Search

Abstract Introduction Primary total elbow replacement (TER) services in England are being restructured with the goal of centralising care to specialised centres. It is important to monitor the impact of this service redesign. This protocol outlines an intended analysis to provide detailed descriptions of the patients who are receiving primary TER, where and by whom TER is being performed, and what the current surgical practices for TER are in England before the reconfiguration. Methods This analysis will use the National Joint Registry (NJR) elbow dataset and link it with NHS England Hospital Episode Statistics-Admitted Patient Care (HES-APC). It will include eligible patients from the start of the NJR elbow dataset in April 2012 to December 2022. The main objective is to determine the incidence of TER in England. Age-sex standardised rates will be calculated for groups including different ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds, using the mid-year population data provided by the Office for National Statistics. This planned analysis will summarise patient characteristics such as age, sex, body mass index (BMI), hand dominance, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for TER, socioeconomic status, and patient co-morbidities. It will also examine implant fixation type, classification, brand/type, and changes over time in implant types used in England. Additionally, it will explore the characteristics and volume of the surgeons and hospitals providing primary TER services, including the grade of the primary surgeons, funding source for surgery, and admission type. The analysis will cover the number of procedures performed by surgeons and hospitals annually in England and in each region of England. Finally, the planned analysis will summarise the elective wait time, postoperative length of stay, and any serious adverse events or re-admissions within 30 and 90 days after the TER. Discussion This protocol describes the first deep dive analysis into the NJR elbow dataset to describe the incidence of TER surgery in England and the characteristics of patients who are receiving it. This analysis will summarise current primary TER practices in England before service reconfigurations. The impact of reconfiguration can be monitored by comparing future practice to the outcomes from this study. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06355011. Registered 02 April 2024, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06355011 .

Aims: Fractures of the humeral shaft represent 3% to 5% of all fractures. The most common treatment for isolated humeral diaphysis fractures in the UK is non-operative using functional bracing, which carries a low risk of complications, but is associated with a longer healing time and a greater risk of nonunion than surgery. There is an increasing trend to surgical treatment, which may lead to quicker functional recovery and lower rates of fracture nonunion than functional bracing. However, surgery carries inherent risk, including infection, bleeding, and nerve damage. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of functional bracing compared to surgical fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Methods: The HUmeral SHaft (HUSH) fracture study is a multicentre, prospective randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures in adult patients. Participants will be randomized to receive either functional bracing or surgery. With 334 participants, the trial will have 90% power to detect a clinically important difference for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score, assuming 20% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include function, pain, quality of life, complications, cost-effectiveness, time off work, and ability to drive. Discussion: The results of this trial will provide evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness between surgical and non-surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Ethical approval has been obtained from East of England – Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee. Publication is anticipated to occur in 2024. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):343–349.

Introduction Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have revolutionised the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (IA). However, many people with IA still require planned orthopaedic surgery to reduce pain and improve function. Currently, bDMARDs are withheld during the perioperative period due to potential infection risk. However, this predisposes patients to IA flares and loss of disease control. The question of whether to stop or continue bDMARDs in the perioperative period has not been adequately addressed in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).Methods and analysis PERISCOPE is a multicentre, superiority, pragmatic RCT investigating the stoppage or continuation of bDMARDs. Participants will be assigned 1:1 to either stop or continue their bDMARDs during the perioperative period. We aim to recruit 394 adult participants with IA. Potential participants will be identified in secondary care hospitals in the UK, screened by a delegated clinician. If eligible and consenting, baseline data will be collected and randomisation completed. The primary outcome will be the self-reported PROMIS-29 (Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) over the first 12 weeks postsurgery. Secondary outcome measures are as follows: PROMIS - Health Assessment Questionnaire (PROMIS-HAQ), EQ-5D-5L, Disease activity: generic global Numeric Rating Scale (patient and clinician), Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction scale, Health care resource use and costs, Medication use, Surgical site infection, delayed wound healing, Adverse events (including systemic infections) and disease-specific outcomes (according to IA diagnosis). The costs associated with stopping and continuing bDMARDs will be assessed. A qualitative study will explore the patients’ and clinicians’ acceptability and experience of continuation/stoppage of bDMARDs in the perioperative period and the impact postoperatively.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for this study was received from the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee on 25 April 2023 (REC Ref: 23/WS/0049). The findings from PERISCOPE will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and feed directly into practice guidelines for the use of bDMARDs in the perioperative period.Trial registration number ISRCTN17691638.

