Purpose and background

To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST programme) compared to physiotherapy assessment and advice (best practice advice [BPA]) for older adults with neurogenic claudication (NC) which is a debilitating spinal condition.

Abstract

There is a lack of evidence as to the best way to deliver rehabilitation following TKA. Previous work has suggested that postoperative physiotherapy applied to all patients is not effective at improving one-year post-surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to target physiotherapy to those at risk of poor outcome following TKA, and to determine if a therapist-led intervention offered superior results compared to a home-exercise based protocol in this ‘at risk’ group.

The Targeted Rehabilitation to Improve Outcomes (TRIO) study was a prospective randomised controlled trial run at 15-centres in the UK. Patients were identified as ‘potential poor outcome’ based on an Oxford Knee Score (OKS) classification at 6-weeks post-surgery and randomised to either therapist-led or home-exercise based protocols. Patients were reviewed by a physiotherapist and commenced 18-exercise sessions over 6-weeks. The therapist-led group undertook a progressive functional protocol (modified weekly in 1-1 contact sessions) in contrast to the static home-exercise based regime. Evaluation took place following rehabilitation intervention, then at 6-months and 1-year post-surgery. Primary outcome was comparative group OKS at 1-year. Secondary outcomes included, ‘worst’ and ‘average’ pain scores, OXS and EQ-5D, and satisfaction questionnaire. Health economic (cost-utility) analysis was undertaken from NHS perspective up to 1-year post-surgery. Incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were calculated from intervention costs, patient reported primary and secondary care usage, and EQ-5D data.

4264 patients were screened, 1296 were eligible, 334 patients were randomised, 8 were lost to follow-up, therapy compliance was >85%. Clinically meaningful improvement in OKS (between baseline and 1-year) was seen in both arms (p < 0 .001). Between group difference in 1-year OKS was 1.91 (95%CI, −0.17–3.99) points favouring the therapist-led arm (p=0.07). Incorporating all time point data, between group difference in OKS was 2.25 points (95%CI, 0.61–3.90, p=0.008). Small, non-significant reductions (< 5 %) in both worst and average pain scores were observed favouring the therapist-led group. Enhanced satisfaction with pain relief (OR 1.65, p < 0 .02), ability to perform daily functional tasks (OR 1.66, p < 0 .02), and perform heavy functional tasks (OR 1.6, p=0.04) was reported in the therapist-led group. There was a small non-significant difference of 0.02 points (95%CI −0.02–0.06) between groups in EQ-5D, resulting in a £12,125 cost per QALY of delivering the therapist led intervention with a 57% chance of being cost-effective at the standard UK policy threshold of £20,000 per QALY.

TRIO is the largest randomised trial of physiotherapy following TKA, and the first to target rehabilitation to patients at risk of poor outcomes. Both therapist-led and home-exercise based rehabilitation groups made clinically meaningful improvements in outcome by 1-year. We observed a modest difference in OKS in favour of therapist-led rehabilitation compared to the home-exercises which was not statistically significant. The relatively tight confidence intervals suggests that any difference which might exist is too small to be clinically relevant. Patient satisfaction with outcome was however higher in those that received greater physiotherapist contact. While cost per QALY estimates were below UK policy threshold, this result is uncertain and insufficient to make accept-decline recommendations.

Mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) with a flat tibial plateau have not performed well in the lateral compartment, owing to a high dislocation rate. This led to the development of the Domed Lateral Oxford UKR (Domed OUKR) with a biconcave bearing. The aim of this study was to assess the survival and clinical outcomes of the Domed OUKR in a large patient cohort in the medium term.

We prospectively evaluated 265 consecutive knees with isolated disease of the lateral compartment and a mean age at surgery of 64 years (32 to 90). At a mean follow-up of four years (sd 2.2, (0.5 to 8.3)) the mean Oxford knee score was 40 out of 48 (sd 7.4). A total of 12 knees (4.5%) had re-operations, of which four (1.5%) were for dislocation. All dislocations occurred in the first two years. Two (0.8%) were secondary to significant trauma that resulted in ruptured ligaments, and two (0.8%) were spontaneous. In four patients (1.5%) the UKR was converted to a primary TKR. Survival at eight years, with failure defined as any revision, was 92.1% (95% confidence interval 81.3 to 100).

