Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials

Treatment options for patients with pilonidal sinus disease: PITSTOP, a mixed-methods evaluation

Background

There is no consensus on optimal management of pilonidal disease. Surgical practice is varied, and existing literature is mainly single-centre cohort studies of varied disease severity, interventions and outcome assessments.

Objectives

A prospective cohort study to determine: • disease severity and intervention relationship • most valued outcomes and treatment preference by patients • recommendations for policy and future research.

Design

Observational cohort study with nested mixed-methods case study. Discrete choice experiment. Clinician survey. Three-stage Delphi survey for patients and clinicians. Inter-rater reliability of classification system.

Setting

Thirty-one National Health Service trusts.

Participants

Patients aged > 16 years referred for elective surgical treatment of pilonidal disease.

Interventions

Surgery.

Main outcome measures

Pain postoperative days 1 and 7, time to healing and return to normal activities, complications, recurrence. Outcomes compared between major and minor procedures using regression modelling, propensity score-based approaches and augmented inverse probability weighting to account for measured potential confounding features.

Results

Clinician survey: There was significant heterogeneity in surgeon practice preference. Limited training opportunities may impede efforts to improve practice. Cohort study: Over half of patients (60%; N = 667) had a major procedure. For these procedures, pain was greater on day 1 and day 7 (mean difference day 1 pain 1.58 points, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.01 points, n = 536; mean difference day 7 pain 1.53 points, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.95 points, n = 512). There were higher complication rates (adjusted risk difference 17.5%, 95% confidence interval 9.1 to 25.9%, n = 579), lower recurrence (adjusted risk difference -10.1%, 95% confidence interval -18.1 to -2.1%, n = 575), and longer time to healing (>34 days estimated difference) and time to return to normal activities (difference 25.9 days, 95% confidence interval 18.4 to 33.4 days). Mixed-methods analysis: Patient decision-making was influenced by prior experience of disease and anticipated recovery time. The burden involved in wound care and the gap between expected and actual time for recovery were the principal reasons given for decision regret. Discrete choice experiment: The strongest predictors of patient treatment choice were risk of infection/persistence (attribute importance 70%), and shorter recovery time (attribute importance 30%). Patients were willing to trade off these attributes. Those aged over 30 years had a higher risk tolerance (22.35-34.67%) for treatment failure if they could experience rapid recovery. There was no strong evidence that younger patients were willing to accept higher risk of treatment failure in exchange for a faster recovery. Patients were uniform in rejecting excision-and-leave-open because of the protracted nursing care it entailed. Wysocki classification analysis: There was acceptable inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.61). Consensus exercise: Five research and practice priorities were identified. The top research priority was that a comparative trial should broadly group interventions. The top practice priority was that any interventions should be less disruptive than the disease itself.

Limitations

Incomplete recruitment and follow-up data were an issue, particularly given the multiple interventions. Assumptions were made regarding risk adjustment.

Conclusions and future work

Results suggest the burden of pilonidal surgery is greater than reported previously. This can be mitigated with better selection of intervention according to disease type and patient desired goals. Results indicate a framework for future higher-quality trials that stratify disease and utilise broad groupings of common interventions with development of a patient-centred core outcome set.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN95551898.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/17/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 33. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Comparative efficacy of ultrasound guidance or conventional anatomical landmarks for neuraxial puncture in adult patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preprocedural, real-time, and computer-aided three-dimensional ultrasound has been widely used for neuraxial puncture; however, the optimal guidance is unclear. We examined the comparative efficacy of three ultrasound guidance and anatomical landmarks for neuraxial puncture in adults.

METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled studies comparing the efficacy of ultrasound guidance and anatomical landmarks for neuraxial puncture in adults using electronic databases and unpublished studies. The primary outcomes were first-pass success and patient satisfaction. A random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was used.

RESULTS

We identified 74 eligible studies (7090 patients). Preprocedural ultrasound and real-time ultrasound-guided neuraxial puncture improved first-pass success compared with anatomical landmarks (risk ratio [RR] 1.6; 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.3-1.9; RR 1.9; 95% CrI 1.3-2.9, respectively, moderate confidence). Computer-aided ultrasound-guided neuraxial puncture also increased first-pass success (RR 1.8; 95% CrI 0.97-3.3, low confidence), although estimates were imprecise. However, real-time ultrasound-guided neuraxial puncture resulted in minimal difference in first-pass success compared with preprocedural ultrasound (RR 1.2; 95% CrI 0.8-1.8, moderate confidence). Preprocedural ultrasound improved patient satisfaction slightly compared with anatomical landmark use (standardised mean differences 0.28; 95% CrI 0.092-0.47, low confidence).

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA provides evidence supporting ultrasound-guided neuraxial puncture compared with use of anatomical landmarks, including indirect comparisons. Among the three ultrasound guidance methods, preprocedural ultrasound appears to be a better adjunctive option.

Acetabular cup fixation with and without screws following primary total hip arthroplasty: migration evaluated by radiostereometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Early cup migration after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is correlated to late revision due to aseptic loosening. However, the use of screws for increased cup stability remains unclear and debated. The purpose of this study is to assess acetabular migration between cups fixated with and without the use of screws.

METHODS

Patients underwent primary THA using either a direct anterior (DA) or a direct lateral (DL) approach. The DA surgeon routinely supplemented cup fixation with 1 or 2 screws while the DL surgeon used no screws. At 7 follow-up visits up to 2 years post operation, patients underwent radiostereometric analysis (RSA) imaging for implant migration tracking. The primary outcome was defined as proximal cup migration measured with model-based RSA.

RESULTS

68 patients were assessed up to 2 years post operation, n = 43 received screws and n = 25 did not. The use of screws had a significant effect on cup migration (p = 0.018). From 2 weeks to 2 years post operation, the total mean migration was 0.403 ± 0.681 mm and 0.129 ± 0.272 mm (p = 0.319) for cups with and without screws, respectively. The number of screws used also had a significant impact, with cups fixated with 1 screw migrating more than cups fixated with 2 (p = 0.013, mean difference 0.712 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Acetabular cups fixated with only 1 screw resulted in greater migration than cups with no screws or 2 screws, though the mean magnitude was well under the 1.0 mm threshold for unacceptable migration. However, 3 of the 24 patients who received only 1 screw exceeded the 1.0 mm threshold for unacceptable migration. Ultimately, the results of this study show that the use of 2 screws to supplement cup fixation can provide good implant stability that is equivalent to a secure press-fit component with no screws.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03558217).

European Glaucoma Society - A guide on surgical innovation for glaucoma

PROLOGUE: Glaucoma surgery has been, for many decades now, dominated by the universal gold standard which is trabeculectomy augmented with antimetabolites. Tubes also came into the scene to complement what we use to call conventional or traditional glaucoma surgery. More recently we experienced a changing glaucoma surgery environment with the "advent" of what we have become used to calling Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS). What is the unmet need, what is the gap that these newcomers aim to fill? Hippocrates taught us "bring benefit, not harm" and new glaucoma techniques and devices aim to provide safer surgery compared to conventional surgery. For the patient, but also for the clinician, safety is important. Is more safety achieved with new glaucoma surgery and, if so, is it associated with better, equivalent, or worse efficacy? Is new glaucoma surgery intended to replace conventional surgery or to complement it as an 'add-on' to what clinicians already have in their hands to manage glaucoma? Which surgery should be chosen for which patient? What are the options? Are they equivalent? These are too many questions for the clinician! What are the answers to the questions? What is the evidence to support answers? Do we need more evidence and how can we produce high-quality evidence? This EGS Guide explores the changing and challenging glaucoma surgery environment aiming to provide answers to these questions. The EGS uses four words to highlight a continuum: Innovation, Education, Communication, and Implementation. Translating innovation to successful implementation is crucially important and requires high-quality evidence to ensure steps forward to a positive impact on health care when it comes to implementation. The vision of EGS is to provide the best possible well-being and minimal glaucomainduced visual disability in individuals with glaucoma within an affordable healthcare system. In this regard, assessing the changes in glaucoma surgery is a pivotal contribution to better care. As mentioned, this Guide aims to provide answers to the crucial questions above. However, every clinician is aware that answers may differ for every person: an individualised approach is needed. Therefore, there will be no uniform answer for all situations and all patients. Clinicians would need, through the clinical method and possibly some algorithm, to reach answers and decisions at the individual level. In this regard, evidence is needed to support clinicians to make decisions. Of key importance in this Guide is to provide an overview of existing evidence on glaucoma surgery and specifically on recent innovations and novel devices, but also to set standards in surgical design and reporting for future studies on glaucoma surgical innovation. Designing studies in surgery is particularly challenging because of many subtle variations inherent to surgery and hence multiple factors involved in the outcome, but even more because one needs to define carefully outcomes relevant to the research question but also to the future translation into clinical practice. In addition this Guide aims to provide clinical recommendations on novel procedures already in use when insufficient evidence exists. EGS has a long tradition to provide guidance to the ophthalmic community in Europe and worldwide through the EGS Guidelines (now in their 5th Edition). The EGS leadership recognized that the changing environment in glaucoma surgery currently represents a major challenge for the clinician, needing specific guidance. Therefore, the decision was made to issue this Guide on Glaucoma Surgery in order to help clinicians to make appropriate decisions for their patients and also to provide the framework and guidance for researchers to improve the quality of evidence in future studies. Ultimately this Guide will support better Glaucoma Care in accordance with EGS's Vision and Mission. Fotis Topouzis EGS President