Abstract Background Conditions such as hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) are most often diagnosed when an individual has joint flexibility beyond the normal physiological limits. Additional characteristics and symptoms include pain and fatigue with individuals also being more likely to report feelings of anxiety and depression. Due to the varied presentation of these conditions, there is a lack of understanding amongst the various healthcare professionals (HCPs) individuals present to, leading to delayed diagnoses and negative experiences for the individuals themselves. This scoping review therefore aims to map the known biopsychosocial impact of adults with HSD and EDS. Methods The scoping review will follow the six-step framework as outlined by Arskey and O’Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The search will be conducted using the following databases: AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed PEDro. Full-text published articles in the English language (excluding literature and systematic reviews) with adult samples (over the age of 18 years) and a diagnosis of a HSD or EDS, published between 2012 and 2022, will be included in the review. Discussion This review will aim to explore the existing literature for the reported biopsychosocial impact of adults with a HSD or EDS. It will also aim to further acknowledge the gaps in understanding of the condition, how the condition and the impact of the condition is being measured and what HCPs are involved in supporting such individuals. These gaps will be used to inform a future systematic review. It is the overall goal to increase the knowledge of HCPs and the quality of life of adults living with a joint hypermobility condition.

Objective The Anti-Freaze-F (AFF) trial assessed the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial to determine whether intra-articular injection of adalimumab can reduce pain and improve function in people with pain-predominant early-stage frozen shoulder.Design Multicentre, randomised feasibility trial, with embedded qualitative study.Setting Four UK National Health Service (NHS) musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services.Participants Adults ≥18 years with new episode of shoulder pain attributable to early-stage frozen shoulder.Interventions Participants were randomised (centralised computer generated 1:1 allocation) to either ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection of: (1) adalimumab (160 mg) or (2) placebo (saline (0.9% sodium chloride)). Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. Second injection of allocated treatment (adalimumab 80 mg) or equivalent placebo was administered 2–3 weeks later.Primary feasibility objectives (1) Ability to screen and identify participants; (2) willingness of eligible participants to consent and be randomised; (3) practicalities of delivering the intervention; (4) SD of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score and attrition rate at 3 months.Results Between 31 May 2022 and 7 February 2023, 156 patients were screened of whom 39 (25%) were eligible. The main reasons for ineligibility were other shoulder disorder (38.5%; n=45/117) or no longer in pain-predominant frozen shoulder (33.3%; n=39/117). Of the 39 eligible patients, nine (23.1%) consented to be randomised (adalimumab n=4; placebo n=5). The main reason patients declined was because they preferred receiving steroid injection (n=13). All participants received treatment as allocated. The mean time from randomisation to first injection was 12.3 (adalimumab) and 7.2 days (placebo). Completion rates for patient-reported and clinician-assessed outcomes were 100%.Conclusion This study demonstrated that current NHS musculoskeletal physiotherapy settings yielded only small numbers of participants, too few to make a trial viable. This was because many patients had passed the early stage of frozen shoulder or had already formulated a preference for treatment.Trial registration number ISRCTN 27075727, EudraCT 2021-03509-23, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05299242 (REC 21/NE/0214).

Introduction The waiting list for elective surgery in England recently reached over 7.8 million people and waiting time targets have been missed since 2010. The high-volume low complexity (HVLC) surgical hubs programme aims to tackle the backlog of patients awaiting elective surgery treatment in England. This study will evaluate the impact of HVLC surgical hubs on productivity, patient care and the workforce.Methods and analysis This 4-year project consists of six interlinked work packages (WPs) and is informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. WP1: Mapping current and future HVLC provision in England through document analysis, quantitative data sets (eg, Hospital Episodes Statistics) and interviews with national service leaders. WP2: Exploring the effects of HVLC hubs on key performance outcomes, primarily the volume of low-complexity patients treated, using quasi-experimental methods. WP3: Exploring the impact and implementation of HVLC hubs on patients, health professionals and the local NHS through approximately nine longitudinal, multimethod qualitative case studies. WP4: Assessing the productivity of HVLC surgical hubs using the Centre for Health Economics NHS productivity measure and Lord Carter’s operational productivity measure. WP5: Conducting a mixed-methods appraisal will assess the influence of HVLC surgical hubs on the workforce using: qualitative data (WP3) and quantitative data (eg, National Health Service (NHS) England’s workforce statistics and intelligence from WP2). WP6: Analysing the costs and consequences of HVLC surgical hubs will assess their achievements in relation to their resource use to establish value for money. A patient and public involvement group will contribute to the study design and materials.Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the East Midlands—Nottingham Research Ethics Committee 23/EM/0231. Participants will provide informed consent for qualitative study components. Dissemination plans include multiple academic and non-academic outputs (eg, Peer-reviewed journals, conferences, social media) and a continuous, feedback-loop of findings to key stakeholders (eg, NHS England) to influence policy development.Trial registration Research registry: Researchregistry9364 (https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry%23home/registrationdetails/64cb6c795cbef8002a46f115/).

