis. The most common treatment for complex tibial plateau fractures is surgical fixation. Additionally, orthopaedic surgeons often use bone defect fillers to address bone defects caused by the injury. Currently, there is no consensus on the best method of fixation and on whether bone defect fillers are necessary. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of different surgical interventions and bone defect fillers for treating tibial plateau fractures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries up to March 2023. We also searched conference proceedings and the grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing surgical interventions for treating tibial plateau fractures and different types of filler for bone defects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results, selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcomes (and the specific measures we considered most relevant) were generic quality of life (general health score in the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)), patient-reported lower limb function (Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score), and adverse events (frequency of unplanned reoperation). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials in the review, with a total of 948 adult participants. Nine trials compared different types of fixation, and six trials evaluated different types of bone graft substitutes. All 15 trials were small and at high risk of bias. We considered most available evidence to be of very low certainty, meaning we have very little confidence in the results. Only limited pooling was possible. One trial compared circular fixation combined with insertion of percutaneous screws (hybrid fixation) versus standard open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in 82 people with open or closed Schatzker types V or VI tibial plateau fractures. At 24 months' follow-up, hybrid fixation compared with ORIF may have little or no effect on SF-36 general health score (MD 6 points higher, 95% CI 7.7 points lower to 19.7 points higher; 66 participants), patient-reported lower limb function according to the HSS score (MD 7 points higher, 95% CI 2.4 points lower to 16.4 points higher; 66 participants), or frequency of unplanned reoperation (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.32; 83 fractures (82 participants)). However, the evidence for all three outcomes is very uncertain. Three trials (with 242 participants) compared single-plating ORIF versus double-plating ORIF. There may be little to know difference in patient-reported lower limb function (HSS score) at 24 months' follow-up in people who undergo single-plating ORIF compared with those who undergo double-plating ORIF (MD 0.2 points higher, 95% CI 2.12 points lower to 2.52 points higher; 1 study, 84 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. There were no data for quality of life or unplanned reoperation at 24 months' follow-up. Six trials (including 368 participants) compared bone substitute versus autologous bone graft (autograft) for managing bone defects. No trials reported SF-36 general health score, HSS score, or frequency of unplanned reoperation at 24 months' follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to ascertain the best method of fixation or the best method of addressing bone defects during surgery in people with tibial plateau fractures. Further well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes are warranted.

Recurrent patellar dislocation: personalised therapy or operative treatment? The REPPORT randomised trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Recurrent patellar dislocation is a debilitating musculoskeletal condition, affecting mainly adolescents and adults under the age of 30. It can persist for many decades, causing pain and cartilage and soft-tissue damage, potentially leading to osteoarthritis. Recurrent patellar dislocation can be managed with physiotherapy or surgery. However, it is not known which treatment is most effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Recurrent Patellar Dislocation: Personalised Therapy or Operative Treatment (REPPORT) is a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial. It will compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an initial management strategy of personalised, phased and progressive rehabilitation, termed personalised knee therapy versus surgery for recurrent patellar dislocation.The trial's target sample size is 276 participants who will be recruited from approximately 20 sites across the UK. Participants will be randomly allocated to the two treatment groups via a central computer-based minimisation system. Treatment allocation will be in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by age, presence of patella alta and recruitment site.The primary outcome is participant-reported function using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome 4-domain score at 18 months post randomisation. Health economic evaluation will be conducted from a healthcare system and personal social services perspective. Secondary outcome data including patellar instability, health utility, work/education status, satisfaction with social roles and treatment, health resource use and adverse events will be collected at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis and reported in-line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the East Midlands-Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee on 30 March 2023.Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at national and international conferences, in lay summaries, and using the REPPORT website and social media channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17972668.

Protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial of the 'Outdoor' mobility intervention for older adults after hip fracture.