Explanatory and pragmatic trials in orthopaedics - Have we done the right studies?

Recent decades have seen marked advances in the quality of clinical orthopaedic trauma research, and with this has come a rise in the number of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) being conducted in orthopaedic trauma. These trials have been largely valuable in driving evidence-based management of injuries which previously had clinical equipoise. However, though RCTs are traditionally seen as the 'gold standard' of high-quality research, this research method is comprised primarily of two entities, explanatory and pragmatic designs, each with its own strengths and limitations. Most orthopaedic trials lie within a continuum between these designs, with varying degrees of both pragmatic and explanatory features. In this narrative review we provide a summary of the nuances within orthopaedic trial design, the advantages and limitations of such designs, and suggest tools which may aid clinicians in the appropriate selection and evaluation of trial designs.

[Translated article] The use of an anatomical implant compared to a straight LCP decreases extraction in posterior humeral MIPO

PURPOSE

Posterior MIPO approach in the humerus has been described by using a 4.5mm LCP plate. Although straight plates have shown good results, they have not been designed to adapt to the distal humeral metaphysis. The goal of the study was to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in hardware removal after posterior MIPO with either a straight or a pre-contoured plate.

METHODS

Patients older than 18 years, who had suffered mid-distal humeral shaft fracture, were treated by a posterior MIPO technique with a locking plate and had a minimum of 12-month follow-up were retrospectively included. Patients were separated into: group 1 (LCP 4.5mm straight plate); and group 2 (3.5mm anatomically shaped plate). Clinical and radiological evaluations were performed in the postoperative period. Patient-reported outcomes and the need of hardware removal because of pain were assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven patients in group 1 and 40 in group 2. No patient was lost to follow-up. There were no statistical differences between in patient reported outcomes measures. All the fractures healed. Within group 1, 18% (95%CI: 6-38%) of the patients required implant removal while in group 2 this incidence was 0% (95%CI: 0-9%) (P 0.009).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the use of a 4.5mm LCP compared to an anatomical 3.5mm LCP in posterior MIPO of the humerus generates greater discomfort and therefore leads to a 18% increase in the risk of implant removal.

The use of an anatomical implant compared to a straight LCP decreases extraction in posterior humeral MIPO

PURPOSE

Posterior MIPO approach in the humerus has been described by using a 4.5mm LCP plate. Although straight plates have shown good results, they have not been designed to adapt to the distal humeral metaphysis. The goal of the study was to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in hardware removal after posterior MIPO with either a straight or a pre-contoured plate.

METHODS

Patients older than 18 years, who had suffered mid-distal humeral shaft fracture, were treated by a posterior MIPO technique with a locking plate and had a minimum of 12-month follow-up were retrospectively included. Patients were separated into: group 1 (LCP 4.5mm straight plate); and group 2 (3.5mm anatomically shaped plate). Clinical and radiological evaluation were performed in the postoperative period. Patient-reported outcomes and the need of hardware removal because of pain were assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven patients in group 1 and 40 in group 2. No patient was lost to follow-up. There were no statistical differences between in patient reported outcomes measures. All the fractures healed. Within group 1, 18% (95%CI: 6-38%) of the patients required implant removal while in group 2 this incidence was 0% (95%CI: 0-9%) (P 0.009).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the use of a 4.5mm LCP compared to an anatomical 3.5mm LCP in posterior MIPO of the humerus generates greater discomfort and therefore leads to a 18% increase in the risk of implant removal.

The paucity of high-level evidence for therapy in pediatric cardiology

Introduction

Clinical practice should be based on the highest quality of evidence available. Therefore, we aimed to classify publications in the field of pediatric cardiology in the year 2021 based on the level of scientific evidence.

Materials and Methods

A PubMed search was performed to identify pediatric cardiology articles published in the calendar year 2021. The abstract or manuscript of each study was reviewed. Each study was categorized as high, medium, or low level of evidence based on the study design. Disease investigated, treatment studied, and country of publication were recorded. Randomized control trials (RCTs) in similar fields of neonatology and adult cardiology were identified for comparison. Descriptive statistics were performed on the level of evidence, type of disease, country of publication, and therapeutic intervention.

Results

In 2021, 731 studies were identified. A decrease in prevalence for the level of evidence as a function of low, medium, and high was found (50.1%, 44.2%, and 5.8%, respectively). A low level of evidence studies was the majority for all types of cardiac disease identified, including acquired heart disease, arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, and heart failure, and for treatment modalities, including circulatory support, defibrillator, percutaneous intervention, medicine, and surgery. In a subgroup analysis, most high-level evidence studies were from the USA (31%), followed by China (26.2%) and India (14.3%). Comparing RCTs, 21 RCTs were identified in pediatric cardiology compared to 178 in neonatology and 413 in adult ischemic heart disease.

Conclusions

There is a great need for the conduct of studies that offer a high level of evidence in the discipline of pediatric cardiology.

Does Surgeon Level of Expertise Correlate with Patient Outcomes?

Background  It is difficult to evaluate the results of surgical techniques as there is inherent variability between surgeons in regard to experience, skill level, and knowledge. Tang suggested a classification system in 2009 in an attempt to standardize surgeon level of expertise, with categories ranging from nonspecialist (Level I) to expert (Level V). This epidemiological analysis of all articles citing Tang's original paper examines if a surgeon's self-reported level of expertise correlates with outcomes and evaluates whether the current definition of Tang level is sufficient to account for expertise bias. Methods  In May 2021, all articles citing Tang level of expertise were identified ( N  = 222). Articles were included if they described a novel technique and provided author(s)' levels ( n  = 205). Statistical analysis was conducted, and p -values less than 0.05 were considered significant. Results  The most common specialties reporting Tang level of expertise were orthopaedic surgery (82.9%) and plastic surgery (15.5%). The most common subspecialty was hand surgery. 2020 was the year with the most studies reporting level of expertise (31.7%), followed by 2021 (20.0%) and 2019 (17.1%). The majority of studies (80.5%) reported positive results with their technique, and of these, 63.3% were statistically significant. Level of expertise was not significantly associated with a doctoral degree, type of residency completed, fellowship completion, hand fellowship, author sex, study type, or result significance. Discussion  The current Tang classification is both underreported and incomplete in its present state. To account for expertise bias, we recommend all authors report Tang level when describing surgical techniques. Studies with multiple authors should explicitly state the level of each author, as well as a weighted average accounting for the total contribution of each individual.

Minimally Invasive Tubular Lumbar Discectomy Versus Conventional Open Lumbar Discectomy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effectiveness of minimally invasive (MIS) tubular discectomy in comparison to conventional open surgery among patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN).