Background Shoulder arthroplasty incidence is projected to continue its exponential growth and the resultant burden of monitoring patients with shoulder arthroplasty implants creates significant pressure on orthopaedic services. Surveillance offers the opportunity to study implant longevity, detect failing implants and potentially perform revision at lower morbidity and cost. There is a paucity of evidence to support recommendations on long-term follow-up in shoulder arthroplasty. Prospective studies comparing long-term follow-up and structure are impractical from time, resource and cost perspectives. A real-time Delphi technique represents a mechanism by which experts involved in long-term follow-up of primary shoulder arthroplasty can formulate recommendations via a transparent, reproducible and efficient process. We outline the protocol for a real-time Delphi study seeking consensus on long-term follow-up and surveillance of primary shoulder arthroplasty .Methods A real-time Delphi technique will be used. A planning committee will design the Delphi statements. A steering committee will supervise and monitor the real-time Delphi process. Participants will be asked to rate their agreement with statements using a 5-point Likert scale. The Delphi statements will be derived from review of published literature, and the strength of evidence available for each statement will be provided. We will offer participation to all surgeons and extended-scope practitioners who are current members of the British Elbow & Shoulder Society (BESS) and have clinical practice involving shoulder arthroplasty follow-up. The questionnaire will be active for 4 weeks and requires a minimum of 20 participants. Consensus agreement is defined as 70% of participants selecting at least a 4-point on a 5-point Likert scale.Discussion We anticipate the outlined study will achieve consensus on long-term follow-up and surveillance of primary shoulder arthroplasty. We intend to use the expert consensus recommendations achieved, in addition to the limited applicable published evidence available, to produce BESS-affiliated guidelines on long-term follow-up and surveillance of primary shoulder arthroplasty.EthicsEthical approval is not required for the real-time Delphi study.We expect the results of this initiative will be published in a peer-reviewed, high-impact journal.

Background and purpose: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) are used in the management of osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint. We aimed to determine whether TSA or HA resulted in a lower risk of adverse outcomes in patients of all ages with osteoarthritis and an intact rotator cuff and in a subgroup of patients aged 60 years or younger. Patients and methods: Shoulder arthroplasties recorded in the National Joint Registry, UK, between April 1, 2012 and June 30, 2021, were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics in England. Elective TSAs and HAs were matched on propensity scores based on 11 variables. The primary outcome was all-cause revision. Secondary outcomes were combined revision/non-revision reoperations, 30-day inpatient complications, 1-year mortality, and length of stay. 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. Results: 11,556 shoulder arthroplasties were included: 7,641 TSAs, 3,915 HAs. At 8 years 95% (CI 94–96) of TSAs and 91% (CI 90–92) of HAs remained unrevised. The hazard ratio (HR) varied across follow-up: 4-year HR 2.7 (CI 1.9–3.5), 8-year HR 2.0 (CI 0.5–3.5). Rotator cuff insufficiency was the most common revision indication. In patients aged 60 years or younger prosthesis survival at 8 years was 92% (CI 89–94) following TSA and 84% (CI 80–87) following HA. Conclusion: The risk of revision was higher following HA in patients with osteoarthritis and an intact rotator cuff. Patients aged 60 years and younger had a higher risk of revision following HA.

Abstract Background Proximal humerus fractures (PHF) are common and painful injuries, with the majority resulting from falls from a standing height. As with other fragility fractures, its age-specific incidence is increasing. Surgical treatment with hemiarthroplasty (HA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been increasingly used for displaced 3- and 4-part fractures despite a lack of good quality evidence as to whether one type of arthroplasty is superior to the other, and whether surgery is better than non-surgical management. The PROFHER-2 trial has been designed as a pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of RSA vs HA vs Non-Surgical (NS) treatment in patients with 3- and 4-part PHF. Methods Adults over 65 years of age presenting with acute radiographically confirmed 3- or 4-part fractures, with or without associated glenohumeral joint dislocation, who consent for trial participation will be recruited from around 40 National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals in the UK. Patients with polytrauma, open fractures, presence of axillary nerve palsy, pathological (other than osteoporotic) fractures, and those who are unable to adhere to trial procedures will be excluded. We will aim to recruit 380 participants (152 RSA, 152 HA, 76 NS) using 2:2:1 (HA:RSA:NS) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fractures without joint dislocation, and 1:1 (HA:RSA) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fracture dislocations. The primary outcome is the Oxford Shoulder Score at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), pain, range of shoulder motion, fracture healing and implant position on X-rays, further procedures, and complications. Independent Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee will oversee the trial conduct, including the reporting of adverse events and harms. Discussion The PROFHER-2 trial is designed to provide a robust answer to guide the treatment of patients aged 65 years or over who sustain 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures. The pragmatic design and recruitment from around 40 UK NHS hospitals will ensure immediate applicability and generalisability of the trial findings. The full trial results will be made available in a relevant open-access peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration ISRCTN76296703. Prospectively registered on 5th April 2018

