1
|
Carrie S, Fouweather T, Homer T, O'Hara J, Rousseau N, Rooshenas L, Bray A, Stocken DD, Ternent L, Rennie K, Clark E, Waugh N, Steel AJ, Dooley J, Drinnan M, Hamilton D, Lloyd K, Oluboyede Y, Wilson C, Gardiner Q, Kara N, Khwaja S, Leong SC, Maini S, Morrison J, Nix P, Wilson JA, Teare MD. Effectiveness of septoplasty compared to medical management in adults with obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum: the NAIROS RCT. Health Technol Assess 2024; 28:1-213. [PMID: 38477237 PMCID: PMC11017631 DOI: 10.3310/mvfr4028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/14/2024] Open
Abstract
Background The indications for septoplasty are practice-based, rather than evidence-based. In addition, internationally accepted guidelines for the management of nasal obstruction associated with nasal septal deviation are lacking. Objective The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, compared with medical management, in the management of nasal obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum. Design This was a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, with defined medical management; it incorporated a mixed-methods process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting The trial was set in 17 NHS secondary care hospitals in the UK. Participants A total of 378 eligible participants aged > 18 years were recruited. Interventions Participants were randomised on a 1: 1 basis and stratified by baseline severity and gender to either (1) septoplasty, with or without turbinate surgery (n = 188) or (2) medical management with intranasal steroid spray and saline spray (n = 190). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score at 6 months (patient-reported outcome). The secondary outcomes were as follows: patient-reported outcomes - Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation score at 6 and 12 months, Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items subscales at 12 months, Double Ordinal Airway Subjective Scale at 6 and 12 months, the Short Form questionnaire-36 items and costs; objective measurements - peak nasal inspiratory flow and rhinospirometry. The number of adverse events experienced was also recorded. A within-trial economic evaluation from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective estimated the incremental cost per (1) improvement (of ≥ 9 points) in Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score, (2) adverse event avoided and (3) quality-adjusted life-year gained at 12 months. An economic model estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 24 and 36 months. A mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken to understand/address recruitment issues and examine the acceptability of trial processes and treatment arms. Results At the 6-month time point, 307 participants provided primary outcome data (septoplasty, n = 152; medical management, n = 155). An intention-to-treat analysis revealed a greater and more sustained improvement in the primary outcome measure in the surgical arm. The 6-month mean Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores were -20.0 points lower (better) for participants randomised to septoplasty than for those randomised to medical management [the score for the septoplasty arm was 19.9 and the score for the medical management arm was 39.5 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -16.4; p < 0.0001)]. This was confirmed by sensitivity analyses and through the analysis of secondary outcomes. Outcomes were statistically significantly related to baseline severity, but not to gender or turbinate reduction. In the surgical and medical management arms, 132 and 95 adverse events occurred, respectively; 14 serious adverse events occurred in the surgical arm and nine in the medical management arm. On average, septoplasty was more costly and more effective in improving Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores and quality-adjusted life-years than medical management, but incurred a larger number of adverse events. Septoplasty had a 15% probability of being considered cost-effective at 12 months at a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life-year. This probability increased to 99% and 100% at 24 and 36 months, respectively. Limitations COVID-19 had an impact on participant-facing data collection from March 2020. Conclusions Septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, is more effective than medical management with a nasal steroid and saline spray. Baseline severity predicts the degree of improvement in symptoms. Septoplasty has a low probability of cost-effectiveness at 12 months, but may be considered cost-effective at 24 months. Future work should focus on developing a septoplasty patient decision aid. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16168569 and EudraCT 2017-000893-12. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/226/07) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sean Carrie
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Honorary affiliation with Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Tony Fouweather
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Tara Homer
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - James O'Hara
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Nikki Rousseau
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Leila Rooshenas
- Bristol Population Health Science Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Alison Bray
- Honorary affiliation with Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Deborah D Stocken
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Laura Ternent
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Katherine Rennie
- Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Emma Clark
- Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Nichola Waugh
- Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Alison J Steel
- Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Jemima Dooley
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Michael Drinnan
- Honorary affiliation with Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - David Hamilton
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Kelly Lloyd
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Yemi Oluboyede
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Caroline Wilson
- Bristol Population Health Science Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Quentin Gardiner