BACKGROUND: A high proportion of patients do not regain outdoor mobility after hip fracture. Rehabilitation explicitly targeting outdoor mobility is needed to enable these older adults to recover activities which they value most. The overarching aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial which aims to assess the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of an intervention designed to enable recovery of outdoor mobility among older adults after hip fracture (the OUTDOOR intervention). METHODS: This is a protocol for a multi-centre pragmatic parallel group (allocation ratio 1:1) randomised controlled assessor-blinded feasibility trial. Adults aged 60 years or more, admitted to hospital from- and planned discharge to- home, with self-reported outdoor mobility in the three-months pre-fracture, surgically treated for hip fracture, and who are able to consent and participate, are eligible. Individuals who require two or more people to support mobility on discharge will be excluded. Screening and consent (or consent to contact) will take place in hospital. Baseline assessment and randomisation will follow discharge from hospital. Participants will then receive usual care (delivered by physiotherapy, occupational therapy, or therapy assistants), or usual care plus the OUTDOOR intervention. The OUTDOOR intervention includes a goal-orientated outdoor mobility programme (supported by up to six in-person visits), therapist-led motivational dialogue (supported by up to four telephone calls), supported by a past-patient led video where recovery experiences are shared, and support to transition to independent ongoing recovery. Therapists delivering the OUTDOOR intervention (distinct from those supporting usual care) will receive training in motivational interviewing and behaviour change techniques. Baseline demographics will be collected. Patient reported outcome measures including health related quality of life, activities of daily living, pain, community mobility, falls related self-efficacy, resource use, readmissions, and mortality will be collected at baseline, 6-weeks, 12-weeks, and 6-months (for those enrolled early in the trial) post-randomisation. Exercise adherence (6- and 12- weeks) and intervention acceptability (12-weeks) will be collected. A subset of 20 participants will also support accelerometery data collection for 10 days at each time point. DISSEMINATION: The trial findings will be disseminated to patients and the public, health professionals and researchers through publications, presentations and social media channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered at ISRCTN16147125. PROTOCOL VERSION: 3.0.

Combined Hip and Knee Strengthening Compared With Knee Strengthening for Individuals With Lateral Patellar Dislocation: A Single-blind, Superiority, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: To investigate whether a combined hip and knee muscle strengthening program is superior to a knee strengthening program for people after lateral patellar dislocation (LPD). Design: Single-blind, superiority, randomized controlled trial with 48 weeks follow-up. Setting: Physiotherapy out-patient clinic. Participants: Forty individuals aged 16 or older, with a history of non-traumatic LPD were randomized to a knee-based strengthening (KBSG) or quadriceps and hip strengthening exercise (HQSG) program (N=40). Inclusion criteria included a positive apprehension sign, pain on palpation along the medial retinaculum, and J sign. Exclusion criteria included restricted range of motion (<90° knee flexion), and traumatic or postsurgical LPD. Interventions: Concealed randomization was performed using random permuted blocks of size 4. Individuals received their corresponding exercise program according to randomization and group allocation: knee-based strengthening (n=20) or combined hip and quadriceps strengthening (n=20) twice weekly for 8 weeks over 16 appointments. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was the Lysholm Knee Score. Secondary outcomes included Numerical Pain Ratings Scale (NPRS) at rest and during effort, Norwich Patellar Instability Score (NPIS), Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), 4 domains of the WHOQOL-Bref, and recurrence rate. Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed from the baseline to 48 weeks. Assessments were performed by a physiotherapist who was blinded to the group allocation. Data were analyzed by using a repeated-measures ANOVA model with Tukey's post hoc test after an intention-to-treat principle. Results: At the primary time-point of 8 weeks, there were no substantial between-group differences in the Lysholm Knee Score: mean difference=-6.8 (95% CI -14.3 to 3.7); NPIS: mean difference=23.5 (95% CI 5.6 to 41.3); AKPS: mean difference=-1.54 (95% CI -8.6 to 5.6), NPRS at rest and during effort (mean difference=0.32 (95% CI -0.37 to 1); and mean difference=0.68 (95% CI -0.9 to 1.86); LEFS mean difference=-1.08 (95% CI -5.9 to 2.4), WHOQOL-Bref domains (physical health: mean difference=-0.12, (95% CI -1.26 to 1.02); psychological: mean difference=-0.32 (95% CI -2.04 to 1.4); social relations: mean difference=-0.7 (95% CI -2.2 to 0.82); environment: mean difference=0.44 (95% CI -1 to 1.9), and recurrence rate (P=.69). Conclusion: This study indicates that combined hip and knee muscle strengthening is not superior to knee-based strengthening for LPD treatment. The limitations stemming from the underpowered nature of the trial must be acknowledged, concerning the potential oversight of moderate intervention effects.