Aims: Early large treatment effects can arise in small studies, which lessen as more data accumulate. This study aimed to retrospectively examine whether early treatment effects occurred for two multicentre orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and explore biases related to this. Methods: Included RCTs were ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation), a two-arm study of surgery versus non-surgical treatment for proximal humerus fractures, and UK FROST (United Kingdom Frozen Shoulder Trial), a three-arm study of two surgical and one non-surgical treatment for frozen shoulder. To determine whether early treatment effects were present, the primary outcome of Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) was compared on forest plots for: the chief investigator’s (CI) site to the remaining sites, the first five sites opened to the other sites, and patients grouped in quintiles by randomization date. Potential for bias was assessed by comparing mean age and proportion of patients with indicators of poor outcome between included and excluded/non-consenting participants. Results: No bias in treatment effect was observed overall for the CI site, or the first five sites, compared with the remaining sites in either trial. An early treatment effect on the OSS was observed for the first quintile of participants recruited to ProFHER only (clinically relevant difference of seven points). Selection bias for age was observed in the ProFHER trial only, with slightly younger patients being recruited into the study. Both trials showed some selection bias for markers of poor prognosis, although these did not appear to change over time. Conclusion: No bias in treatment effects overall were found at the CI or early sites set-up. An early treatment effect was found in one of the two trials, which was likely a chance effect as this did not continue during the study. Selection bias was observed in both RCTs, however this was minimal and did not impact on outcome. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):96–103.

AimsTo achieve expert clinical consensus in the delivery of hydrodilatation for the treatment of primary frozen shoulder to inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation.MethodsWe conducted a two-stage, electronic questionnaire-based, modified Delphi survey of shoulder experts in the UK NHS. Round one required positive, negative, or neutral ratings about hydrodilatation. In round two, each participant was reminded of their round one responses and the modal (or ‘group’) response from all participants. This allowed participants to modify their responses in round two. We proposed respectively mandating or encouraging elements of hydrodilatation with 100% and 90% positive consensus, and respectively disallowing or discouraging with 90% and 80% negative consensus. Other elements would be optional.ResultsBetween 4 August 2020 and 4 August 2021, shoulder experts from 47 hospitals in the UK completed the study. There were 106 participants (consultant upper limb orthopaedic surgeons, n = 50; consultant radiologists, n = 52; consultant physiotherapist, n = 1; extended scope physiotherapists, n = 3) who completed round one, of whom 97 (92%) completed round two. No elements of hydrodilatation were “mandated” (100% positive rating). Elements that were “encouraged” (≥ 80% positive rating) were the use of image guidance, local anaesthetic, normal saline, and steroids to deliver the injection. Injecting according to patient tolerance, physiotherapy, and home exercises were also “encouraged”. No elements were “discouraged” (≥ 80% negative rating) although using hypertonic saline was rated as being “disallowed” (≥ 90% negative rating).ConclusionIn the absence of rigorous evidence, our Delphi study allowed us to achieve expert consensus about positive, negative, and neutral ratings of hydrodilatation in the management of frozen shoulder in a hospital setting. This should inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):701–709.