METHODS

We performed an observational analysis of data that was prospectively collected. We implemented Minimum Clinically Important Differences (MCIDs), and we adjusted for potential confounders with multiple logistic regression. Adverse events were collected according to the Spinal Adverse Events Severity (SAVES) protocol.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-nine (62%) patients underwent MIS tubular discectomy and 211 (38%) underwent conventional open discectomy. There were no significant differences between groups for improvement of leg pain and disability, but the MIS technique was associated with reduced odds of achieving the MCID for back pain (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.99, P < 0.05). We identified statistically significant differences in favor of MIS for each of operating time (MIS mean (SD) 72.2 minutes (30.0) vs open 93.5 (40.9)), estimated blood loss (MIS 37.9 mL (36.7) vs open 76.8 (71.4)), length of stay in hospital (MIS 73% same-day discharge vs open 40%), rates of incidental durotomy (MIS 4% vs open 8%), and wound-related complications (MIS 3% vs open 9%); but not for overall rates of reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Open and MIS techniques yielded similar improvements of leg pain and disability at up to 12 months of follow-up, but MIS patients were less likely to experience improvement of associated back pain. Small differences favored MIS for operating time, blood loss, and adverse events but may have limited clinical importance.

Surgical trial design for incorporating the effects of learning: what is the current methodological guidance, and is it sufficient?

BACKGROUND

Surgical interventions are complex. Key elements of this complexity are the surgeon and their learning curve. They pose methodological challenges in the design, analysis and interpretation of surgical RCTs. We identify, summarise, and critically examine current guidance about how to incorporate learning curves in the design and analysis of RCTs in surgery.

EXAMINING CURRENT GUIDANCE

Current guidance presumes that randomisation must be between levels of just one treatment component, and that the evaluation of comparative effectiveness will be made via the average treatment effect (ATE). It considers how learning effects affect the ATE, and suggests solutions which seek to define the target population such that the ATE is a meaningful quantity to guide practice. We argue that these are solutions to a flawed formulation of the problem, and are inadequate for policymaking in this setting.

REFORMULATING THE PROBLEM

The premise that surgical RCTs are limited to single-component comparisons, evaluated via the ATE, has skewed the methodological discussion. Forcing a multi-component intervention, such as surgery, into the framework of the conventional RCT design ignores its factorial nature. We briefly discuss the multiphase optimisation strategy (MOST), which for a Stage 3 trial would endorse a factorial design. This would provide a wealth of information to inform nuanced policy but would likely be infeasible in this setting. We discuss in more depth the benefits of targeting the ATE conditional on operating surgeon experience (CATE). The value of estimating the CATE for exploring learning effects has been previously recognised, but with discussion limited to analysis methods only. The robustness and precision of such analyses can be ensured via the trial design, and we argue that trial designs targeting CATE represent a clear gap in current guidance.

CONCLUSION

Trial designs that facilitate robust, precise estimation of the CATE would allow for more nuanced policymaking, leading to patient benefit. No such designs are currently forthcoming. Further research in trial design to facilitate the estimation of the CATE is needed.

Design and Conduct of Randomized Clinical Trials Evaluating Surgical Innovations in Ophthalmology: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Surgical innovations are necessary to improve patient care. After an initial exploratory phase, novel surgical technique should be compared with alternative options or standard care in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, surgical RCTs have unique methodological challenges. Our study sought to investigate key aspects of the design, conduct, and reporting of RCTs of novel surgeries.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021253297). RCTs evaluating novel surgeries for cataract, vitreoretinal, glaucoma, and corneal diseases were included. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. The search period was January 1, 2016, to June 16, 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 52 ophthalmic surgery RCTs were identified in the fields of glaucoma (n = 12), vitreoretinal surgery (n = 5), cataract (n = 19), and cornea (n = 16). A description defining the surgeon's experience or level of expertise was reported in 30 RCTs (57%) and was presented in both control and intervention groups in 11 (21%). Specification of the number of cases performed in the particular surgical innovation being assessed prior to the trial was reported in 10 RCTs (19%) and an evaluation of quality of the surgical intervention in 7 (13%). Prospective trial registration was recorded in 12 RCTs (23%) and retrospective registration in 13 (25%); and there was no registration record in the remaining 28 (53%) studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Important aspects of the study design such as the surgical learning curve, surgeon's previous experience, quality assurance, and trial registration details were often missing in novel ophthalmic surgical procedures. The Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework aims to improve the quality of study design.

The role of patient advocates and sarcoma community initiatives in musculoskeletal oncology. Moving towards Evidence-Based Advocacy to empower Evidence-Based Medicine

Musculoskeletal sarcomas are rare cancers that as the whole family of sarcomas pose several challenges at different levels, ranging from medical knowledge to clinical research and policymaking. Addressing these challenges, necessarily calls for the inclusion of patient perspective inside the decision-making processes of every area that contributes to treatment improvement, from the provision of high-quality services by healthcare organisations to research issues. Without patient-provided inputs to inform decisions, the current paradigm of patient-centred care makes no sense and sounds at the least irrational if not unethical. Putting PROMs on "centre stage" in cancer research and care, could allow to build a truly Evidence Based Advocacy (EBA) and therefore to empower Evidence Based Medicine (EBM).

Randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have become the standard method of evaluating new interventions (whether medical or surgical), and the best evidence used to inform the development of new practice guidelines. When we review the history of medical versus surgical trials, surgical RCTs usually face more challenges and difficulties when conducted. These challenges can be in blinding, recruiting, funding, and even in certain ethical issues. Moreover, to add to the complexity, the field of neurosurgery has its own unique challenges when it comes to conducting an RCT. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of the history of neurosurgical RCTs, focusing on some of the most critical challenges and obstacles that face investigators. The main domains this review will address are: (1) Trial design: equipoise, blinding, sham surgery, expertise-based trials, reporting of outcomes, and pilot trials, (2) trial implementation: funding, recruitment, and retention, and (3) trial analysis: intention-to-treat versus as-treated and learning curve effect.

Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer: a Cochrane Review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of posterior musculofascial reconstruction robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (PR-RALP) compared to no PR during standard RALP (S-RALP) for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search with no restrictions including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing variations of PR-RALP vs S-RALP for clinically localised prostate cancer. The quality of evidence was assessed on outcome basis according to Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Our search identified 13 records of eight unique RCTs, of which six were published studies, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 1085 randomised patients, of whom 963 completed the trials. All patients had either cT1c or cT2 or cT3a disease.

RESULTS

A PR-RALP may improve urinary continence 1 week after catheter removal compared to no PR (risk ratio [RR] 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.73; I²  = 42%, five studies, 498 patients, low certainty of evidence [CoE]). A PR-RALP may have little to no effect on urinary continence 3 months after surgery compared to no PR (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84-1.14; I²  = 67%, six studies, 842 patients, low CoE). A PR-RALP probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to no PR (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29-1.92; I²  = 0%, six studies, 835 patients, moderate CoE).

CONCLUSIONS

This review found evidence that PR-RALP may improve early continence 1 week after catheter removal but not thereafter. Meanwhile, adverse event rates are probably not impacted and positive surgical margin rates are likely similar. There was no difference in our subgroup analysis for all outcomes with anterior reconstruction technique when combined with PR vs only PR.

A multicentre, prospective cohort study of handsewn versus stapled intracorporeal anastomosis for robotic hemicolectomy

AIM

Robotic right hemicolectomy is gaining in popularity due to the recognized technical benefits associated with the robotic platform. However, there is a lack of standardization regarding the optimal anastomotic technique in this cohort of patients, namely stapled or handsewn intra- or extra-corporeal anastomosis. The ergonomic benefit associated with the robotic platform lends itself to intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA). The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of stapled versus handsewn ICA.

METHOD

A multicentre prospective cohort study was undertaken across four high-volume robotic centres in France between September 2018 and December 2020. All adult patients undergoing an elective robotic right hemicolectomy with an ICA performed and a minimum postoperative follow-up of 30 days were included. The primary endpoint of our study was anastomotic leak within 30 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 144 patients underwent robotic right hemicolectomy: 92 (63.8%) had a stapled ICA and 52 (36.1%) a handsewn ICA. The operative indication was adenocarcinoma in 90% with a stapled ICA compared with 62% in the handsewn ICA group (p < 0.001). The overall operating time was longer in the handsewn ICA group compared with the stapled ICA group (219 min vs. 193 min; p = 0.001). The anastomotic leak rate was 3.3% in stapled ICA and 3.8% in handsewn ICA (p = 1.00). There was no difference in the rate or severity of postoperative morbidity.

