Involving research users in setting priorities for research is essential to ensure research outcomes are patient-centred and to maximise research value and impact. The Musculoskeletal (MSK) Disorders Research Advisory Group Versus Arthritis led a research priority setting exercise across MSK disorders. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHRNI) method of setting research priorities with a range of stakeholders were utilised. The MSKD RAG identified, through consensus, four research Domains: Mechanisms of Disease; Diagnosis and Impact; Living Well with MSK disorders and Successful Translation. Following ethical approval, the research priority exercise involved four stages and two surveys, to: 1) gather research uncertainties; 2) consolidate these; 3) score uncertainties using agreed criteria of importance and impact on a score of 1–10; and 4) analyse scoring, for prioritisation.Background
Methods
Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) for patients with symptomatic meniscal loss has demonstrated good clinical results and survivorship. Factors that affect both functional outcome and survivorship have been reported in the literature. These are typically single-centre case series with relatively small numbers and conflicting results. Our aim was to describe an international, two-centre case series, and identify factors that affect both functional outcome and survival. We report factors that affect outcome on 526 patients undergoing MAT across two sites (one in the UK and one in Italy). Outcomes of interest were the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score four (KOOS4) at two years and failure rates. We performed multiple regression analysis to examine for factors affecting KOOS, and Cox proportional hazards models for survivorship.Aims
Methods
There is a 20% dissatisfaction rate with knee replacements. Calls for tools that can pre-operatively identify patients at risk of being dissatisfied postoperatively have been widespread. However, it is unclear what sort of information patients would want from such a tool, how it would affect their decision making process, and at what part of the pathway such a tool should be used. Using focus groups involving 12 participants and in-depth interviews with 10 participants, we examined the effect outcome prediction has by providing fictitious predictions to patients at different stages of treatment. A qualitative analysis of themes, based on a constant comparative method, is used to analyse the data. This study was approved by the Dyfed Powys Research Ethics Committee (13/WA/0140).Background
Methods
Knee replacement surgery is currently facing three dilemmas: a high dissatisfaction rate; increasing demand with financial constraints; and variation in utilisation. A patient centred approach, usually achieved through shared decision-making, has the potential to help address these dilemmas. However, such an approach requires an understanding of the factors involved in patient decision-making. This is the first study examining decision-making in knee replacements that includes patients at different stages of decision-making – this is critical when considering decision-making as a process. We base our findings in a theoretical model, proposed by Elwyn et al, that highlights the distinction between deliberation and decision-making, and propose modifications to this model specific to knee replacement decision-making. This study used two focus groups of six patients each and in-depth interviews with 10 patients to examine the factors that affect patient decision-making and their interaction at different points in the decision-making process. A qualitative analysis of themes, based on a constant comparative method, is used to analyse the data. This study was approved by the Dyfed Powys Research Ethics Committee (13/WA/0140).Background
Methods
Total Knee Replacement (TKR) is an effective treatment for knee arthritis. One long held principle of TKRs is positioning the components in alignment with the mechanical axis to restore the overall limb alignment to 180 ± 3 degrees. However, this view has been challenged recently. Given the high number of replacements performed, clarity on this integral aspect is necessary. Our objective was to investigate the association between malalignment and outcome (both PROMs and revision) following primary TKR. A systematic review of MEDLINE, CINHAL, and EMBASE was carried out to identify studies published from 2000 onwards. The study protocol including search strategy can be found on the PROSPERO database for systematic reviews.Background
Metod
Multiple randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that arthroscopy provides little benefit in patients with knee osteoarthritis. In 2008, NICE released guidelines to reflect this evidence. Implementation has been sporadic, and arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis is commonly performed with an annual incidence of 9.9 per 10,000 in England. Our aim was to establish whether previous arthroscopy affects Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Total Knee Replacement (TKR) patients. Data was retrospectively collected from 2010–2012 from a University hospital. Pre-operative and one-year post-operative PROMs were collected on patients who had undergone arthroscopy and then TKR, or only TKR. The change in PROMs score over TKR was then compared between groups.Background
Methods
A patient-centred approach, usually achieved through shared decision
making, has the potential to help improve decision making around
knee arthroplasty surgery. However, such an approach requires an
understanding of the factors involved in patient decision making.
This review’s objective is to systematically examine the qualitative literature
surrounding patients’ decision making in knee arthroplasty. A systematic literature review using Medline and Embase was conducted
to identify qualitative studies that examined patients’ decision
making around knee arthroplasty. An aggregated account of what is
known about patients’ decision making in knee arthroplasties is
provided.Objectives
Methods
The Patient Archiving and Communication System (PACS) has revolutionised the way that radiographs are stored and viewed in orthopaedic surgery. A recent advance has been the ability to upload images directly from the image intensifier to PACS. We postulated that this facility may reduce the need for post operative ‘check’ radiographs following many orthopaedic trauma procedures. We performed an audit of post-operative radiographs requested in our University Hospital over three time periods: 31 days immediately before the direct upload facility was introduced, 31 days immediately after and a 31 day period two months later. Details from the operating lists were cross-referenced with image intensifier records to identify cases where it had been used. PACS records were then checked to determine if these images were available to view and if a formal ‘check’ radiograph was performed in the period prior to discharge.Introduction
Patients and Method