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Ninewells Hospital, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK
| | - Naveed Kara
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Darlington Memorial Hospital, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, Durham, UK
| | - Sadie Khwaja
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester University Foundation NHS Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Samuel Chee Leong
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Aintree Hospital, Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Sangeeta Maini
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
| | | | - Paul Nix
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Janet A Wilson
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - M Dawn Teare
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Thomson S, Ainsworth G, Selvanathan S, Kelly R, Collier H, Mujica-Mota R, Talbot R, Brown ST, Croft J, Rousseau N, Higham R, Al-Tamimi Y, Buxton N, Carleton-Bland N, Gledhill M, Halstead V, Hutchinson P, Meacock J, Mukerji N, Pal D, Vargas-Palacios A, Prasad A, Wilby M, Stocken D. Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT. Health Technol Assess 2023; 27:1-228. [PMID: 37929307 PMCID: PMC10641711 DOI: 10.3310/otoh7720] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking. Objective The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome. Design This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals. Setting National Health Service trusts. Participants Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks. Interventions Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation. Results The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy. Conclusions The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Thomson
- Department of Neurosurgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Gemma Ainsworth
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Rachel Kelly
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Howard Collier
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Rebecca Talbot
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Sarah Tess Brown
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Julie Croft
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Nikki Rousseau
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Ruchi Higham
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Yahia Al-Tamimi
- Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - Neil Buxton
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Martin Gledhill
- Department of Speech and Language Therapy, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Peter Hutchinson
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - James Meacock
- Department of Neurosurgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Nitin Mukerji
- Department of Neurosurgery, The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Debasish Pal
- Department of Neurosurgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Anantharaju Prasad
- Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK
| | - Martin Wilby
- Department of Neurosurgery, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Deborah Stocken
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
AIMS This study reviews the past 30 years of research from the Canadian Orthopedic Trauma Society (COTS), to identify predictive factors that delay or accelerate the course of randomized controlled trials in orthopaedic trauma. METHODS We conducted a methodological review of all papers published through the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society or its affiliates. Data abstracted included: year of publication; journal of publication; study type; number of study sites; sample size; and achievement of sample size goals. Information about the study timelines was also collected, including: the date of study proposal to COTS; date recruitment began; date recruitment ended; and date of publication. RESULTS In total, 22 studies have been published through the COTS working group, 13 of which are randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In total, 1,423 individual patients have been involved in COTS studies, a mean of 110 patients per trial (22 to 424). Each study was conducted across a mean of approximately six centres (1 to 11) and took nearly ten years (mean 119.9 months (59 to 188)) from presentation of concept to publication. The mean length of enrolment was 63 months (26 to 113) and the mean time from cessation of enrolment to publication 51 months (19 to 78). Regardless of sample size, the only factor associated with a decreased length of enrolment was a higher number of clinical sites (p = 0.041). Neither study sample size nor length of enrolment were associated with total time to publication. CONCLUSION Over the last three decades, COTS has developed a multinational strategy to produce high-quality evidence in the field of orthopaedic trauma through 13 multicentre RCTs. Future efficiencies can be realized by recruitment of more clinical sites, improving connectivity between the sites, and the promotion of national streamlined ethics processes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):898-901.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Axelrod
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.,Centre for Evidence Based Orthopedics, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Kelly Trask
- Nova Scotia Health Authority, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
| | - Richard E Buckley
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
| | - Herman Johal