CONCLUSION

ICA robotic hemicolectomy is technically safe and is associated with low rates of anastomotic leak overall and equivalent clinical outcomes between the two techniques.

Expertise of Surgeons Publishing Novel Techniques in the Journal of Wrist Surgery

Introduction  Recent efforts to standardize reporting of surgeon experience in novel technique publications have recommended reporting of Tang level of expertise (LOE). Question/Purpose  The aim of this study was to document trends in LOE reporting for novel technique articles published in the Journal of Wrist Surgery and evaluate whether author experience affects novel research outcomes. Methods  A total of 261 articles published from 2018 to 2020 were reviewed. Articles describing novel surgical techniques were included and examined for Tang LOE. Author variables were collected online. Results  Eight percent (21/261) of articles discussed novel surgical techniques and one reported LOE. Nearly half (47.6%) of articles did not conduct statistical analysis. Four (19.0%) reported insignificant statistical results and 7 (33.3%) reported significant findings. All significant statistical findings were positive. Number of prior related publications by the senior author did not affect new technique result significance ( p  = 0.34). Discussion  From 2018 to 2020, only one article documented LOE. Authors' variables, including number of prior related publications, were not correlated with significant results in their new publications. This may suggest that an author's established experience in a novel technique, quantified by prior publications on the topic, does not make one more likely to achieve significantly better or worse outcomes in their reviewed Journal of Wrist Surgery study. Conclusions  Tang LOE is an important way for readers to classify expertise and should be reported, and potentially modified to better define contributing variables.

Accuracy of Physical Assessment in Nursing for Cervical Spine Joint Pain and Stiffness: Pilot Study Protocol

BACKGROUND

Cervical spine dysfunction is a condition with high personal, social, and economic impact worldwide. Although its etiology is described as multifactorial, there is a need for further clarification. The literature has demonstrated the anatomical, physiological, and pathophysiological relationship among the cervical spine, temporomandibular joint, and visceral system. To guide and contribute to the accuracy of the physical assessment performed by nurses, we will study the influence of the stomatognathic system and viscerosomatic reflexes on pain and joint stiffness of the cervical spine.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to describe a pilot study protocol to investigate the influence of the stomatognathic system and viscerosomatic reflexes on cervical structures.

METHODS

A pilot study with a quasi-experimental design was conducted with 50 volunteers from the university population of the Universidade Católica Portuguesa-Porto. We studied the influence of changes in the usual intercuspation, the occlusal deprogramming, and the pressure stimulus of the reflex skin region of the ilium/colon in the cervical spine. This study was divided into 2 phases. In the first phase, we performed the kinematic and pain analysis during the passive mobilization of the upper cervical spine using the Motion Capture System at the Motion Capture Laboratory at UCP-Porto and the Visual Analog Scale. In the second phase, we evaluated the pain threshold on palpation of the erector neck muscles and the structures of the stomatognathic system using algometry. The influence of viscerosomatic reflexes on the structures of the stomatognathic system was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Selection and preparation of the data collection site, acquisition of materials, constitution of the sample group and data collection were completed. The analysis of the results is being carried out.

CONCLUSIONS

The data from this study will allow for the detection of the possible influence of the stomatognathic system and viscerosomatic reflexes on pain and range of motion of the upper cervical spine, providing data for future randomized studies. We have also identified potential limitations of this study.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/31878.

Common errors in the design of orthopaedic trials: Has anything changed?

INTRODUCTION

The adoption of evidence-based orthopaedics has shifted the focus from expert base opinions and anecdotal evidence to a focus on integrating the best available clinical research. This shift has led to an increased focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the field. Although RCTs are considered the highest level of evidence, methodologic errors can introduce bias and limit the validity of the results. Early trials were hampered by lack of blinding, inadequate sample sizes and other design flaws. The objective of this review was to examine the current literature to determine if the design and execution of RCTs has improved.

DESIGN ERRORS

The awareness of the importance of sample size increased over time with substantially more trials reporting sample size calculations. However, many contemporary RCTs are still underpowered and fail to reach their calculated sample size. Given the challenges of surgically based RCTs, the majority of historical trials lacked blinding, increasing the risk of bias. There is evidence that there has been a concerted effort to increase the blinding in RCTs, particularly in outcome assessors. A more recent development in the design of surgical trials is the introduction of expertise-based trial designs in which patients are randomized to a surgeon with expertise in a particular intervention. These trials minimize the bias that can arise from differential expertise bias and have the potential to improve the validity and feasibility of RCTs. Finally, there has been an increased focus on the reporting of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in orthopaedic RCTs. Alongside this movement has been the development of minimal important differences (MIDs) to define the changes that are relevant and meaningful to patients. Both PROs and MIDs should be taken into consideration when calculating the sample size and study power in clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although marked improvements have been made in the design and implementation of trials, there is still considerable room for improvement. Adequately blinded and powered studies evaluating clinically important outcomes and differences should be key considerations in trial design moving forward.

Methodological Standards for the Design, Implementation, and Analysis of Randomized Trials in Cardiac Surgery: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiac surgery presents specific methodological challenges in the design, implementation, and analysis of randomized controlled trials. The purposes of this scientific statement are to review key standards in cardiac surgery randomized trial design and implementation, and to provide recommendations for conducting and interpreting cardiac surgery trials. Recommendations include a careful evaluation of the suitability of the research question for a clinical trial, assessment of clinical equipoise, feasibility of enrolling a representative patient cohort, impact of practice variations on the safety and efficacy of the study intervention, likelihood and impact of crossover, and duration of follow-up. Trial interventions and study end points should be predefined, and appropriate strategies must be used to ensure adequate deliverability of the trial interventions. Every effort must be made to ensure a high completeness of follow-up; trial design and analytic techniques must be tailored to the specific research question and trial setting.

Expertise-based design in surgical trials: a narrative review

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust study design for evaluating the safety and efficacy of a therapeutic intervention. However, their internal validity are at risk when evaluating surgical interventions. This review summarizes existing expertise- based trials in surgery and related methodological concepts to guide surgeons performing this work. We provide caseloads required to reach the learning curve for various surgical interventions and report criteria for expertise from published and unpublished expertise-based trials. In addition, we review design and implementation concepts of expertise-based trials, including recruitment of surgeons, crossover, ethics, generalizability, sample size and definitions for learning curve. Several RCTs have used an expertise-based design. We found that the majority of definitions used for expertise were vague, heterogeneous, and inconsistent across trials evaluating the same surgical intervention. Statistical methods exist to adjust for the learning curve; however, there is limited guidance. We developed the following criteria for surgical expertise for future trials: 1) decide on the proxy to be used for the learning curve, and 2) assess eligible surgeons by comparing their performance to the previously defined expertise criteria.

Arthroscopic Versus Mini-open Rotator Cuff Repair: A Randomized Trial and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with complete rotator cuff tears who fail a course of nonoperative therapy can benefit from surgical repair.

PURPOSE

This randomized trial compared mini-open (MO) versus all-arthroscopic (AA) rotator cuff repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

Patients with rotator cuff tears were randomized to undergo MO or AA repair at 9 centers by 23 surgeons. The primary outcome (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index [WORC]) and secondary outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index [SPADI] pain subscale, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12], reported medication use, adverse events), as well as measurements of range of motion and strength, were collected at 1 month before surgery; at 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively; and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively. A blinded radiologist evaluated rotator cuff integrity on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at baseline and 1 year. Intention-to-treat analysis of covariance with the preoperative WORC score, age, and tear size as covariates assessed continuous outcomes. Sex differences were assessed. A meta-analysis synthesized the primary outcome between MO and AA repair with previous trials.