Non-surgical management of posterior tibial tendon dysfunction- a UK survey.

BACKGROUND: Posterior Tibial Tendon Dysfunction (PTTD) is commonly seen within musculoskeletal care. The condition's prevalence and management is poorly understood. This study aims to demonstrate current practice by multi-professional clinicians across the United Kingdom within the National Health Service. METHODS: A national (UK) cross-sectional online survey was conducted among multi-professionals who treat PTTD within their NHS practice. The survey covered assessment, management and evaluation. This was shared via social media and professional groups. RESULTS: Two hundred thirteen surveys were completed, with 153 matching the eligibility criteria. The main respondents were Physiotherapists (48%) and Podiatrists (38%). Ultrasound scanning was used most frequently when considering initial imaging (67%). Many different treatment modalities were used, but a core set of education/advice, foot orthoses, and foot specific as well as general exercise were most commonly chosen. Outcome measures routinely used were pain scale (96/269) and single leg heel raise (84/269), but patient reported outcome measures were not routinely used. The most frequent reason to escalate care was failure to manage symptoms with conservative management (106/123; 86.2%), followed by fixed deformity (10/123; 8.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides evidence on current non-surgical management for PTTD from UK NHS practice. It provides a valuable marker for clinicians to use to compare their own practice and can be used in further research as a comparator.

Proactive review for people with diabetes in hospital: a cluster randomised feasibility trial with process evaluation, protocol V3.1.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes inpatient specialist services vary across the country, with limited evidence to guide service delivery. Currently, referrals to diabetes inpatient specialists are usually 'reactive' after diabetes-related events have taken place, which are associated with an increased risk of morbidity/mortality and increased length of hospital stay. We propose that a proactive diabetes review model of care, delivered by diabetes inpatient specialist nurses, may contribute to the prevention of such diabetes-related events and result in a reduction in the risk of harm. METHOD: We will conduct a cluster randomised feasibility study with process evaluation. The proactive diabetes review model (PDRM) is a complex intervention that focuses on the prevention of potentially modifiable diabetes-related harms. All eligible patients will receive a comprehensive, structured diabetes review that aims to identify and prevent potentially modifiable diabetes-related harms through utilising a standardised review structure. Reviews are undertaken by a diabetes inpatient specialist nurse within one working day of admission. This differs from usual care where patients are often only seen after diabetes-related harms have taken place. The trial duration will be approximately 32 weeks, with intervention delivery throughout. There will be an initial 8-week run-in phase, followed by a 24-week data collection phase. Eight wards will be equally randomised to either PDRM or usual care. Adult patients with a known diagnosis of diabetes admitted to an included ward will be eligible. Data collection will be limited to that typically collected as part of usual care. Data collected will include descriptive data at both the ward and patient level and glucose measures, such as frequency and results of capillary glucose testing, ketonaemia and hypoglycaemic events. The analysis aims to determine the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention and the feasibility of a future definitive trial. Whilst this study is primarily about trial feasibility, the findings of the process evaluation may lead to changes to both trial processes and modifications to the intervention. A qualitative process evaluation will be conducted in parallel to the trial. A minimum of 22 patients, nurses, doctors, and managers will be recruited with methods including direct non-participant observation and semi-structured interviews. The feasibility of a future definitive trial will be assessed by evaluating recruitment and randomisation processes, staffing resources and quality of available data. DISCUSSION: The aim of this cluster randomised feasibility trial with a process evaluation is to explore the feasibility of a definitive trial and identify appropriate outcome measures. If a trial is feasible and the effectiveness of PDRM can be evaluated, this could inform the future development of inpatient diabetes services nationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK Clinical Research Network, 51,167. ISRCTN, ISRCTN70402110. Registered on 21 February 2022.