The Domed Lateral OUKR gives good clinical outcomes, low re-operation and revision rates and a low dislocation rate in patients with isolated lateral compartmental disease, in the hands of the designer surgeons.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:59–64.

Background

Despite interest, the current rate of day-case anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in the UK remains low. Although specialised care pathways with standard operating procedures (SOPs) have been effective in reducing length of stay following some surgical procedures, this has not been previously reported for ACLR. We evaluate the effectiveness of SOPs for establishing day-case ACLR in a specialist unit.

This prospective study describes the outcome of the first 1000 phase 3 Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) implanted using a minimally invasive surgical approach for the recommended indications by two surgeons and followed up independently. The mean follow-up was 5.6 years (1 to 11) with 547 knees having a minimum follow-up of five years. At five years their mean Oxford knee score was 41.3 (sd 7.2), the mean American Knee Society Objective Score 86.4 (sd 13.4), mean American Knee Society Functional Score 86.1 (sd 16.6), mean Tegner activity score 2.8 (sd 1.1). For the entire cohort, the mean maximum flexion was 130° at the time of final review.

The incidence of implant-related re-operations was 2.9%; of these 29 re-operations two were revisions requiring revision knee replacement components with stems and wedges, 17 were conversions to a primary total knee replacement, six were open reductions for dislocation of the bearing, three were secondary lateral UKRs and one was revision of a tibial component. The most common reason for further surgical intervention was progression of arthritis in the lateral compartment (0.9%), followed by dislocation of the bearing (0.6%) and revision for unexplained pain (0.6%). If all implant-related re-operations are considered failures, the ten-year survival rate was 96% (95% confidence interval, 92.5 to 99.5). If only revisions requiring revision components are considered failures the ten-year survival rate is 99.8% (confidence interval 99 to 100).

This is the largest published series of UKRs implanted through a minimally invasive surgical approach and with ten-year survival data. The survival rates are similar to those obtained with a standard open approach whereas the function is better. This demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of a minimally invasive surgical approach for implanting the Oxford UKR.

The purpose of this study was to determine if a single physiotherapy intervention would enable patients to kneel following Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

Kneeling is an important functional activity that is frequently not performed after knee arthroplasty, thus affecting a patient’s ability to carry out basic tasks of everyday life. There is however no clinical reason why patients should not kneel and many with proposed knee surgery ask about the possibility of kneeling after their operation.

Sixty adults participated in a prospective randomised controlled trial with blinded assessments. At 6 weeks post-operatively UKA patients were randomised to either the Routine care group where no advice on kneeling was given or to the Kneeling intervention group where participants were taught and given advice on how to kneel and were encouraged to do so. They were re-assessed at 1 year. The primary outcome measure was Question 7 of the Oxford Knee Score which asks the question “Could you kneel down and get up again afterwards?”

Pre-operatively there was no difference in the kneeling ability of the two groups. At 1 year the difference in kneeling ability between the two groups was highly significant (p< 0.05). Spearman’s correlation coefficient showed no significant association between a change in score of Question 7 at 1 year and the following factors; scar position, numbness, range of flexion, arthritic involvement of other joints and pain. Linear regression analysis also confirmed that these factors were not successful in predicting a change in kneeling ability.

This study showed that the single factor predictive of kneeling ability was the physiotherapy intervention provided at 6 weeks post-operatively and it is suggested that kneeling should be incorporated into patient’s post-operative rehabilitation programmes.

The DTC approach to patient management aims to decrease waiting list times and length of stay (LOS). To implement a reduction in the LOS it is imperative that suitable patients are selected. Factors such as co-morbidity and social support are important but other factors may also influence LOS.

To investigate if pre-operative measures of function were predictive of length of stay for patients treated in a Diagnostic & Treatment Centre for elective hip arthroplasty. The first 75 patients treated by the DTC were assessed pre-operatively recording timed measures of function for sit-to-stand, and stair climbing as well as ratings of pain and the WOMAC questionnaire. These measures were compared with the LOS for patients and their functional outcome at 6 weeks after discharge.