RESULTS

From 954 patients screened, 411 were ineligible (276 because of recovery with physical therapy), 449 were screened at surgery (175 ineligible), and 274 completed follow-up (138 MO and 136 AA). The AA and MO groups were similar before surgery. WORC scores improved from 40 preoperatively to 89 (AA) and 93 (MO) at 2 years, for an adjusted mean difference of 3.4 (95% CI, -0.4 to 7.2). There were no statistically significant differences between the AA and MO groups at any time point. All secondary patient-reported outcomes were not significantly different between the MO and AA groups, except the 2-year SPADI pain score (8 vs 12, respectively; P = .02). A similar recovery in range of motion and strength occurred in both groups over time. MRI indicated minimal improvement in muscle relative to fat (AA: n = 3; MO: n = 2), with most worsening (AA: n = 25; MO: n = 24) or remaining unchanged (AA: n = 70; MO: n = 70). Opioid use was significantly reduced after surgery (from 21% to 5%). The meta-analysis indicated no significant standardized mean difference between groups in the primary outcome across all pooled studies (standardized mean difference, -0.06 [95% CI, -0.34 to 0.22]).

CONCLUSION

Both AA and MO rotator cuff repair provide large clinical benefits, with few adverse events. There is strong evidence of equivalent clinical improvements.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00128076.

Ross for Valve replacement In AduLts (REVIVAL) pilot trial: rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

In non-elderly adults, aortic valve replacement (AVR) with conventional prostheses yield poor long-term outcomes. Recent publications suggest a benefit of the Ross procedure over conventional AVR and highlight the need for high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCTs) on the optimal AVR. We have initiated a pilot trial assess two feasibility criteria and one assumption: (1) evaluate the capacity to enrol six patients per centre per year in at least five international centre, (2) validate greater than 90% compliance with allocation and (3) to validate the proportion of mechanical (≥65%) vs biological (≤35%) valves in the conventional arm.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Ross for Valve replacement In AduLts (REVIVAL) is a multinational, expertise-based RCT in adults aged 18-60 years undergoing AVR, comparing the Ross procedure versus one of the alternative approaches (mechanical vs stented or stentless bioprosthesis). The feasibility objectives will be assessed after randomising 60 patients; we will then make a decision regarding whether to expand the trial with the current protocol. We will ultimately examine the impact of the Ross procedure as compared with conventional AVR in non-elderly adults on survival free of valve-related life-threatening complications (major bleeding, systemic thromboembolism, valve thrombosis and valve reoperation) over the duration of follow-up. The objectives of the pilot trial will be analysed using descriptive statistics. In the full trial, the intention-to-treat principle will guide all primary analyses. A time-to-event analysis will be performed and Kaplan-Meier survival curves with comparison between groups using a log rank test will be presented.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

REVIVAL will answer whether non-elderly adults benefit from the Ross procedure over conventional valve replacement. The final results at major meetings, journals, regional seminars, hospital rounds and via the Reducing Global Perioperative Risk Multimedia Resource Centre.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03798782 PROTOCOL VERSION: January 29, 2019 (Final Version 1.0).

Comparison of the real-world effectiveness of vertical versus lateral functional hemispherotomy techniques for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: A post hoc analysis of the HOPS study

Objective

This study was undertaken to determine whether the vertical parasagittal approach or the lateral peri‐insular/peri‐Sylvian approach to hemispheric surgery is the superior technique in achieving long‐term seizure freedom.

Methods

We conducted a post hoc subgroup analysis of the HOPS (Hemispheric Surgery Outcome Prediction Scale) study, an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study that identified predictors of seizure freedom through logistic regression modeling. Only patients undergoing vertical parasagittal, lateral peri‐insular/peri‐Sylvian, or lateral trans‐Sylvian hemispherotomy were included in this post hoc analysis. Differences in seizure freedom rates were assessed using a time‐to‐event method and calculated using the Kaplan–Meier survival method.

Results

Data for 672 participants across 23 centers were collected on the specific hemispherotomy approach. Of these, 72 (10.7%) underwent vertical parasagittal hemispherotomy and 600 (89.3%) underwent lateral peri‐insular/peri‐Sylvian or trans‐Sylvian hemispherotomy. Seizure freedom was obtained in 62.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 53.5%–70.2%) of the entire cohort at 10‐year follow‐up. Seizure freedom was 88.8% (95% CI = 78.9%–94.3%) at 1‐year follow‐up and persisted at 85.5% (95% CI = 74.7%–92.0%) across 5‐ and 10‐year follow‐up in the vertical subgroup. In contrast, seizure freedom decreased from 89.2% (95% CI = 86.3%–91.5%) at 1‐year to 72.1% (95% CI = 66.9%–76.7%) at 5‐year to 57.2% (95% CI = 46.6%–66.4%) at 10‐year follow‐up for the lateral subgroup. Log‐rank test found that vertical hemispherotomy was associated with durable seizure‐free progression compared to the lateral approach (p = .01). Patients undergoing the lateral hemispherotomy technique had a shorter time‐to‐seizure recurrence (hazard ratio = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.08–6.04, p = .03) and increased seizure recurrence odds (odds ratio = 3.67, 95% CI = 1.05–12.86, p = .04) compared to those undergoing the vertical hemispherotomy technique.

Significance

This pilot study demonstrated more durable seizure freedom of the vertical technique compared to lateral hemispherotomy techniques. Further studies, such as prospective expertise‐based observational studies or a randomized clinical trial, are required to determine whether a vertical approach to hemispheric surgery provides superior long‐term seizure outcomes.

Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Delayed recovery of urinary continence is a major adverse effect of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in men undergoing prostate cancer treatment. To address this issue, a number of surgical techniques have been designed to reconstruct the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter, which is responsible for urinary continence after removal of the prostate; however, it is unclear how well they work.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of posterior musculofascial reconstruction RALP compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 12 March 2021. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants were randomized to undergo variations of posterior musculofascial reconstruction RALP versus no posterior reconstruction during RALP for clinically localized prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery within one week after catheter removal, at three months after surgery, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery at six and twelve months after surgery, potency recovery twelve months after surgery, positive surgical margins (PSM), and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search identified 13 records of eight unique RCTs, of which six were published studies and two were abstract proceedings. We included 1085 randomized participants, of whom 963 completed the trials (88.8%). All participants had either cT1c or cT2 or cT3a disease, with a mean prostate-specific antigen level of 8.15 ng/mL. Primary outcomes Posterior reconstruction RALP (PR-RALP) may improve urinary continence one week after catheter removal compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.73; I² = 42%; studies = 5, participants = 498; low CoE) although the CI also includes the possibility of no effect. Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 84 more men per 1000 (33 fewer to 244 more) reporting urinary continence recovery.  Posterior reconstruction may have little to no effect on urinary continence three months after surgery compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14; I² = 67%; studies = 6, participants = 842; low CoE). Assuming 701 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 14 fewer men per 1000 (112 fewer to 98 more) reporting urinary continence after three months. PR-RALP probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.92; I² = 0%; studies = 6, participants = 835; moderate CoE). Assuming 25 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP experience a serious adverse event at this time point, this corresponds to six fewer men per 1000 (17 fewer to 23 more) reporting serious adverse events.  Secondary outcomes PR-RALP may result in little to no difference in recovery of continence 12 months after surgery compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.07; I² = 25%; studies = 3, participants = 602; low CoE). Assuming 918 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 18 more men per 1000 (18 fewer to 64 more) reporting urinary continence recovery.  We are very uncertain about the effects of PR-RALP on recovery of potency 12 months after surgery compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26; I² = 3%; studies = 2, participants = 308; very low CoE). Assuming 433 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are potent at this time point, this corresponds to nine more men per 1000 (78 fewer to 113 more) reporting potency recovery.  PR-RALP may result in little to no difference in positive surgical margins compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.33; I² = 50%; studies = 3, participants = 517; low CoE). Assuming 130 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have a positive surgical margin, this corresponds to 31 more men per 1000 (46 fewer to 173 more) reporting positive surgical margins.  PR-RALP may result in little to no difference in biochemical recurrence compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.52; I² = 0%; studies = 2, participants = 468; low CoE). Assuming 70 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have experienced biochemical recurrence at this time point, this corresponds to 25 more men per 1000 (18 fewer to 107 more) reporting biochemical recurrence.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found evidence that PR-RALP may improve early continence one week after catheter removal but not thereafter. Meanwhile, adverse event rates are probably not impacted and surgical margins rates are likely similar. This review was unable to determine if or how these findings may be impacted by the person's age, nerve-sparing status, or clinical stage. Study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency lowered the certainty of evidence for the outcomes assessed.