Meniscal Transplant surgery or Optimised Rehabilitation full randomised trial (MeTeOR2): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pain and disability after meniscectomy can be a substantial lifelong problem. There are few treatment options, especially for young people. Non-surgical management (rehabilitation) is an option but increasingly surgeons are performing meniscal allograft transplants (MATs) for these individuals. However, this is still an uncommon procedure, and availability and usage of MAT vary widely both in the UK and internationally. It is not known which treatment option is the most effective and cost-effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Meniscal Transplant surgery or Optimised Rehabilitation trial is an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The aim is to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of MAT versus an optimised package of individualised, progressive, rehabilitation that we have called personalised knee therapy (PKT).Participants will be recruited from sites across the UK, Australia, Canada and Belgium. The planned 144 participants provide at least 90% power to detect a 10-point difference in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) at 24-months post randomisation (primary outcome). A prospectively planned economic evaluation will be conducted from a healthcare system and personal social services perspective. Secondary outcome data including health utility, occupational status, sports participation, mental well-being, further treatment, and adverse events will be collected at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis and reported in-line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the London-Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee on 19 August 2022 (22/LO/0327) and Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee, NSW, Australia on the 13 March 2023 (2022/ETH01890).Trial results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, in lay summaries and using social media as appropriate.This protocol adheres to the recommended Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN87336549.

Understanding the demographics, training experiences and decision-making practices of UK triage nurses.

BACKGROUND: International research suggests that triage nurses' decision-making practices and training experiences vary significantly across emergency departments (EDs). However, there does not appear to be similar research published in the UK. Understanding factors, such as demographics, training and decision-making could provide a picture of triage nurses working in UK EDs, identify the interventions required to improve practice and inform further research. AIM: To explore the demographics, training experiences and decision-making practices of registered nurses who assess patient acuity at triage in UK EDs. METHOD: The study used an online, descriptive, cross-sectional survey design. RESULTS: A total of 51 triage nurses from across the UK responded to the survey. Most (61) had achieved a bachelor's degree as their highest qualification, while 3 had postgraduate qualifications. Respondents had a median of seven years since qualifying, six years working in their current ED and five years working in triage and used a range of titles to describe their role. Low staffing and busy ED environments increased respondents' stress levels, which affected confidence in triage decision-making abilities among less experienced nurses. More experienced respondents coped with their stress by relying on their knowledge and skills. Not all respondents had received triage training, and for those that had, the training varied in type and frequency across EDs. Overall, respondents had low satisfaction with the amount, quality and content of the training they had received. CONCLUSION: There is a need for safer staffing levels in EDs and greater support for staff welfare. The development of national standards, incorporating defined knowledge and skills and set time periods for refresher training, is required to enhance triage practice in EDs.

Patho-morphology of patellar instability in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents have the highest incidence of patellar instability among the population. We aimed to identify patho-morphological and epidemiological factors associated with patellar instability, and to identify factors predisposing to recurrence in children and adolescents. METHODS: Published and unpublished literature databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of included studies were searched to the 14th of March 2024. Studies were eligible if they compared history characteristics, examination features and radiological parameters between patients with and without instability, or evaluated risk factors for instability recurrence. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Included studies were appraised using tools respective of study design. RESULTS: The evidence was moderate to low in quality. Forty-five studies (including 9000 patients) were eligible. Tibial tubercle - tibial groove (TT-TG) distance (weighted mean difference [WMD] 5.96 mm, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 4.94 to 6.99 mm), sulcus angle (WMD: 13.93˚, 95% CI: 9.1˚ to 18.8˚), and Insall-Salvati index (WMD: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.23) were greater in patients with patellar instability. Risk factors for recurrent dislocation included age less than 18 years (Odds ratio [OR]: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.63 to 4.0), skeletal immaturity (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.21 to 2.64) and presence of trochlear dysplasia (OR: 3.37, 95% CI: 1.85 to 6.15). CONCLUSION: Knowledge of patho-morphological factors associated with patellar instability could help explain its pathophysiological processes, allowing for the design of treatment approaches and the identification of patients at risk.

