Search

STUDY QUESTION Is it feasible to undertake a randomised controlled trial to establish whether surgical removal of endometrioma or not, improves live birth rates from IVF? SUMMARY ANSWER A randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing surgery versus no surgery to endometrioma prior to IVF is only feasible in UK if an adaptive rather than traditional study design is used; this would minimise resource wastage and complete the trial in an acceptable time frame. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY There is wide variation in the management of endometriomas prior to IVF, with decisions about treatment being influenced by personal preferences. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION This was a mixed-methods study consisting of an online survey of clinicians, a focus group and individual interviews with potential trial participants. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Endometriosis and fertility experts across the UK were invited to participate in an online anonymised questionnaire. Potential future trial participants were recruited from a tertiary care fertility centre and invited to participate in either individual interviews or focus groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Clinicians and potential trial participants confirmed the need for an RCT to inform the management of an endometrioma prior to IVF. There were 126 clinicians who completed the survey, and the majority (70%) were willing to recruit to a trial. Half of those who responded indicated that they see at least 10 eligible women each year. The main barriers to recruitment were waiting lists for surgery and access to public funding for IVF. One focus group (n  = 7) and five interviews were conducted with potential trial participants (n  = 3) and their partners (n  = 2). The findings from these discussions highlighted that recruitment and retention in a potential RCT could be improved by coordination between IVF and surgical services such that an operation does not delay IVF or affect access to public funding. Live birth was considered the most important outcome with an improvement of at least 10% considered the minimum acceptable by both patients and clinicians. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This feasibility study captured views of clinicians across the UK, but as patients were from a single Scottish centre, their views may not be representative of other areas with limited public funding for IVF. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS There is a need for an appropriately powered RCT to establish whether or not surgical treatment of endometrioma prior to IVF improves live birth rates. There are logistical issues to be considered due to limited number of participants, funding of IVF and waiting times. These could be overcome in a RCT by using an adaptive design which would include a prospectively planned opportunity for modification of specified aspects of the study design based on interim analysis of the data, coordination of IVF treatments and endometriosis surgeries and international collaboration. Similar principles could be used for other questions in fertility where a traditional approach for randomised trials is not feasible. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Funding was received from the NHS Grampian R&D pump priming fund (RG14437-12). S.B. is Editor-in-Chief of HROPEN, and A.W.H. is Deputy Editor of HROPEN. Neither was involved in the review of this manuscript. L.S. reports grants from CSO and NIHR to do endometriosis research, outside the submitted work. K.C. reports grants from NIHR/HTA and CSO during the conduct of the study. J.H.e. A.W.H. J.D. S.B.r. K.B. G.B. J.H.u. and K.G. report no conflict of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects 25% of women in the UK, many of whom require surgery to treat it. Hysterectomy is effective but has more complications than endometrial ablation, which is less invasive but ultimately leads to hysterectomy in 20% of women. We compared laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with endometrial ablation in women seeking surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding.Methods: In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 31 hospitals in the UK, women younger than 50 years who were referred to a gynaecologist for surgical treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding and who were eligible for endometrial ablation were randomly allocated (1:1) to either laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or second generation endometrial ablation. Women were randomly assigned by either an interactive voice response telephone system or an internet-based application with a minimisation algorithm based on centre and age group (<40 years vs ≥40 years). Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy involves laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery to remove the upper part of the uterus (the body) containing the endometrium. Endometrial ablation aims to treat heavy menstrual bleeding by destroying the endometrium, which is responsible for heavy periods. The co-primary clinical outcomes were patient satisfaction and condition-specific quality of life, measured with the menorrhagia multi-attribute quality of life scale (MMAS), assessed at 15 months after randomisation. Our analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49013893.Findings: Between May 21, 2014, and March 28, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 660 women (330 in each group). 616 (93%) of 660 women were operated on within the study period, 588 (95%) of whom received the allocated procedure and 28 (5%) of whom had an alternative surgery. At 15 months after randomisation, more women allocated to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were satisfied with their operation compared with those in the endometrial ablation group (270 [97%] of 278 women vs 244 [87%] of 280 women; adjusted percentage difference 9·8, 95% CI 5·1-14·5; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·53, 95% CI 1·83-3·48; p<0·0001). Women randomly assigned to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 than women assigned to endometrial ablation (180 [69%] of 262 women vs 146 [54%] of 268 women; adjusted percentage difference 13·3, 95% CI 3·8-22·8; adjusted OR 1·87, 95% CI 1·31-2·67; p=0·00058). 