Linear regression was used to examine the influence of the measures on LOS. T-tests were used to compare the outcome at 6 weeks for pain and function between patients discharged within 5 days versus > 5 days.

The mean age was 65 years (39 – 80 years SD 8.4); 33 male and 42 female. Mean LOS was 6 days (4–14 SD 1.8), 52 % reached the DTC target of discharge on the 5th day. Regression analysis showed sit-to- stand was the best predictor of LOS (R2 = 46.7%) followed by WOMAC pain and climbing stairs. There were no significant differences in the pain or function scores at 6 weeks for patients discharged at 5 days or later.

Conclusion: There was a linear relationship between pre-operative sit-to-stand and LOS. The timed measures were simple to perform and patients could be tested in their own homes. Early discharge did not result in poorer self-reported outcome at 6 weeks. The routine measurement of sit-to-stand may be useful to clinicians as a prognostic indicator for treatment allocation and planning.

Proprioception protects joints against injurious movements and is critical for joint stability maintenance under dynamic conditions. Knee replacement effect on proprioception in general remains elusive. This study aimed to evaluate the changes in proprioceptive performance after knee replacement; comparing Total (TKA) to Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA).

Thirty-four patients with osteoarthritis were recruited; 15 patients underwent TKA using the AGC prosthesis and 19patients underwent UKA using the Oxford prosthesis. Both cruciate ligaments were preserved in the UKA group, while only the PCL was preserved in TKA patients. Patients’ age was similar in both groups.> Joint Position Sense (JPS) and postural sway were used as measures of proprioception. Both groups were assessed pre- and 6 months post-operatively in both limbs. JPS was measured as the error in actively and passively reproducing five randomly ordered knee flexion angles between 30 and 70°using an isokinetic dynamometer. Postural sway (area and path) was measured during single leg stance using a Balance Performance Monitor. Functional outcome was assessed using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS).

Pre-operatively, no differences in JPS or sway were found between limbs in either group. No differences existed between the two groups. Post-operatively, both groups had significant improvement of JPS in the operated limb (UKA mean4.64°, SD1.44° and TKA mean5.18°, SD1.35°). No changes in JPS were seen in the control side. A significant improvement (P< 0.0001) in sway area and path was found in the UKA group only in both limbs. No significant changes in sway occurred in either limb of TKA patients. The OKS improved from 21.4 to 35.5 for TKA patients and from 23.9 to 38for UKA patients.

Both UKA and TKA improve proprioception as assessed by JPS. However, UKA alone improves postural sway in both limbs. This may impart explain why UKA patients function better than TKA patients

Introduction: Knee joint arthroplasty (total or unicompartmental) is the standard operative treatment for osteoarthritis (OA). Survival rate is good for both types but functional outcome is different. The function of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is substantially better than that of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As function can be strongly influenced by proprioceptive ability, it is possible that improved outcome seen in patients with UKA results from retaining proprioceptive function associated with the cruciate ligaments. This prospective longitudinal study aimed to evaluate the change in proprioceptive performance after knee replacement; comparing TKA to UKA.

Methods and Materials: Two groups of patients with OA as diagnosed clinically and by X-ray were recruited. Group 1 consisted of 15 patients (mean age 65.8 years range 57–72 years, 10 females and 5 males) listed for TKA with the AGC prosthesis (Biomet, UK). Group 2 consisted of 19 patients (mean age 65.5 years range 52–75 years; 9 females and 10 males) listed for UKA with the Oxford UKA (Biomet, UK) for medial compartment OA. The ACL and PCL were present and preserved in all patients in Group 2, while only the PCL was preserved in Group 1 patients. Joint Position Sense (JPS) and postural sway were used as measures of proprioception performance. Both groups were assessed pre-and 6 months post-operatively in both limbs. JPS was measured using a dynamometer (KinCom, Chatanooga Ltd) as the error in actively and passively reproducing five randomly ordered knee flexion angles (30°, 40°, 50°, 60° and 70°). Postural sway (area, path and velocity) was measured during single leg stance using a Balance Performance Monitor (SMS Medical) for 30 seconds interval. Functional outcome was assessed using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS).