Effect of gap balancing and measured resection techniques on implant migration and contact kinematics of a cementless total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare implant migration and tibiofemoral contact kinematics of a cementless primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implanted using either a gap balancing (GB) or measured resection (MR) surgical technique.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients underwent TKA via a GB (n = 19) or a MR (n = 20) surgical technique. Patients received an identical fixed-bearing, cruciate-retaining cementless implant. Patients underwent a baseline radiostereometric analysis (RSA) exam at two weeks post-operation, with follow-up visits at six weeks, three months, six months, and one year post-operation. Migration including maximum total point motion (MTPM) of the femoral and tibial components was calculated over time. At the one year visit patients also underwent a kinematic exam via RSA.

RESULTS

Mean MTPM of the tibial component at one year post-operation was not different (mean difference = 0.09 mm, p = 0.980) between the GB group (0.85 ± 0.37 mm) and the MR group (0.94 ± 0.41 mm). Femoral component MTPM at one year post-operation was also not different (mean difference = 0.27 mm, p = 0.463) between the GB group (0.62 ± 0.34 mm) and the MR group (0.89 ± 0.44 mm). Both groups displayed similar kinematic patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in implant migration and kinematics of a single-radius, cruciate retaining cementless TKA performed using a GB or MR surgical technique. The magnitude of migration suggests there is low risk of early loosening. The results provide support for using the cementless implant with either a GB or MR technique.

Patient decision-making and regret in pilonidal sinus surgery: a mixed-methods study

AIM

Little is known about optimal management strategies for pilonidal sinus disease (PSD). We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand why patients make, and sometimes regret, treatment decisions.

METHOD

We conducted longitudinal semi-structured interviews at the time of surgery and 6 months later with 20 patients from 13 UK hospitals. Framework analysis was performed, and themes were mapped to (1) the coping in deliberation framework and (2) an acceptability framework. Results were triangulated with those from structured survey instruments evaluating shared decision-making (SDM, best = 9) at baseline and decision regret (DR, most regret = 100) at 6 months.

RESULTS

Nine of 20 patients were not offered a choice of treatment, but this was not necessarily seen as negative (SDM median 4; range 2-4). Factors that influenced decision-making included previous experience and anticipated recovery time. Median (range) DR was 5 (0-50). Those with the highest DR (scores 40-50) were, paradoxically, also amongst the highest scores on SDM (scores 4). Burden of wound care and the disparity between anticipated and actual recovery time were the main reasons for decision regret.

CONCLUSION

To minimize regret about surgical decisions, people with PSD need better information about the burden of wound care and the risks of recurrence associated with different surgical approaches.

Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of Retzius-sparing (RS) robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) compared to standard RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of multiple databases and the grey literature with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until June 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RS-RALP with standard RALP. We performed a meta-analysis using a random-effect model. The quality of evidence was assessed on an outcome basis according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Our search identified six records of five unique RCTs, of which two were published studies, one was in press, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 571 randomized participants, of whom 502 completed the trials. The mean age of participants was 64.6 years and the mean prostate-specific antigen level was 6.9 ng/mL. Approximately 54.2% of participants had cT1c disease, 38.6% had cT2a-b disease, and 7.1% had cT2c disease. RS-RALP probably improves continence within 1 week after catheter removal (risk ratio [RR] 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-2.14; I² = 0%; studies = 4; participants = 410; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 248 more men per 1000 (137 more to 382 more) reporting continence recovery. RS-RALP may increase continence at 3 months after surgery compared to standard RALP (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06-1.68; I² = 86%; studies = 5; participants = 526; low-certainty evidence). Assuming 750 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 224 more men per 1000 (41 more to 462 more) reporting continence recovery. We are very uncertain about the effects of RS-RALP on serious adverse events compared to standard RALP (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.47-4.17; studies = 2; participants = 230; very low-certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review indicate that RS-RALP may result in better continence outcomes than standard RALP up to 6 months after surgery. Continence outcomes at 12 months may be similar. The disadvantages of RS-RALP may be higher positive surgical margin rates. We are very uncertain about the effect on biochemical recurrence-free survival and potency outcomes. Longer-term oncological and functional outcomes are lacking, and no preplanned subgroup analyses could be performed to explore the observed heterogeneity. Surgeons should discuss these trade-offs and the limitations of the evidence with their patients when considering this approach.

Fragility Analysis of Statistically Significant Outcomes of Randomized Control Trials in Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the robustness of statistically significant outcomes from randomized control trials (RCTs) in spine surgery using Fragility Index (FI) which is a novel metric measuring the number of events upon which statistical significance of the outcome depends.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Many trials in Spine surgery were characterized by fewer outcome events along with small sample size. FI helps us identify the robustness of the results from such studies with statistically significant dichotomous outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted independent and in duplicate, a systematic review of published RCTs in spine surgery from PubMed Central, Embase, and Cochrane Database. RCTs with 1:1 prospective study design and reporting statistically significant dichotomous primary or secondary outcomes were included. FI was calculated for each RCT and its correlation with various factors was analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy trials met inclusion criteria with a median sample size of 133 (interquartile range [IQR]: 80-218) and median reported events per trial was 38 (IQR: 13-94). The median FI score was 2 (IQR: 0-5), which means if we switch two patients from nonevent to event, the statistical significance of the outcome is lost. The FI score was less than the number of patients lost to follow-up in 28 of 70 trials. The FI score was found to positively correlated with sample size (r = 0.431, P = 0.001), total number of outcome events (r = 0.305, P = 0.01) while negatively correlated with P value (r = -0.392, P = 0.001). Funding, journal impact-factor, risk of bias domains, and year of publication did not have a significant correlation.

CONCLUSION

Statistically significant dichotomous outcomes reported in spine surgery RCTs are more often fragile and outcomes of the patients lost to follow-up could have changed the significance of results and hence it needs caution before transcending their results into clinical application. The addition of FI in routine reporting of RCTs would guide readers on the robustness of the statistical significance of outcomes. RCTs with FI ≥5 without any patient lost to follow-up can be considered to have clinically robust results.Level of Evidence: 1.

Challenges to randomized trials in adult and congenital cardiac and thoracic surgery

Randomized trials in surgery face additional challenges compared to those in medicine. Some of the challenges are intrinsic to the nature of the field (such as issues with blinding, learning curve and surgeons experience and difficulties in defining the appropriate timing for comparative trials). Other issues are due to the surgical culture, the attitude of surgeons toward randomized trials and the lack of support by professional and national bodies. In this review a group with experience in trials in congenital and adult cardiac and thoracic surgery discusses the key issues with surgical trials and suggest potential solutions.

Less-invasive ventricular assist device implantation: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist device has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment option for patients with end-stage heart failure. However, there is limited evidence showing the effect of the implantation approach on postoperative morbidities and mortality. We aimed to compare left ventricular assist device implantation using conventional sternotomy versus less-invasive surgery including hemi-sternotomy and the minithoracotomy approach.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and December 2018, 342 consecutive patients underwent left ventricular assist device implantation at 2 high-volume centers. Patient characteristics were prospectively collected. The propensity score method was used to create 2 groups in a 1:1 fashion. A competing risk regression model was used to evaluate time to death adjusting for competing risk of heart transplantation.

RESULTS

The unmatched cohort included 241 patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation with the conventional sternotomy technique and 101 patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation with the less-invasive surgery technique. Propensity matching produced 2 groups each including 73 patients. In the matched groups, reexploration rate for bleeding was necessary in 17.9% (12/67) in the conventional sternotomy group compared with 4.1% (3/73) the less-invasive surgery group (P = .018). Intensive care unit stay for the less-invasive surgery group was significantly lower than for the sternotomy group (10.5 [interquartile range, 2-25.75] days vs 4 [interquartile range, 2-9.25] days, P = .008), as was hospital length of stay (37 [interquartile range, 27-61] days vs 25.5 [interquartile range, 21-42] days, P = .007). Mortality cumulative incidence for conventional surgery was 24% (95% confidence interval, 14.3-34.8) at 1 year and 26% (95% confidence interval, 15.9-37.4) at 2 years for patients without heart transplantation. Mortality cumulative incidence for less-invasive surgery was 22.5% (95% confidence interval, 12.8-33.8) at 1 year and 25.2% (95% confidence interval, 14.5-37.4) at 2 years for patients without heart transplantation. There was no difference in cumulative mortality incidence when adjusting for competing risk of heart transplantation (subdistribution hazard, 0.904, 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.80, P = .77).