BackgroundWhile the United Kingdom National Health Service aimed to reduce social inequalities in the provision of joint replacement, it is unclear whether these gaps have reduced. We describe secular trends in the provision of primary hip and knee replacement surgery between social deprivation groups.Methods and findingsWe used the National Joint Registry to identify all hip and knee replacements performed for osteoarthritis from 2007 to 2017 in England. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015 was used to identify the relative level of deprivation of the patient living area. Multilevel negative binomial regression models were used to model the differences in rates of joint replacement. Choropleth maps of hip and knee replacement provision were produced to identify the geographical variation in provision by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). A total of 675,342 primary hip and 834,146 primary knee replacements were studied. The mean age was 70 years old (standard deviation: 9) with 60% and 56% of women undergoing hip and knee replacements, respectively. The overall rate of hip replacement increased from 27 to 36 per 10,000 person-years and knee replacement from 33 to 46. Inequalities of provision between the most (reference) and least affluent areas have remained constant for both joints (hip: rate ratio (RR) = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [0.56, 0.60] in 2007, RR = 0.59 [0.58, 0.61] in 2017; knee: RR = 0.82 [0.80, 0.85] in 2007, RR = 0.81 [0.80, 0.83] in 2017). For hip replacement, CCGs with the highest concentration of deprived areas had lower overall provision rates, and CCGs with very few deprived areas had higher provision rates. There was no clear pattern of provision inequalities between CCGs and deprivation concentration for knee replacement. Study limitations include the lack of publicly available information to explore these inequalities beyond age, sex, and geographical area. Information on clinical need for surgery or patient willingness to access care were unavailable.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that there were inequalities, which remained constant over time, especially in the provision of hip replacement, by degree of social deprivation. Providers of healthcare need to take action to reduce this unwarranted variation in provision of surgery.

Background While the United Kingdom National Health Service aimed to reduce social inequalities in the provision of joint replacement, it is unclear whether these gaps have reduced. We describe secular trends in the provision of primary hip and knee replacement surgery between social deprivation groups. Methods and findings We used the National Joint Registry to identify all hip and knee replacements performed for osteoarthritis from 2007 to 2017 in England. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015 was used to identify the relative level of deprivation of the patient living area. Multilevel negative binomial regression models were used to model the differences in rates of joint replacement. Choropleth maps of hip and knee replacement provision were produced to identify the geographical variation in provision by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). A total of 675,342 primary hip and 834,146 primary knee replacements were studied. The mean age was 70 years old (standard deviation: 9) with 60% and 56% of women undergoing hip and knee replacements, respectively. The overall rate of hip replacement increased from 27 to 36 per 10,000 person-years and knee replacement from 33 to 46. Inequalities of provision between the most (reference) and least affluent areas have remained constant for both joints (hip: rate ratio (RR) = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [0.56, 0.60] in 2007, RR = 0.59 [0.58, 0.61] in 2017; knee: RR = 0.82 [0.80, 0.85] in 2007, RR = 0.81 [0.80, 0.83] in 2017). For hip replacement, CCGs with the highest concentration of deprived areas had lower overall provision rates, and CCGs with very few deprived areas had higher provision rates. There was no clear pattern of provision inequalities between CCGs and deprivation concentration for knee replacement. Study limitations include the lack of publicly available information to explore these inequalities beyond age, sex, and geographical area. Information on clinical need for surgery or patient willingness to access care were unavailable. Conclusions In this study, we found that there were inequalities, which remained constant over time, especially in the provision of hip replacement, by degree of social deprivation. Providers of healthcare need to take action to reduce this unwarranted variation in provision of surgery. Author summary Why was this study done? Joint replacements are among the more frequent elective surgeries performed in developed settings. In England, inequalities in provision of joint replacement surgery were reported more than a decade ago, followed by a national effort to reduce these inequalities. In a context of increasingly strained National Health Service funding and hospital budgets, alongside prolonged efforts to increase surgical capacity, it is unclear what impact these have had on inequalities in provision of joint replacement for osteoarthritis. What did the researchers do and find? We conducted an analysis of the National Joint Registry using all primary hip and knee replacements for osteoarthritis performed from 2007 to 2017 in England, merged with the Office for National Statistics official population statistics, to investigate inequalities in provision of surgery according to deprivation by patient area of residence, age, sex, and trends in these inequalities over time. Using 675,342 primary hip and 834,146 primary knee replacements, we found that inequalities in provision of surgery between the most (reference) and least affluent areas have remained large (hip: rate ratio (RR) = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [0.56, 0.60] in 2007, RR = 0.59 [0.58, 0.61] in 2017; knee: RR = 0.82 [0.80, 0.85] in 2007, RR = 0.81 [0.80, 0.83] in 2017), despite the use of outsourcing of surgery to the private sector. For hip replacement, Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) with the highest concentration of deprived areas had lower overall provision of surgery, and CCGs with very few deprived areas had higher surgical provision. There has been an overall improvement in the absolute numbers of hip and knee replacement operation being performed; there is now less geographical variation in rates of surgery. For publicly funded surgery, no socioeconomic inequalities were observed for knee replacements, with a smaller inequality observed for hip replacements, whereas for privately funded surgery, strong inequalities were observed for both joints. What do these findings mean? This study found that socioeconomic inequalities in provision of joint replacement surgery are still prevailing. Care providers should take action to address unwarranted variation in the provision of joint replacement surgery.