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.,Centre for Evidence Based Orthopedics, Hamilton, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Dwyer T, Whelan D, Shah PS, Ajrawat P, Hoit G, Chahal J. Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Meta-analysis of Short-Term Outcomes. Arthroscopy 2020; 36:263-273. [PMID: 31864588 DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.07.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2019] [Revised: 07/10/2019] [Accepted: 07/16/2019] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the outcomes of patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome treated with hip arthroscopy versus those treated with physical therapy alone. METHODS The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to February 15, 2019. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared operative versus nonoperative treatment in the management of FAI for a minimum 6-month follow-up period were included. The primary outcome was the International Hip Outcome Tool 33. The CLEAR NPT (Checklist to Evaluate a Report of a Nonpharmacological Trial) was used to evaluate the methodologic quality of included studies. RESULTS Three RCTs (Level I) were included with a total of 650 patients (323 randomized to surgery and 327 randomized to physical therapy), follow-rate of 90% (583 patients, 295 operative and 288 nonoperative), and average of 11.5 months' follow-up. Regarding participation, 222 of 350 patients (63%) in the FAIT (Femoroacetabular Impingement Trial) study, 348 of 648 (54%) in the FASHIoN (Full UK RCT of Arthroscopic Surgery for Hip Impingement Versus Best Conservative Care) study, and 80 of 104 (77%) in the study by Mansell et al. agreed to participate. The mean age was 35 years, and 51.5% of patients were male patients. All 3 RCTs represented high methodologic quality and a low risk of bias. The frequency-weighted mean follow-up period was 10 months. A meta-analysis of the 3 randomized trials showed that patients treated with operative management had improved preoperative-to-postoperative change scores on the International Hip Outcome Tool 33 compared with the nonoperative group (standardized mean difference, 3.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-6.86; P < .05). One study reported on the achievement of clinically relevant outcomes at the individual level, with 51% of the operative group and 32% of the nonoperative group achieving the minimal clinically important difference and with 48% and 19%, respectively, achieving the patient acceptable symptomatic state for the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living. CONCLUSIONS The results of this meta-analysis show that patients with FAI syndrome treated with hip arthroscopy have statistically superior hip-related outcomes in the short term compared with those treated with physical therapy alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level I, meta-analysis of Level I RCTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tim Dwyer
- Young Adult Hip Innovation Program, University of Toronto Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Daniel Whelan
- Young Adult Hip Innovation Program, University of Toronto Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Prakesh S Shah
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; University of Toronto, and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Prabjit Ajrawat
- Young Adult Hip Innovation Program, University of Toronto Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Graeme Hoit
- Young Adult Hip Innovation Program, University of Toronto Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jaskarndip Chahal
- Young Adult Hip Innovation Program, University of Toronto Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Anderson DB, Mobbs RJ, Eyles J, Meyer SE, Machado GC, Davis GA, Harris IA, Buchbinder R, Ferreira ML. Barriers to participation in a placebo-surgical trial for lumbar spinal stenosis. Heliyon 2019; 5:e01683. [PMID: 31193403 PMCID: PMC6529717 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01683] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2018] [Revised: 03/22/2019] [Accepted: 05/02/2019] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Placebo-controlled trials are an important tool when assessing the efficacy of spinal surgical procedures. The most common spinal surgical procedure in older adults is decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Before conducting a placebo-surgical trial on decompression surgery, an investigation of patients' willingness to participate in a placebo-controlled trial of decompression surgery and barriers to participation were explored. Materials An online survey. Methods Descriptive analyses of demographic and clinical data, and participants' willingness to participate in a placebo-surgical trial. Logistic regression was used to examine potential predictors of willingness to participate. Two independent researchers performed a coded framework analysis of patients' barriers to participation. Results 68 patients were invited and 63 participants completed the survey (91.3% response, mean (SD) age 69.5 (10.9) years, 52% females), 71% suffered from moderate to very severe pain. Ten participants (15.9%) were willing to participate in a placebo-controlled trial. Being married was associated with decreased odds of participating (OR: 0.2; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.8; P = 0.03), while the main barriers were a lack of information about the procedure, reassurance of a positive outcome with participation, and concerns about the risks and benefits of placebo surgery. Conclusions A minority of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were willing to participate in a placebo-controlled trial of surgery. The identified barriers indicate that educating eligible patients about: the need for placebo-surgical trials, the personal risks and benefits of participation, and the importance and potential benefits of placebo trials to others, may be crucial to ensure adequate recruitment into the placebo-controlled surgical trial. Conclusions should be read cautiously however, given the small sample size present in this study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David B Anderson
- Institute of Bone and Joint Research, The Kolling Institute, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Ralph J Mobbs
- Department of Neurosurgery, Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Sydney; Neuro Spine Clinic, Randwick; University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jillian Eyles
- Institute of Bone and Joint Research, The Kolling Institute, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | | | - Gustavo C Machado
- Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney; and Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Gavin A Davis
- Neurosurgery Department, Cabrini and Austin Hospitals, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ian A Harris
- Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - Rachelle Buchbinder
- Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute; and Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Manuela L Ferreira