CONCLUSIONS

The less-invasive surgery approach is a safe technique for left ventricular assist device implantation. Less-invasive surgery was associated with a significant reduction in the postoperative bleeding complications and duration of hospital stay, with no significant difference in mortality incidence.

Evidence Supporting the Value of Surgical Procedures: Can We Do Better?

There is an acknowledged need for higher-quality evidence to quantify the benefit of surgical procedures, yet not enough has been done to improve the evidence base. This lack of evidence can prevent fully informed decision-making, lead to unnecessary or even harmful treatment, and contribute to wasteful expenditures of scare health care resources. Barriers to evidence generation include not only the long-recognized technical difficulties and ethical challenges of conducting randomized surgical trials, but also legal challenges that limit incentives to conduct surgical research as well as market-based challenges that make it difficult for those funding surgical research to recoup investment costs. These legal and market dynamics differ substantially from those surrounding new drug or device development. Nevertheless, obstacles could be overcome and overall expenditures could be reduced if a share of federal health care agency budgets were reallocated to generating randomized trial data, standardizing outcome measures, and conducting observational studies analogous to those that have been facilitated for drugs via the Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel Initiative. Until better quality evidence is available, ethical principles require adequate disclosure of the limited evidence base supporting current surgical procedures.

Randomized Trials in Cardiac Surgery: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Compared with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in medical specialties, RCTs in cardiac surgery face specific issues. Individual and collective equipoise, rapid evolution of the surgical techniques, as well as difficulties in obtaining funding, and limited education in clinical epidemiology in the surgical community are among the most important challenges in the design phase of the trial. Use of complex interventions and learning curve effect, differences in individual operators' expertise, difficulties in blinding, and slow recruitment make the successful completion of cardiac surgery RCTs particularly challenging. In fact, over the course of the last 20 years, the number of cardiac surgery RCTs has declined significantly. In this review, a team of surgeons, trialists, and epidemiologists discusses the most important challenges faced by RCTs in cardiac surgery and provides a list of suggestions for the successful design and completion of cardiac surgery RCTs.

Who Did the Arthroplasty? Hip Fracture Surgery Reoperation Rates are Not Affected by Type of Training-An Analysis of the HEALTH Database

OBJECTIVES

This study compares outcomes for patients with displaced femoral neck fractures undergoing hemiarthroplasty (HA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) by surgeons of different fellowship training.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of HEALTH trial data.

SETTING

Eighty clinical sites across 10 countries.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

One thousand four hundred forty-one patients ≥50 years with low-energy hip fractures requiring surgical intervention.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to either HA or THA groups in the initial data set. Surgeons' fellowship training was ascertained retrospectively, and outcomes were compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The main outcome was an unplanned secondary procedure at 24 months. Secondary outcomes included death, serious adverse events, prosthetic joint infection (PJI), dislocation, discharge disposition, and use of ambulatory devices postoperatively.

RESULTS

There was a significantly higher risk of PJI in patients treated by surgeons without fellowship training in arthroplasty (P = 0.01), surgeons with unknown fellowship training (P = 0.03), and surgeons with no fellowship training (P = 0.02) than those treated by an arthroplasty-trained surgeon. There were significantly higher odds of being discharged to a facility rather than home in patients who underwent surgery by a surgeon with no fellowship training compared with arthroplasty-fellowship-trained surgeons (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroplasty for hip fracture can be performed by all orthopaedic surgeons with equivalent reoperation rates. Infection prevention strategies and use of "care pathways" by arthroplasty-fellowship-trained surgeons may account for the lower risk of PJI and higher rate of discharge to home. The authors advocate for the use of evidence-based infection prevention initiatives and standardized care pathways in this patient population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Surgeon level of expertise reported in Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume) and (European Volume) publications

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the trend in documentation of surgeon level of expertise among the Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume) and the Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) publications. A review of Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume) and Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) databases for level of expertise between January 2015 and October 2019 was performed. Of 1042 articles identified, all 115 (20%) reporting level of expertise were published in Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). Since 2015, there has been an increase in reported level of expertise in Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) (2015: 8 (7%); 2016: 15 (13%); 2017: 22 (19%); 2018: 28 (24%); 2019: 42 (37%)). In the same period, no publications have reported level of expertise in Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume). Documenting level of expertise may provide readers with additional information for incorporation of novel techniques into their practices. It may identify procedures that require a baseline level of expertise for effective performance. Further evaluation of level of expertise criteria may improve the reliability of the numeric scale, while widespread adoption of this scale will allow future outcome analysis by level of expertise.

Effect of Pause Procedures on Participant Reflection and Commitment-to-Change in Continuing Medical Education

Problem: Conferences are the most common form of continuing medical education (CME), but their effect on clinician practice is inconsistent. Reflection is a critical step in the process of practice change among clinicians and may lead to improved outcomes following conference-based CME. However, reflection requires time to process newly-learned material. Adequate time for reflection may be noticeably absent during many conference presentations. Intervention: The pause procedure is a 90-second 'pause' during a 30-minute presentation so learners can review and discuss content. The goal of the pause procedure is to stimulate learners' active engagement with newly learned material which will, in turn, promote learner reflection. Context: Fifty-six presentations at two hospital medicine CME conferences were assigned to the pause procedure or control. Study outcomes provided by conference participants were validated reflection scores and commitment-to-change (CTC) statements for each presentation. A post-hoc survey of the intervention group was conducted to assess presenters' experiences with the pause procedure. Impact: A total of 527 conference participants completed presentation evaluations (response rate 72.7%). Presentations incorporating the pause procedure failed to lead higher participant reflection scores (percentage 'top box' score; intervention: 39.2% vs. control: 41.7%, p = 0.40) or participant CTC rates (median [IQR]; intervention: 4.64 [3.04, 10.57] vs. control: 8.16 [5.28, 17.12], p = 0.13) than control presentations. However, the majority of presenters (16 out of 17 survey respondents) had never before used the intervention and little active engagement among learners was noted during the pause procedure. Lessons Learned: Adding the pause procedure to CME presentations did not lead to greater reflection or CTC among clinician learners. However, presenters had limited experience with the intervention, which may have reduced their fidelity to the educational principles of the pause procedure. Faculty development may be necessary when planning a new educational intervention that is to be implemented by conference presenters.