Objectives: The Anti-Freaze-F trial will assess the feasibility of conducting a large randomised controlled trial to assess whether intra-articular injection of anti-TNF (adalimumab) can reduce pain and improve function in people with pain predominant early stage frozen shoulder. Methods and analysis: We are conducting a multi-centre, randomised feasibility study, with an embedded qualitative sub-study. We will recruit adults ≥18 years with a new episode of shoulder pain attributable to early stage frozen shoulder, recruited from at least five UK NHS musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. Participants (n=84) will be randomised (centralised computer generated 1:1 allocation) to receive either: 1) intra-articular injection of anti-TNF (adalimumab 160mg) or 2) placebo injection (saline [0.9% sodium chloride]), both under ultrasound guidance. A second injection of the allocated treatment (adalimumab 80mg) or equivalent volume of placebo will be administered 2-3 weeks later. All participants will receive a physiotherapy advice leaflet providing education and advice about frozen shoulder and pain management. The primary feasibility objectives are: 1) the ability to screen and identify potential participants with pain predominant early stage frozen shoulder; 2) willingness of eligible participants to consent and be randomised to intervention; 3) practicalities of delivering the intervention, including time to first injection and number of participants receiving second injection; 4) standard deviation of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score and attrition rate at 3 months from baseline in order to estimate the sample size for a definitive trial. We will also assess follow up rates and viability of patient-reported outcome measures and range of shoulder motion for a definitive trial. Research Ethics Committee approval (REC 21/NE/0214). Trial registration number: ISRCTN 27075727; EudraCT number: 2021-003509-23; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05299242.

Aims: This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, Science Citation Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry were searched up to December 2018. Reference lists of included studies were screened. No language restrictions applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, PTSI, and hydrodilatation against each other, or supportive care or no treatment, for the management of primary frozen shoulder. Results: Nine RCTs were included. The primary outcome of patient-reported shoulder function at long-term follow-up (> 6 months and ≤ 12 months) was reported for five treatment comparisons across four studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were: ACR versus MUA: 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.42), ACR versus supportive care: -0.13 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.83), and ACR versus PTSI: 0.33 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.59) and 0.25 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.85), all favouring ACR; MUA versus supportive care: 0 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.44) not favouring either; and MUA versus PTSI: 0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.37) favouring MUA. None of these differences met the threshold of clinical significance agreed for the UK FROST and most confidence intervals included zero. Conclusion: The findings from a recent multicentre RCT provided the strongest evidence that, when compared with each other, neither PTSI, MUA, nor ACR are clinically superior. Evidence from smaller RCTs did not change this conclusion. The effectiveness of hydrodilatation based on four RCTs was inconclusive and there remains an evidence gap. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):773–784.

Objective To undertake a UK-based James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership for elbow conditions and be representative of the views of patients, carers and healthcare professionals (HCPs).Setting This was a national collaborative study organised through the British Elbow and Shoulder Society.Participants Adult patients, carers and HCPs who have managed or experienced elbow conditions, their carers and HCPs in the UK involved in managing of elbow conditions.Methods The rigorous JLA priority setting methodology was followed. Electronic and paper scoping surveys were distributed to identify potential research priority questions (RPQs). Initial responses were reviewed and a literature search was performed to cross-check categorised questions. Those questions already sufficiently answered were excluded and the remaining questions were ranked in a second survey according to priority for future elbow conditions research. Using the JLA methodology, responses from HCP and patients were combined to create a list of the top 18 questions. These were further reviewed in a dedicated multistakeholder workshop where the top 10 RPQs were agreed by consensus.Results The process was completed over 24 months. The initial survey resulted in 467 questions from 165 respondents (73% HCPs and 27% patients/carers). These questions were reviewed and combined into 46 summary topics comprising: tendinopathy, distal biceps pathology, arthritis, stiffness, trauma, arthroplasty and cubital tunnel syndrome. The second (interim prioritisation) survey had 250 respondents (72% HCP and 28% patients/carers). The top 18 ranked questions from this survey were taken to the final workshop where a consensus was reached on the top 10 RPQs.Conclusions The top 10 RPQs highlight areas of importance that currently lack sufficient evidence to guide diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of elbow conditions. This collaborative process will guide researchers and funders regarding the topics that should receive most future attention and benefit patients and HCPs.