14 (5%) of 309 women in the laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy group and 11 (4%) of 307 women in the endometrial ablation group had at least one serious adverse event (adjusted OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·56-3·02; p=0·54).Interpretation: Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is superior to endometrial ablation in terms of clinical effectiveness and has a similar proportion of complications, but takes longer to perform and is associated with a longer recovery.Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem affecting approximately 1.5 million women in England and Wales with a major impact on their physical, emotional, social and material quality of life. It is the fourth most common reason why women attend gynaecology outpatient clinics and accounts for one-fifth of all gynaecology outpatient referrals. Initial treatment in primary care is medical - either by means of oral or injected medication or the levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (Mirena®). If medical treatment fails then surgical treatment can be offered, either endometrial ablation (EA), which destroys the lining of the cavity of the uterus (endometrium), or hysterectomy, i.e. surgical removal of the uterus. While effective, conventional hysterectomy is invasive and carries a risk of complications due to injury to other pelvic structures. The procedure can be simplified and complications minimised by undertaking a 'supracervical' hysterectomy where the cervix is left in situ and only the body of the uterus removed. Recent advances in endoscopic technologies have facilitated increased use of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) which can be performed as a day-case procedure and is relatively easy for the surgeon to learn. HEALTH (Hysterectomy or Endometrial AbLation Trial for Heavy menstrual bleeding) aims to address the question 'Is LASH superior to second generation EA for the treatment of HMB in terms of clinical and cost effectiveness?'Methods/design: Women aged < 50 years, with HMB, in whom medical treatment has failed and who are eligible for EA will be considered for trial entry. We aim to recruit women from approximately 30 active secondary care centres in the UK NHS who carry out both surgical procedures. All women who consent will complete a diary of pain symptoms from day 1 to day 14 after surgery, postal questionnaires at six weeks and six months after surgery and 15 months post randomisation. Healthcare utilisation questions will also be completed at the six-week, six-month and 15-month time-points.Discussion: Measuring the comparative effectiveness of LASH vs EA will provide the robust evidence required to determine whether the new technique should be adopted widely in the NHS.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN49013893 . Registered on 28 January 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: One in three women who have a prolapse operation will go on to have another operation, though not necessarily in the same compartment. Surgery can result in greater impairment of quality of life than the original prolapse itself (such as the development of new-onset urinary incontinence, or prolapse at a different site). Anterior and posterior prolapse surgery is most common (90 % of operations), but around 43 % of women also have a uterine (34 %) or vault (9 %) procedure at the same time. There is not enough evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to guide management of vault or uterine prolapse. The Vault or Uterine prolapse surgery Evaluation (VUE) study aims to assess the surgical management of upper compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and adverse events.Methods/design: VUE is two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, RCTs (Uterine Trial and Vault Trial). Eligible for inclusion are women with vault or uterine prolapse: requiring a surgical procedure, suitable for randomisation and willing to be randomised. Randomisation will be computer-allocated separately for each trial, minimised on: requiring concomitant anterior and/or posterior POP surgery or not, concomitant incontinence surgery or not, age (under 60 years or 60 years and older) and surgeon. Participants will be randomly assigned, with equal probability to intervention or control arms in either the Uterine Trial or the Vault Trial. Uterine Trial participants will receive either a vaginal hysterectomy or a uterine preservation procedure. Vault Trial participants will receive either a vaginal sacrospinous fixation or an abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Participants will be followed up by postal questionnaires (6 months post surgery and 12 months post randomisation) and also reviewed in clinic 12 months post surgery. The primary outcome is the participant-reported Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS) at 12 months post randomisation.Discussion: Demonstrating the efficacy of vault and uterine prolapse surgeries is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health care providers, both in the UK and globally.Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN86784244 (assigned 19 October 2012), and the first subject was randomly assigned on 1 May 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I Sir, i We would like to thank Maher and Hartel for their interest1 in our RCT evaluating the use of mesh inlay and mesh kits in women having repeat prolapse surgery (secondary, strictly defined as failure in the same compartment).2 We value the opportunity to address some of their concerns. References 1 Maher C, Hartel G. Re: Mesh inlay, mesh kit or native tissue repair for women having repeat anterior or posterior prolapse surgery: randomised controlled trial (PROSPECT). [Extracted from the article]