Fear-avoidant beliefs and behaviours after upper limb fracture in older people: a systematic review and meta-ethnography.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aimed to understand older people's perspectives of associated fear-avoidant beliefs following upper limb fracture. METHODS: Published and unpublished literature databases were systematically searched from inception to 1st April 2023. Qualitative studies reporting the perspectives of fear-avoidant beliefs or behaviours in people who had sustained an upper limb fracture were eligible. Data extracted included characteristics of people interviewed, experiences and perceptions of fear, fear of falling, and fear-avoidant beliefs and behaviours. Data were synthesised using a meta-ethnography approach and the GRADE-CERQUAL tool. RESULTS: Eight studies were eligible (n = 150 participants; 109 distal radial/41 humeral fracture). Three overarching themes were identified: (1) type of fear-avoidant experiences, (2) drivers of fear-avoidant beliefs and behaviours, and (3) consequences of fear-avoidant beliefs and behaviours. The themes generated were based on moderate confidence evidence. In summary, whilst some patients initially consider upper limb fractures to be relatively minor injuries, over time, the realisation occurs that they have wide-ranging consequences with longer-term perspectives on recovery. This often occurs following an initial period of reduced fear. Providing education and support immediately post-fracture to prevent or challenge initial health beliefs around fear of falls and fear of movement is imperative to recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Fear-avoidant beliefs can impact heavily on certain older people's recovery, as well as their longer-term health and wellbeing. Consideration of fear avoidance and taking steps to mitigate against this in the acute upper limb trauma setting will better serve these patients in their ongoing recovery from injury.

What factors affect early mobilisation following hip fracture surgery: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Identify and evaluate factors affecting early mobilisation on the day following hip fracture surgery. DESIGN: Mixed methods, scoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, APA PsycArticles, ISRCTN, Clinical Trials registry and grey literature accessed in November 2022 with publication dates between 2001 and November 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language publications that:1. Include patient populations who sustain a fragility hip fracture managed surgically2. Include patient populations who are mobilised out of bed on the day following their hip fracture surgery3. Report factors which influence the ability to undergo early mobility postsurgery DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: One reviewer screened all titles and abstracts for inclusion. Two reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessments using the relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: 3337 papers were identified, of which 23 studies were eligible for review, representing 210 811 patients. The heterogeneity in the types of study included, the definition of early mobilisation and the outcome measures used precluded meta-analysis. 13 factors were identified as having an effect on whether people were mobilised on day 1 post-hip fracture surgery, grouped into 5 principal themes: (1) healthcare setting or worker-related factors, (2) patient psychological factors, (3) acute patient health factors, (4) non-acute patient health factors and (5) surgical factors. CONCLUSIONS: There was a paucity of robust research investigating day 1 mobilisation post-hip fracture surgery.Each of the five factors identified is potentially modifiable through service improvement change and innovation strategies. There is an opportunity to explore how service provision change could be implemented to improve outcomes for all patients following hip fracture surgery demonstrating the clinical and cost benefits of these changes against the cost of delivering the change.

Physical activity and health-related quality of life of patients with chronic knee pain after total knee replacement: Analysis of the PEP-TALK trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a major challenge for some people after total knee replacement (TKR). The changing impact of this complication during the first post-operative year remains unclear. This analysis aimed to examine how physical activity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) evolved over the first year after TKR for patients with and without post-operative chronic knee pain. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial (PEP-TALK), which tested the effectiveness of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention compared with usual rehabilitation after TKR. Mean UCLA Activity Score and EQ-5D-5L for participants with and without chronic knee pain (14 points or lower in the Oxford Knee Score Pain Subscale (OKS-PS) at six months post-TKR) were compared at six and 12 months post-TKR. RESULTS: Data from 83 participants were analysed. For those with chronic knee pain, UCLA Activity Score remained unchanged between baseline to six months (mean: 3.8 to 3.8), decreasing at 12 months (3.0). Those without post-operative chronic knee pain reported improved physical activity from baseline to six months (4.0 vs 4.9), plateauing at 12 months (4.9). Participants with chronic knee pain reported lower baseline HRQoL (0.28 vs 0.48). Both groups improved health utility over one year. Of those without chronic pain at six months, 8.5% returned to chronic pain by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring clinical outcomes after six months may be indicated for those at risk of chronic pain post-TKR. Further, sufficiently powered analyses are warranted to increase the generalisability of this exploratory analyses' results.