Abstract Background A rotator cuff tear is a common disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms include pain, weakness, lack of mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a pressing need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery. The use of patch augmentation to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds new promise. Different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or intestine tissue, and completely synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or a mesh) have been used to produce patches. However, clinical evidence on their use is limited. The patch augmented rotator cuff surgery (PARCS) feasibility study aimed to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. Methods A mixed methods feasibility study of conducing a subsequent RCT. The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence; a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society’s (BESS) surgical membership; a survey of surgeon trialists; focus groups and interviews with stakeholders; a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. Results The BESS surgeons’ survey identified a variety of patches in use (105 (21%) responses received). Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the trialist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted involving 24 stakeholders. Twenty-nine (67% of invited) individuals took part in the Delphi. Differing views were held on a number of aspects including the appropriate patient population for trial participation. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential RCTs were achieved through the Delphi study and the consensus meeting. Conclusions Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs, and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who might not necessarily reflect all stakeholders.

Aims: A pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial, UK FROzen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), was conducted in the UK NHS comparing the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments for adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care. Methods: A cost utility analysis from the NHS perspective was performed. Differences between manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR), and early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection (ESP) in costs (2018 GBP price base) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at one year were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments using regression methods. Results: ACR was £1,734 more costly than ESP ((95% confidence intervals (CIs) £1,529 to £1,938)) and £1,457 more costly than MUA (95% CI £1,283 to £1,632). MUA was £276 (95% CI £66 to £487) more expensive than ESP. Overall, ACR had worse QALYs compared with MUA (-0.0293; 95% CI -0.0616 to 0.0030) and MUA had better QALYs compared with ESP (0.0396; 95% CI -0.0008 to 0.0800). At a £20,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, MUA had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.8632) then ESP (0.1366) and ACR (0.0002). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: While ESP was less costly, MUA was the most cost-effective option. ACR was not cost-effective. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):685–695.

Abstract Background Clinically, a distinction is made between types of rotator cuff tear, traumatic and non-traumatic, and this sub-classification currently informs the treatment pathway. It is currently recommended that patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears are fast tracked for surgical opinion. However, there is uncertainty about the most clinically and cost-effective intervention for patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears and further research is required. SPeEDy will assess the feasibility of a fully powered, multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the hypothesis that, compared to surgical repair (and usual post-operative rehabilitation), a programme of physiotherapist-led exercise is not clinically inferior, but is more cost-effective for patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears. Methods SPeEDy is a two-arm, multi-centre pilot and feasibility RCT with integrated Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI) and further qualitative investigation of patient experience. A total of 76 patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears will be recruited from approximately eight UK NHS hospitals and randomly allocated to either surgical repair and usual post-operative rehabilitation or a programme of physiotherapist-led exercise. The QRI is a mixed-methods approach that includes data collection and analysis of screening logs, audio recordings of recruitment consultations, interviews with patients and clinicians involved in recruitment, and review of study documentation as a basis for developing action plans to address identified difficulties whilst recruitment to the RCT is underway. A further sample of patient participants will be purposively sampled from both intervention groups and interviewed to explore reasons for initial participation, treatment acceptability, reasons for non-completion of treatment, where relevant, and any reasons for treatment crossover. Discussion Research to date suggests that there is uncertainty regarding the most clinically and cost-effective interventions for patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears. There is a clear need for a high-quality, fully powered, RCT to better inform clinical practice. Prior to this, we first need to undertake a pilot and feasibility RCT to address current uncertainties about recruitment, retention and number of and reasons for treatment crossover. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04027205 ) – Registered on 19 July 2019. Available via

Objectives: The Anti-Freaze-F trial will assess the feasibility of conducting a large randomised controlled trial to assess whether intra-articular injection of anti-TNF (adalimumab) can reduce pain and improve function in people with pain predominant early stage frozen shoulder. Methods and analysis: We are conducting a multi-centre, randomised feasibility study, with an embedded qualitative sub-study. We will recruit adults ≥18 years with a new episode of shoulder pain attributable to early stage frozen shoulder, recruited from at least five UK NHS musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. Participants (n=84) will be randomised (centralised computer generated 1:1 allocation) to receive either: 1) intra-articular injection of anti-TNF (adalimumab 160mg) or 2) placebo injection (saline [0.9% sodium chloride]), both under ultrasound guidance. A second injection of the allocated treatment (adalimumab 80mg) or equivalent volume of placebo will be administered 2-3 weeks later. All participants will receive a physiotherapy advice leaflet providing education and advice about frozen shoulder and pain management. The primary feasibility objectives are: 1) the ability to screen and identify potential participants with pain predominant early stage frozen shoulder; 2) willingness of eligible participants to consent and be randomised to intervention; 3) practicalities of delivering the intervention, including time to first injection and number of participants receiving second injection; 4) standard deviation of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score and attrition rate at 3 months from baseline in order to estimate the sample size for a definitive trial. We will also assess follow up rates and viability of patient-reported outcome measures and range of shoulder motion for a definitive trial. Research Ethics Committee approval (REC 21/NE/0214). Trial registration number: ISRCTN 27075727; EudraCT number: 2021-003509-23; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05299242.