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for the clinical trial community, both in the rapid establishment of COVID-19 clinical trials and many existing non-COVID-19 studies either being temporarily paused (whether that is a complete pause or pause in some activities) and/or adapting their processes. Trial managers have played a key role in decision-making, undertaking risk assessments and adapting trial processes, working closely with other members of the research team. This article presents some of the ways in which trial management processes have been altered and the key role that trial managers have played. It has been born out of discussions between trial managers in the UK who are members of the UK Trial Managers' Network (UKTMN), a national network of trial management professionals managing non-commercial trials.In these unprecedented times, clinical trials have faced many uncertainties and broad-ranging challenges encompassing a range of activities including prioritising patient safety amidst the pandemic, consenting and recruiting new participants into trials, data collection and management and intervention delivery. In many cases, recruitment has been paused whilst mitigations have been put in place to continue data collection. Innovative solutions have been implemented to ensure we continue, where possible, to deliver high-quality clinical trials. Technology has provided many solutions to these challenges, and trial managers have adapted to new ways of working whilst continuing to deliver their clinical trials. Trial management groups are now faced with new uncertainties around re-starting clinical trials, and it is unclear currently how this will go, though working together with sponsors, funders and site teams is clearly a priority.Clinical trial teams have worked together to ensure their trials have adapted quickly whilst ensuring participant safety is given utmost importance. There are clear examples where the trial community have come together to share experiences and expertise, and this should continue in the future to ensure the innovative practices developed become embedded in the design and conduct of clinical trials in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: New surgical approaches for apical prolapse have gradually been introduced, with few prospective randomised controlled trial data to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with traditional methods., Objective: To compare surgical uterine preservation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse and abdominal procedures with vaginal procedures in women with vault prolapse in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse events, quality of life and cost-effectiveness., Design: Two parallel randomised controlled trials (i.e. Uterine and Vault). Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio), minimised on the need for concomitant anterior and/or posterior procedure, concomitant incontinence procedure, age and surgeon., Setting: UK hospitals., Participants: Uterine trial - 563 out of 565 randomised women had uterine prolapse surgery. Vault trial - 208 out of 209 randomised women had vault prolapse surgery., Interventions: Uterine trial - uterine preservation or vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - abdominal or vaginal vault suspension., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were women's prolapse symptoms (as measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score), prolapse-specific quality of life and cost-effectiveness (as assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year)., Results: Uterine trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for uterine preservation was 4.2 (standard deviation 4.9) versus vaginal hysterectomy with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 4.2 (standard deviation 5.3) (mean difference -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.91 to 0.81). Serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (uterine preservation 5.4% vs. vaginal hysterectomy 5.9%; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.75). There was no difference in overall prolapse stage. Significantly more women would recommend vaginal hysterectomy to a friend (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.83). Uterine preservation was £235 (95% confidence interval £6 to £464) more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy and generated non-significantly fewer quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference -0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.019). Vault trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for an abdominal procedure was 5.6 (standard deviation 5.4) versus vaginal procedure with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 5.9 (standard deviation 5.4) (mean difference -0.61, 95% confidence interval -2.08 to 0.86). The serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (abdominal 5.9% vs. vaginal 6.0%; risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 3.44). The objective anterior prolapse stage 2b or more was higher in the vaginal group than in the abdominal group (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79). There was no difference in the overall prolapse stage. An abdominal procedure was £570 (95% confidence interval £459 to £682) more expensive than a vaginal procedure and generated non-significantly more quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.041)., Conclusions: Uterine trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between uterine preservation and vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between an abdominal and a vaginal approach., Future Work: Long-term follow-up for at least 6 years is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse events and cost-effectiveness., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86784244., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 13. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Robert Freeman reports speaker fees [from Bard Medical (Covington, GA, USA), Astellas Pharma Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) and Pfizer Inc. (New York City, NY, USA)] and grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. John Norrie reports membership of the following NIHR boards: the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Decision-making Committee, HTA Commissioning Board, HTA Commissioning Sub-Board (Expression of Interest), HTA Funding Boards Policy Group, HTA General Board and HTA Post-board Funding Teleconference; the NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Standing Advisory Committee; the NIHR HTA and Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Editorial Board; and the Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Impact Review Panel.