Hospital-based caregiver intervention for people following hip fracture surgery (HIP HELPER): multicentre randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded qualitative study in England.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery. DESIGN: Two-arm, multicentre, pragmatic, open, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) providers in five English hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults, aged 60 years and over, who undergo hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers. INTERVENTION: Usual care: usual NHS care. EXPERIMENTAL: usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme comprised three, 1 hour, one-to-one training sessions for a patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist or occupational therapist in the hospital setting predischarge. After discharge, patients and caregivers were supported through three telephone coaching sessions. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Central randomisation was computer generated (1:1), stratified by hospital and level of patient cognitive impairment. There was no blinding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data collected at baseline and 4 months post randomisation included: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, acceptability data and clinical outcomes. Interviews were conducted with a subset of participants and health professionals. RESULTS: 102 participants were enrolled (51 patients; 51 caregivers). Thirty-nine per cent (515/1311) of patients screened were eligible. Eleven per cent (56/515) of eligible patients consented to be randomised. Forty-eight per cent (12/25) of the intervention group reached compliance to their allocated intervention. There was no evidence of treatment contamination. Qualitative data demonstrated the trial and HIP HELPER programme was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The HIP HELPER programme was acceptable to patient-caregiver dyads and health professionals. The COVID-19 pandemic impacting on site's ability to deliver the research. Modifications are necessary to the design for a viable definitive RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13270387.

Musculoskeletal physiotherapists' discharge practices for people treated with low back pain: A United Kingdom survey.

BACKGROUND: Persistent low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability, and a major burden on the healthcare system globally. Many people with LBP experience recurrent pain flares and receive repeated appointments and re-referrals to services such as physiotherapy. However, it is not clear what the criteria are for discharging people with LBP from physiotherapy services. This study aims to describe the current practices for discharging people from physiotherapy for LBP in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A cross-sectional study using an anonymous online national (UK) survey was conducted among qualified physiotherapists who treat people with LBP in UK musculoskeletal out-patient services. RESULTS: A total of 104 surveys were completed. The majority of respondents reported using (i) a shared decision-making (77%) and (ii) person-physiotherapist goal attainment (74%) approach to discharging people with LBP. Sixty-three percent of respondents reported using a patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) approach. Only 8% of respondents reported using a graded discharge approach with 'booster' appointments. A PIFU or graded discharge approach was considered most pertinent for people at higher risk of a pain flare (97%; 86%) and with low self-efficacy to self-manage their LBP. CONCLUSIONS: This UK survey established that discharge practices for people with LBP after physiotherapy vary. Whilst the majority of people are currently discharged with a PIFU appointment, a graded discharge approach may be more beneficial for people who are less likely to initiate a PIFU appointment. Further consideration on the development of such a pathway is now required.

The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review.

Chronic pain (CP) and mental illness (MI) are leading causes of years lived with disability and commonly co-occur. However, it remains unclear if available interventions are effective in improving pain outcomes in patients with co-existing CP and MI. This systematic review synthesised evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve pain outcomes for people with comorbid CP and clinically diagnosed MI. Ten electronic databases were searched from inception until May 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they evaluated interventions for CP-related outcomes among people with comorbid CP and clinically diagnosed MI. Pain-related and mental health outcomes were reported as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. 26 RCTs (2,311 participants) were included. Four trials evaluated the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy, 6 mindfulness-based interventions, 1 interpersonal psychotherapy, 5 body-based interventions, 5 multi-component interventions, and 5 examined pharmacological-based interventions. Overall, there was considerable heterogeneity in sample characteristics and interventions, and included studies were generally of poor quality with insufficient trial details being reported. Despite the inconsistency in results, preliminary evidence suggests interventions demonstrating a positive effect on CP may include cognitive-behavioural therapy for patients with depression (with a small to medium effect size) and multi-component intervention for people with substance use disorders (with a small effect size). Despite the high occurrence/burden of CP and MI, there is a relative paucity of RCTs investigating interventions and none in people with severe MI. More rigorously designed RCTs are needed to further support our findings. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review presents current evidence evaluating interventions for CP-related and MH outcomes for people with comorbid CP and clinically diagnosed MI. Our findings could potentially help clinicians identify the most effective treatments to manage these symptoms for this vulnerable patient group.