- Institute of Bone and Joint Research, The Kolling Institute, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Harris CA, Muller JM, Shauver MJ, Chung KC. Checkpoints to Progression: Qualitative Analysis of the Personal and Contextual Factors That Influence Selection of Upper Extremity Reconstruction Among Patients With Tetraplegia. J Hand Surg Am 2017; 42:495-505.e11. [PMID: 28669418 PMCID: PMC5753404 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.04.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2016] [Revised: 04/07/2017] [Accepted: 04/10/2017] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Patients with tetraplegia consistently rank better use of the upper extremity as their top functional priority. Multiple case series have demonstrated that upper extremity reconstruction (UER) is well-tolerated and can produce substantial functional improvements for appropriate candidates; however, UER remains critically underutilized. The mechanisms that drive differences in provider practice and referral patterns have been studied, but comprehensive examination of the patient factors that influence UER decisions has not been performed for American patients. METHODS Nineteen patients with C4-8 cervical spinal injuries were selected using purposive sampling: 9 patients had undergone UER, 10 had not undergone UER. Semistructured interviews were conducted and transcripts evaluated using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS Our study yielded a conceptual model that describes the characteristics common to all patients who undergo UER. Patients who selected reconstruction proceeded stepwise through a shared sequence of steps: (1) functional dissatisfaction, (2) awareness of UER, and (3) acceptance of surgery. Patients' ability to meet these criteria was determined by 3 checkpoints: how well they coped, their access to information, and the acceptability of surgery. Extremely positive or negative coping prevented patients from moving from the Coping to the Information Checkpoint; thus, they remained unaware of UER and did not undergo surgery. A lack of knowledge regarding reconstruction was the strongest barrier to surgery among our participants. CONCLUSIONS We built a conceptual model that outlines how patients' personal and contextual factors drive their progression to UER. Moving from functional dissatisfaction to understanding that they were candidates for UER was a substantial barrier for participants, particularly those with very high and very low coping skills. CLINICAL RELEVANCE To improve utilization for all patients, interventions are needed to increase UER awareness. Standardizing introduction to UER during the rehabilitation process or improving e-content may represent key awareness access points.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chelsea A Harris
- Section of Plastic Surgery, The University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - John-Michael Muller
- Section of Plastic Surgery, The University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Melissa J Shauver
- Section of Plastic Surgery, The University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Kevin C Chung
- Section of Plastic Surgery, The University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Mittal R, Harris IA, Adie S, Naylor JM. Surgery for Type B Ankle Fracture Treatment: a Combined Randomised and Observational Study (CROSSBAT). BMJ Open 2017; 7:e013298. [PMID: 28348185 PMCID: PMC5372107 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013298] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Isolated type B ankle fractures with no injury to the medial side are the most common type of ankle fracture. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine if surgery is superior to non-surgical management for the treatment of these fractures. METHODS A pragmatic, multicentre, single-blinded, combined randomised controlled trial and observational study. Setting Participants between 18 and 65 years with a type B ankle fracture and minimal talar shift were recruited from 22 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Participants willing to be randomised were randomly allocated to undergo surgical fixation followed by mobilisation in a walking boot for 6 weeks. Those treated non-surgically were managed in a walking boot for 6 weeks. Participants not willing to be randomised formed the observational cohort. Randomisation stratified by site and using permuted variable blocks was administered centrally. Outcome assessors were blinded for the primary outcomes. Primary outcomes Patient-reported ankle function using the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle Outcomes Questionnaire (FAOQ) and the physical component score (PCS) of the SF-12v2 General Health Survey at 12 months postinjury. Primary analysis was intention to treat; the randomised and observational cohorts were analysed separately. RESULTS From August 2010 to October 2013, 160 people were randomised (80 surgical and 80 non-surgical); 139 (71 surgical and 68 non-surgical) were analysed as intention to treat. 276 formed the observational cohort (19 surgical and 257 non-surgical); 220 (18 surgical and 202 non-surgical) were analysed. The randomised cohort demonstrated that surgery was not superior to non-surgery for the FAOQ (49.8 vs 53.0; mean difference 3.2 (95% CI 0.4 to 5.9), p=0.028), or the PCS (53.7 vs 53.2; mean difference 0.6 (-2.9 to 1.8), p=0.63). 23 (32%) and 10 (14%) participants had an adverse event in the surgical and non-surgical groups, respectively. Similar results were found in the observational cohort. CONCLUSIONS Surgery is not superior to non-surgical management for 44-B1 ankle fractures in the short term, and is associated with increased adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01134094.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rajat Mittal
- Orthopaedic Department, Whitlam Orthopaedic Research Centre, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Australia, Liverpool BC, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ian A Harris
- Orthopaedic Department, Whitlam Orthopaedic Research Centre, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Australia, Liverpool BC, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sam Adie
- Orthopaedic Department, Whitlam Orthopaedic Research Centre, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Australia, Liverpool BC, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Justine M Naylor
- Orthopaedic Department, Whitlam Orthopaedic Research Centre, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Australia, Liverpool BC, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|