Results: Pre-operatively, no differences in JPS or sway were found between limbs in either group. No differences existed between the two groups. Post-operatively, both groups had significant improvement of JPS in the operated limb only (Mean ± standard deviation for UKA 4.64±1.44° and for TKA 5.18±1.35°). No changes in JPS were seen in the control side. An improvement in sway was found in the UKA group only. UKA patients showed significant improvement in both sway area and path (p< .0001) for both limbs post-operatively. No significant post-operative changes in sway occurred in either limb of TKA patients. The OKS improved postoperatively in both groups, rising from 21.4 to 35.5 for TKA patients and from 23.9 to 38 for UKA patients.

Conclusion: Interestingly, joint position sense improved for both groups but did not seem to show any difference between UKA and TKA. Postural sway was influenced by joint replacement type. Ligament retention may contribute to improved global postural control seen after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and may explain the higher level of function seen in these patients.

This prospective study describes the complications and survival of the first 688 Phase 3 Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacements implanted using a minimally-invasive technique by two surgeons and followed up independently. None was lost to follow-up. We had carried out 132 of the procedures more than five years ago. The clinical assessment of 101 of these which were available for review at five years is also presented.

Nine of the 688 knees were revised: four for infection, three for dislocation of the bearing and two for unexplained pain. A further seven knees (1%) required other procedures: four had a manipulation under anaesthesia, two an arthroscopy and one a debridement for superficial infection. The survival rate at seven years was 97.3% (95% confidence interval 5.3). At five years, 96% of the patients had a good or excellent American Knee Society score, the mean Oxford knee score was 39 and the mean flexion was 133°. This study demonstrates that the minimally-invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement is a reliable and effective procedure.

Introduction and Aims: A multicentre trial of 349 patients of candidates for spinal fusion (where both patient and surgeon were uncertain of the outcome) were randomised to either an operation or to an intensive rehabilitation program. Rehabilitation was based on a three-week (15-day) model of exercise therapy and education using cognitive behavioural principles.

Method: The main outcome measures were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); Shuttle Walking Test; SF-36 and EuroQol EQ-5D recorded at baseline and six, 12 and 24 months after randomisation. The trial was 90%-powered to show a four-point ODI difference between groups at a= 0.05. Full economic analysis is available.

Results: Patients in both treatment arms made statistically significant improvements on all outcome measures between baseline and two-year follow-up. There was a small difference between the treatment arms favouring surgery on one of the main outcome measures, the Oswestry Disability Index; there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment strategies for the rest. The difference in the change of score for the ODI was a decrease of 3.2 (C.I -7.3 – 0.9) in favour of surgery (p< 0.1), an improvement of 30 metres on the shuttle walking test in favour of the surgery group (p< 0.2), a difference of 0.01 on the Euroqol (p< 0.9) and an increase of 2.7 points on the SF-36 (p< 0.4).

The surgery results parallel those reported in other trials. At two years, the treatment costs of the surgery arm were approximately twice those of the rehabilitation arm. The costs of the rehabilitation strategy depend on how many patients opt to have surgery after rehabilitation (22% in this trial). This is a comparison of treatment strategies: there was no clinical or statistical difference in outcome between the strategy of spinal fusion and rehabilitation.

Conclusion: Patients randomised to both surgery (spinal stabilisation) and rehabilitation have indicated a treatment effect, but this may be due to natural history. ‘Failed’ non-operative treatment is commonly listed as an indication for surgery, this should only be considered once an intensive rehabilitation program backed by the treating surgeon has been tried.

Introduction and Aims Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is appropriate for one in three osteoarthritic knees requiring replacement. An accelerated protocol enables patients undergoing UKA to be discharged within 24 hours of surgery. Before such an approach is universally accepted it must be safe, effective and economically viable. A study was performed to compare the new accelerated protocol with current standard care in a state healthcare system.

Method A single blind RCT design was used. Patients eligible for UKA were screened for NSAID tolerance, social circumstances and geographical location before allocation to either an accelerated recovery group (Group A) or a standard non accelerated group (Group S). The accelerated protocol included dedicated pain management and discharge support. Primary outcome was the Oxford Knee Assessment at 6 months post operation, compared using independent t tests. Pain, range of movement and incidence of complications were also recorded by assessors blind to group allocation. Cost effectiveness was calculated in quality life adjusted years (QLAY) using the Euroqual instrument. The study power was sufficient to avoid type 2 errors. The study was supported by a NHS Regional R& D grant.