Retzius-sparing versus standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is widely used to surgically treat clinically localized prostate cancer. It is typically performed using an approach (standard RALP) that mimics open retropubic prostatectomy by dissecting the so-called space of Retzius anterior to the bladder. An alternative, Retzius-sparing (or posterior approach) RALP (RS-RALP) has been described, which is reported to have better continence outcomes but may be associated with a higher risk of incomplete resection and positive surgical margins (PSM).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of RS-RALP compared to standard RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to June 2020. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials where participants were randomized to RS-RALP or standard RALP for clinically localized prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery within one week after catheter removal, at three months after surgery, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery six and 12 months after surgery, potency recovery 12 months after surgery, positive surgical margins (PSM), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS), and urinary and sexual function quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search identified six records of five unique randomized controlled trials, of which two were published studies, one was in press, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 571 randomized participants, of whom 502 completed the trials. Mean age of participants was 64.6 years and mean prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 ng/mL. About 54.2% of participants had cT1c disease, 38.6% had cT2a-b disease, and 7.1 % had cT2c disease. Primary outcomes RS-RALP probably improves continence within one week after catheter removal (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 2.14; I² = 0%; studies = 4; participants = 410; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 248 more men per 1000 (137 more to 382 more) reporting continence recovery. RS-RALP may increase continence at three months after surgery compared to standard RALP (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.68; I² = 86%; studies = 5; participants = 526; low-certainty evidence). Assuming 750 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 224 more men per 1000 (41 more to 462 more) reporting continence recovery. We are very uncertain about the effects of RS-RALP on serious adverse events compared to standard RALP (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.17; studies = 2; participants = 230; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes There is probably little to no difference in continence recovery at 12 months after surgery (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04; I² = 0%; studies = 2; participants = 222; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 982 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 10 more men per 1000 (29 fewer to 39 more) reporting continence recovery.  We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on potency recovery 12 months after surgery (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.80; studies = 1; participants = 55; very low-certainty evidence).  RS-RALP may increase PSMs (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.20; I² = 0%; studies = 3; participants = 308; low-certainty evidence) indicating a higher risk for prostate cancer recurrence. Assuming 129 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have positive margins, this corresponds to 123 more men per 1000 (25 more to 284 more) with PSMs. We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on BCRFS compared to standard RALP (hazard ratio (HR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.60; I² = 32%; studies = 2; participants = 218; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review indicate that RS-RALP may result in better continence outcomes than standard RALP up to six months after surgery. Continence outcomes at 12 months may be similar. Downsides of RS-RALP may be higher positive margin rates. We are very uncertain about the effect on BCRFS and potency outcomes. Longer-term oncologic and functional outcomes are lacking, and no preplanned subgroup analyses could be performed to explore the observed heterogeneity. Surgeons should discuss these trade-offs and the limitations of the evidence with their patients when considering this approach.

Relative efficiencies of alternative preference-based designs for randomised trials

Recent work has shown that outcomes in clinical trials can be affected by which treatment the trial participants would select if they were allowed to do so, and if they do or do not actually receive that treatment. These influences are known as selection and preference effects, respectively. Unfortunately, they cannot be evaluated in conventional, parallel group trials because patient preferences remain unknown. However, several alternative designs have been proposed, to measure and take account of patient preferences. In this paper, we discuss three preference-based designs (the two-stage, fully randomised, and partially randomised designs). In conventional trials, only the treatment effect is estimable, while the preference-based designs have the potential to estimate some or all of the selection and preference effects. The relative efficiency of these designs is affected by several factors, including the proportion of participants who are undecided about treatments, or who are unable or unwilling to state a preference; the relative preference rate between the treatments being compared, among patients who do have a preference; and the ratio of patients randomised to each treatment. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these designs under different scenarios.

Post-operative outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation versus circular external fixation in treatment of tibial plafond fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Tibial plafond fractures (TPF) are complex injuries often resulting in poor outcomes. Combination of articular impaction, metaphysealcomminution and soft-tissue injury results in a significant treatment challenge. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare post-operative complications and functional outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus circular external fixation (CEF) for treatment of TPF.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane library was undertaken. All studies published in English language comparing ORIF with CEF for treatment of TPF were included.

RESULTS

5 comparative studies with 239 fractures met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in rates of non-union, malunion, superficial infection, deep infection, and secondary arthrodesis between the two treatment groups. Significantly higher rate of unplanned metalwork removal (RR 5.68, 95% CI 1.13 to 28.55, p = 0.04) and lower rate of post-traumatic arthritis (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78, p = 0.003) were found in patients that underwent ORIF. 1 study showed significantly lower functional outcomes scores with CEF (p< 0.05), whereas 3 studies found comparable functional outcomes between the two treatment groups. Overall, there was a preference in treating more severe injuries with CEF.

CONCLUSION

CEF and ORIF are both acceptable treatment options for surgical management of TPF, with comparable post-operative complication rates and functional outcomes. This study highlights paucity of high-quality evidence regarding the optimal fixation method for TPF.

Design, Conduct, and Analysis of Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials: A Cross-sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing surgical intervention faced challenges due to complexities of surgery and made it more difficult for surgeons and methodologists than pharmaceutical providers to build a well-design, conduct RCT.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a cross-sectional survey to address the methodological challenges of RCTs on surgical intervention and offer potential solutions.

METHODS

We searched PubMed in order to summarize 2-arm parallel randomized trials for surgical interventions published in 2013. The information regarding general characteristics, general methodological and special surgical characteristics related to surgical trials comparing alternative procedures was gathered.

RESULTS

Some 200 surgical trials were identified. The extent to which these trials in design, conduct and analysis differed substantially across items. The general information about sample size calculation (77.0%), lost to follow-up (71.5%), trial registration (55.5%), protocols of trials (56.0%), implementation of randomization (59.5%), concealment of randomization (56.0%); reporting of primary outcome as P value (67.0%). Surgery special information revealed that only 21.0% of trials considered surgeons' preference, approximately 12% to 50% of them controlled the quality of surgical interventions and none evaluated the effect of the learning curve.

CONCLUSION

There is much room for improvement concerning the reported designs, conduct, and analysis of surgical RCTs. Considering the difficulty of surgical RCTs, some other approaches, such as surgeons' eligibility, performance of pilot studies, or implementation of pragmatic RCTs/expertise-based trials, should be feasibly implemented to overcome the presented challenges.

Vaginal, sexual and urinary symptoms following hysterectomy: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial

Background

Hysterectomy is the most common major gynaecological procedure. The aim of this study was to study vaginal, sexual and urinary symptoms following total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH), non-descent vaginal hysterectomy (NDVH) and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in a low resource setting.

Methods

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in two public sector hospitals in Sri Lanka. Participants were patients requiring hysterectomy for non-malignant uterine causes. Exclusion criteria were uterus> 14 weeks, previous pelvic surgery, medical illnesses which contraindicated laparoscopic surgery, and those requiring incontinence surgery or pelvic floor surgery.

Vaginal, sexual function and urinary symptoms were assessed by the validated translations of ICIQ-VS and ICIQ-FLUTS questionnaires. Post-operative improvement (pre-operative – post-operative) was assessed.

Results

There was an improvement (median (IQ1-IQ3) in vaginal symptoms [TAH 6(2–8) vs 4(0–8), p < 0.001; NDVH 6(4–8.5) vs 5(0–8), p < 0.001; TLH 4(2–10.5) vs 4(0–10), p < 0.001], urinary flow symptoms [TAH 2(1–4) vs 1 (0–3), p < 0.001; NDVH 3 (2–5) vs 2 (0.5–4), p < 0.001; TLH 1(1–4) vs 1(0–3), p < 0.05], urinary voiding symptoms [TAH 0(0–0) vs 0(0–0), p = 0.20; NDVH 0(0–1) vs 0(0–0.8), p < 0.05; TLH 0(0–0) vs 0(0–0), p < 0.05] and urinary incontinence symptoms [TAH 0(0–2) vs 0(0–2), p = 0.06; NDVH 0(0–3) vs 0(0–3), p < 0.001; TLH 0(0–3) vs 0(0–2), p < 0.05] at 1-year (TAH n = 47, NDVH n = 45, TLH n = 47). There was an improvement in sexual symptoms only in the TLH group [TAH 0(0–11.5) vs 0(0–14), p = 0.08); NDVH 0(0–0) vs 0(0–0), p = 0.46; TLH 0(0–0) vs 0(0–4), p < 0.05].

There was no significant difference among the three different routes in terms of vaginal symptoms score [TAH 2 (0–2), NDVH 0 (0–2), TLH 0 (0–2), p = 0.33], sexual symptoms [TAH 0 (0–0), NDVH 0 (0–0), TLH 0 (0–0), p = 0.52], urinary flow symptoms [TAH 0 (0–1), NDVH 0 (0–1), TLH 0 (0–2), p = 0.56], urinary voiding symptoms [TAH 0 (0–0), NDVH 0 (0–0), TLH 0 (0–0), p = 0.64] and urinary incontinence symptoms [TAH 0 (0–0), NDVH 0 (0–1), TLH 0 (0–1), p = 0.35] at 1-year.

Conclusions

There was a post-operative improvement in vaginal symptoms and urinary symptoms in all three groups. There was no significant difference in pelvic organ symptoms between the three routes; TAH, NDVH and TLH.

Trial registration

Sri Lanka clinical trials registry, SLCTR/2016/020 and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, U1111–1194-8422, on 26 July 2016. Available from: http://slctr.lk/trials/515