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem that affects many British women. When initial medical treatment is unsuccessful, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends surgical options such as endometrial ablation (EA) or hysterectomy. Although clinically and economically more effective than EA, total hysterectomy necessitates a longer hospital stay and is associated with slower recovery and a higher risk of complications. Improvements in endoscopic equipment and training have made laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) accessible to most gynaecologists. This operation could preserve the advantages of total hysterectomy and reduce the risk of complications., Objectives: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LASH with second-generation EA in women with HMB., Design: A parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio). Surgeons and participants were not blinded to the allocated procedure., Setting: Thirty-one UK secondary and tertiary hospitals., Participants: Women aged < 50 years with HMB. Exclusion criteria included plans to conceive; endometrial atypia; abnormal cytology; uterine cavity size > 11 cm; any fibroids > 3 cm; contraindications to laparoscopic surgery; previous EA; and inability to give informed consent or complete trial paperwork., Interventions: LASH compared with second-generation EA., Main Outcome Measures: Co-primary clinical outcome measures were (1) patient satisfaction and (2) Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Quality-of-Life Scale (MMAS) score at 15 months post randomisation. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost (NHS perspective) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained., Results: A total of 330 participants were randomised to each group (total n  = 660). Women randomised to LASH were more likely to be satisfied with their treatment than those randomised to EA (97.1% vs. 87.1%) [adjusted difference in proportions 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.15; adjusted odds ratio (OR) from ordinal logistic regression (OLR) 2.53, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.48; p  < 0.001]. Women randomised to LASH were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 (68.7% vs. 54.5%) (adjusted difference in proportions 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23; adjusted OR from OLR 1.87, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.67; p  = 0.001). Serious adverse event rates were low and similar in both groups (4.5% vs. 3.6%). There was a significant difference in adjusted mean costs between LASH (£2886) and EA (£1282) at 15 months, but no significant difference in QALYs. Based on an extrapolation of expected differences in cost and QALYs out to 10 years, LASH cost an additional £1362 for an average QALY gain of 0.11, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,314 per QALY. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were 53%, 71% and 80% at cost-effectiveness thresholds of £13,000, £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, respectively., Limitations: Follow-up data beyond 15 months post randomisation are not available to inform cost-effectiveness., Conclusion: LASH is superior to EA in terms of clinical effectiveness. EA is less costly in the short term, but expected higher retreatment rates mean that LASH could be considered cost-effective by 10 years post procedure., Future Work: Retreatment rates, satisfaction and quality-of-life scores at 10-year follow-up will help to inform long-term cost-effectiveness., Triai Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49013893., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: T Justin Clark reports grants and personal fees from Hologic Inc. (Santa Clara, CA, USA), outside the submitted work, and membership of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Prioritisation Committee. John Norrie declares grants from the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh during the conduct of the study, and membership of the following National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) boards: HTA Commissioning Board (2010–16); NIHR HTA and Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Editorial Board (2014–19); HTA Commissioning Sub-board (Expression of Interest) (2016–present); HTA Funding Boards Policy Group (2016–present); HTA General Board (2016–present); HTA Post-board Funding Teleconference (2016–present); the Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Impact Review Panel (2018); and the NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Standing Advisory Committee (2018–present). Siladitya Bhattacharya is the Editor-in-Chief of HROpen and an Editor for Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility.

Background: The use of mesh in prolapse surgery is controversial, leading to a number of enquiries into its safety and efficacy., Objective: To compare synthetic non-absorbable mesh inlay, biological graft and mesh kit with a standard repair in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse effects, quality of life (QoL), costs and cost-effectiveness., Design: Two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort (CC) study. Allocation was by a remote web-based randomisation system in a 1 :1 : 1 ratio (Primary trial) or 1 : 1 : 2 ratio (Secondary trial), and was minimised on age, type of prolapse repair planned, need for a concomitant continence procedure, need for a concomitant upper vaginal prolapse procedure and surgeon. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to randomisation; participants were unblinded if they requested the information. Surgeons were not blinded to allocated procedure., Setting: Thirty-five UK hospitals., Participants: Primary study : 2474 women in the analysis (including 1348 randomised) having primary anterior or posterior prolapse surgery. Secondary study : 398 in the analysis (including 154 randomised) having repeat anterior or posterior prolapse surgery. CC3 : 215 women having either uterine or vault prolapse repair., Interventions: Anterior or posterior repair alone, or with mesh inlay, biological graft or mesh kit., Main Outcome Measures: Prolapse symptoms [Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS)]; prolapse-specific QoL; cost-effectiveness [incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)]., Results: Primary trials : adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, mean POP-SS was similar for each comparison {standard 5.4 [standard deviation (SD) 5.5] vs. mesh 5.5 (SD 5.1), mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 0.71; standard 5.5 (SD 5.6) vs. graft 5.6 (SD 5.6), MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.63}. Serious non-mesh adverse effects rates were similar between the groups in year 1 [standard 7.2% vs. mesh 7.8%, risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.72; standard 6.3% vs. graft 9.8%, RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.59]. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in any other outcome measure. The cumulative mesh complication rates over 2 years were 2 of 430 (0.5%) for standard repair (trial 1), 46 of 435 (10.6%) for mesh inlay and 2 of 368 (0.5%) for biological graft. The CC findings were comparable. Incremental costs were £363 (95% CI -£32 to £758) and £565 (95% CI £180 to £950) for mesh and graft vs. standard, respectively. Incremental QALYs were 0.071 (95% CI -0.004 to 0.145) and 0.039 (95% CI -0.041 to 0.120) for mesh and graft vs. standard, respectively. A Markov decision model extrapolating trial results over 5 years showed standard repair had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness, but results were surrounded by considerable uncertainty. Secondary trials : there were no statistically significant differences between the randomised groups in any outcome measure, but the sample size was too small to be conclusive. The cumulative mesh complication rates over 2 years were 7 of 52 (13.5%) for mesh inlay and 4 of 46 (8.7%) for mesh kit, with no mesh exposures for standard repair., Conclusions: In women who were having primary repairs, there was evidence of no benefit from the use of mesh inlay or biological graft compared with standard repair in terms of efficacy, QoL or adverse effects (other than mesh complications) in the short term. The Secondary trials were too small to provide conclusive results., Limitations: Women in the Primary trials included some with a previous repair in another compartment. Follow-up is vital to identify any long-term potential benefits and serious adverse effects., Future Work: Long-term follow-up to at least 6 years after surgery is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse effects and cost-effectiveness., Triai Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60695184., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 20, No. 95. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: In the late 1990s, new developments in knee replacement were identified as a priority for research within the NHS. The newer forms of arthroplasty were more expensive and information was needed on their safety and cost-effectiveness., Objectives: The Knee Arthroplasty Trial examined the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four aspects of knee replacement surgery: patellar resurfacing, mobile bearings, all-polyethylene tibial components and unicompartmental replacement., Design: This study comprised a partial factorial, pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial with a trial-based cost-utility analysis which was conducted from the perspective of the NHS and the patients treated. Allocation was computer generated in a 1 : 1 ratio using a central system, stratified by eligible comparisons and surgeon, minimised by participant age, gender and site of disease. Surgeons were not blinded to allocated procedures. Participants were unblinded if they requested to know the prosthesis they received., Setting: The setting for the trial was UK secondary care., Participants: Patients were eligible for inclusion if a decision had been made for them to have primary knee replacement surgery. Patients were recruited to comparisons for which the surgeon was in equipoise about which type of operation was most suitable., Interventions: Patients were randomised to receive a knee replacement with the following: patellar resurfacing or no patellar resurfacing irrespective of the design of the prosthesis used; a mobile bearing between the tibial and femoral components or a bearing fixed to the tibial component; a tibial component made of either only high-density polyethylene ('all polyethylene') or a polyethylene bearing fixed to a metal backing plate with attached stem; or unicompartmental or total knee replacement., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Other outcomes were Short Form 12; EuroQol 5D; intraoperative and postoperative complications; additional surgery; cost; and cost-effectiveness. Patients were followed up for a median of 10 years; the economic evaluation took a 10-year time horizon, discounting costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at 3.5% per annum., Results: A total of 116 surgeons in 34 centres participated and 2352 participants were randomised: 1715 in patellar resurfacing; 539 in mobile bearing; 409 in all-polyethylene tibial component; and 34 in the unicompartmental comparisons. Of those randomised, 345 were randomised to two comparisons. We can be more than 95% confident that patellar resurfacing is cost-effective, despite there being no significant difference in clinical outcomes, because of increased QALYs [0.187; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.025 to 0.399] and reduced costs (-£104; 95% CI -£630 to £423). We found no definite advantage or disadvantage of mobile bearings in OKS, quality of life, reoperation and revision rates or cost-effectiveness. We found improved functional results for metal-backed tibias: complication, reoperation and revision rates were similar. The metal-backed tibia was cost-effective (particularly in the elderly), costing £35 per QALY gained., Conclusions: The results provide evidence to support the routine resurfacing of the patella and the use of metal-backed tibial components even in the elderly. Further follow-up is required to assess the stability of these findings over time and to inform the decision between mobile and fixed bearings., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45837371., Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and the orthopaedic industry. It will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.