Results Forty one patients (21 group A, 20 group S) were included. Groups had comparable age and patient profiles. Average discharge time was 37 hours (1.5 days) for group A and 114 hours (4.3 days) for group S. Pain on hospital discharge was similar for both groups. No significant difference was found between groups for pain or range of movement at any time, although patients in group S regained pre-operative flexion faster than group A. One major complication occurred in each group; one infection (group S) and one manipulation for poor movement (group A). The cost per QLAY for the new protocol was 59% of the standard care.

Conclusion The new protocol allows for safe accelerated discharge from hospital after UKA. The approach is cost effective and should help to increase the throughput of patients who require knee replacement.

Purpose of the study Function is strongly infl uenced by proprioceptive ability, this prospective longitudinal study aimed to evaluate the change in proprioceptive performance after knee replacement; comparing total to unicompartment replacement.

Methods and Results Two groups of patients with OA as diagnosed clinically and by X-ray were recruited. Group 1 consisted of 15 patients (mean age 65.8yrs range 57-72yrs, 10 females & 5 males) listed for Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) with the AGC (Biomet, UK). Group 2 consisted of 19 patients (mean age 65.5yrs range 52–75yrs; 9 females & 10 males) listed for Oxford Uni-compartmental Knee Arthroplasty (OUKA) for medial compartment OA. The ACL and PCL were present and preserved in all patients in Group 2, while only the PCL was preserved for Group 1 patients.

Joint Position Sense (JPS) & sway were used as measures of proprioception performance. Both groups were assessed pre- and 6 months post-op. JPS was measured using an isokinetic dynamometer (KinCom, Chatanooga Ltd) as the error in actively and passively reproducing fi ve randomly ordered knee fl exion angles (30°, 40°, 50°, 60° and 70°). Sway (area, path and velocity) was measured during single leg stance using a Balance Performance Monitor (SMS Medical) for 30-second interval. Functional outcome was assessed using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS).

Pre-operatively, no differences in JPS or sway were found between limbs in either group. No differences existed between the two groups.

Post-operatively, both groups had signifi cant improvement of JPS in the operated limb only (Mean ± standard deviation for UKA 4.64±1.44° and for TKA 5.18±1.35°). No changes in JPS were seen in the control side. Group 2 patients showed signifi cant improvement in both sway area and path (p< .0001) for both limbs post-operatively. No signifi cant post-operative changes in sway occurred in either limb of Group 1 patients.

The OKS improved post-operatively in both groups, rising from 21.4 to 35.5 for Group 1 patients and from 23.9 to 38 for Group 2 patients.

Conclusion Interestingly, joint position sense improved for both groups but did not seem to show any difference between UKA and TKA. Postural sway was infl uenced by joint replacement type. Ligament retention may contribute to improved global postural control seen after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and may explain the higher level of function seen in these patients.

Purpose – Improve health professionals’ knowledge and understanding of patients’ perspectives of a randomised controlled trial of accelerated discharge following elective orthopaedic surgery.

Methods/Design – A qualitative study using purposive sampling and in-depth, semi-structured interviews was carried out with 16 patients who were approached about taking part in a randomised controlled trial comparing accelerated discharge within 24 hours with conventional management. Nine patients who consented and seven who declined the trial were interviewed; the interviews were tape recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Main results – Patients who entered the trial did so because they were attracted by the possibility of early discharge and for altruistic reasons of helping medical research. Those who refused did so because they worried that they would not have the required domestic assistance at home.

Conclusions – Most people who took part in this trial expressed satisfaction. The accelerated discharge option was not seen to be disadvantageous. Those who refused did so for social rather than medical reasons. With the increase in early discharge schemes this social concern will have to be addressed if patients’ wishes are to be met. The large number of refusals (17 out of 58) may have implications in the planning of RCTs, in that sufficient time needs to be allocated for recruitment.