Perspectives of informal caregivers who support people following hip fracture surgery: a qualitative study embedded within the HIP HELPER feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to illuminate the perspectives of informal caregivers who support people following hip fracture surgery. DESIGN: A qualitative study embedded within a now completed multicentre, feasibility randomised controlled trial (HIP HELPER). SETTING: Five English National Health Service hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 20 participants (10 informal caregivers and 10 people with hip fracture), following hip fracture surgery. This included one male and nine females who experienced a hip fracture; and seven male and three female informal caregivers. The median age was 72.5 years (range: 65-96 years), 71.0 years (range: 43-81 years) for people with hip fracture and informal caregivers, respectively. METHODS: Semistructured, virtual interviews were undertaken between November 2021 and March 2022, with caregiver dyads (person with hip fracture and their informal caregiver). Data were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: We identified two main themes: expectations of the informal caregiver role and reality of being an informal caregiver; and subthemes: expectations of care and services; responsibility and advocacy; profile of people with hip fracture; decision to be a caregiver; transition from hospital to home. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest informal caregivers do not feel empowered to advocate for a person's recovery or navigate the care system, leading to increased and unnecessary stress, anxiety and frustration when supporting the person with hip fracture. We suggest that a tailored information giving on the recovery pathway, which is responsive to the caregiving population (ie, considering the needs of male, younger and more active informal caregivers and people with hip fracture) would smooth the transition from hospital to home. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13270387.Cite Now.

UK robotic arthroplasty clinical and cost effectiveness randomised controlled trial for hips (RACER-Hip): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The number of robotic-assisted hip replacement procedures has expanded globally with the intended aim of improving outcomes. Intraoperative robotic-arm systems add additional costs to total hip replacement (THR) surgery but may improve surgical precision and could contribute to diminished pain and improved function. Additionally, these systems may reduce the need for expensive revision surgery. Surgery with conventional instruments may be just as successful, quick and affordable. There is timely demand for a robust evaluation of this technology. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial for Hips (RACER-Hip) is a multicentre (minimum of six UK sites), participant-assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial. 378 participants with hip osteoarthritis requiring THR will be randomised (1:1) to receive robotic-assisted THR, or THR using conventional surgical instruments. The primary outcome is the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months post-randomisation; a patient-reported outcome measure assessing participants' awareness of their joint when undertaking daily activities. Secondary outcomes will be collected post-operatively (pain, blood loss and opioid usage) and at 3, 6, 12, 24 months, then 5 and 10 years postrandomisation (including function, pain, health-related quality of life, reoperations and satisfaction). Allocation concealment will be accomplished using a computer-based randomisation procedure on the day of surgery. Blinding methods include the use of sham incisions for marker clusters and blinded operation notes. The primary analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle. Results will adhere to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statements. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by an ethics committee (Solihull Research Ethics Committee, 30 June 2021, IRAS: 295831). Participants will provide informed consent before agreeing to participate. Results will be disseminated using peer-reviewed journal publications, presentations at international conferences and through the use of social media. We will develop plans to disseminate to patients and public with our patient partners. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13374625.

Outcomes of hip fracture in centenarians: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Outcomes of hip fractures in centenarians remain underreported owing to the small number of patients reaching 100 years of age. This review aimed to determine outcomes of hip fracture in centenarians and to identify the most common comorbidities among centenarians with hip fracture to better characterise this population. METHODS: Published and unpublished literature databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of included studies were searched to the 25th of January 2023. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Included studies were appraised using tools respective of study design. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (6970 centenarians) were included (retrospective period: 1990-2020). The evidence was largely moderate to low in quality. One-year mortality following a hip fracture was 53.8% (95% CI 47.2 to 60.3%). Pooled complication rate following a hip fracture in centenarians was 50.5% (95% CI 25.3 to 75.6%). Dementia (26.2%, 95% CI 15.7 to 38.2%), hypertension (15.6%, 95% CI 3.4 to 33.1%), and diabetes (5.5%, 95% CI 1.9 to 10.7%) were the most common comorbidities among centenarians with hip fracture. CONCLUSION: Hip fractures in centenarians typically involve complex patient presentations with diverse comorbidities. However, the current evidence-base is moderate to low in quality. Effective cross-discipline communication and intervention is suggested to promote treatment outcomes.