Abstract Background A thoracolumbar fracture is the most common fracture of the spinal column. Where the fracture is not obviously stable or unstable, the optimal management is uncertain. There are variations between surgeons, treating centres and within the evidence base as to whether surgical or non-surgical approaches should be used. In addition, the boundaries of this zone of uncertainty for stability are unclear. This study has been designed in response to an NIHR HTA commissioning brief to assess the feasibility of undertaking a large-scale trial to evaluate the effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical treatments for thoracolumbar fractures without neurological deficit. Methods Assessment of feasibility will be addressed through three elements: a randomised external feasibility study, a national survey of surgeons and a qualitative study. The external feasibility study is a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial comparing surgical fixation (intervention) versus non-surgical management (control). Recruitment will take place in three secondary care centres in the UK. The primary outcome is recruitment rate, defined as the proportion of eligible participants who are randomised. Further outcomes related to recruitment, randomisation, drop-out, cross-over, loss to follow-up, completeness of outcome data, study processes and details of the interventions delivered will be collected. The survey of surgeons and qualitative study of clinicians, recruiting staff and patients will enhance the feasibility study, enabling a broad overview of current practice in the field in addition to perceived facilitators and barriers to running a full-scale trial. Discussion PRESTO is a feasibility study which aims to inform methodology for a definitive trial comparing surgical fixation with non-surgical management for patients with stable thoracolumbar fractures. Trial registration The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register (ISRCTN12094890). Date of registration was 22/02/2018 ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12094890 ).

Background: There is informal consensus that simple compression fractures of the body of the thoracolumbar vertebrae between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra without neurological complications can be managed conservatively and that obvious unstable fractures require surgical fixation. However, there is a zone of uncertainty about whether surgical or conservative management is best for stable fractures. Objectives: To assess the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing surgical fixation with initial conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fractures without spinal cord injury. Design: External randomised feasibility study, qualitative study and national survey. Setting: Three NHS hospitals. Methods: A feasibility randomised controlled trial using block randomisation, stratified by centre and type of injury (high- or low-energy trauma) to allocate participants 1 : 1 to surgery or conservative treatment; a costing analysis; a national survey of spine surgeons; and a qualitative study with clinicians, recruiting staff and patients. Participants: Adults aged ≥ 16 years with a high- or low-energy fracture of the body of a thoracolumbar vertebra between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra, confirmed by radiography, computerised tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, with at least one of the following: kyphotic angle > 20° on weight-bearing radiographs or > 15° on a supine radiograph or on computerised tomography; reduction in vertebral body height of 25%; a fracture line propagating through the posterior wall of the vertebra; involvement of two contiguous vertebrae; or injury to the posterior longitudinal ligament or annulus in addition to the body fracture. Interventions: Surgical fixation: open spinal surgery (with or without spinal fusion) or minimally invasive stabilisation surgery. Conservative management: mobilisation with or without a brace. Main outcome measure: Recruitment rate (proportion of eligible participants randomised). Results: Twelve patients were randomised (surgery, n = 8; conservative, n = 4). The proportion of eligible patients recruited was 0.43 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.63) over a combined total of 30.7 recruitment months. Of 211 patients screened, 28 (13.3%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Patients in the qualitative study (n = 5) expressed strong preferences for surgical treatment, and identified provision of information about treatment and recovery and when and how they are approached for consent as important. Nineteen surgeons and site staff participated in the qualitative study. Key themes were the lack of clinical consensus regarding the implementation of the eligibility criteria in practice and what constitutes a stable fracture, alongside lack of equipoise regarding treatment. Based on the feasibility study eligibility criteria, 77% (50/65) and 70% (46/66) of surgeons participating in the survey were willing to randomise for high- and low-energy fractures, respectively. Limitations: Owing to the small number of participants, there is substantial uncertainty around the recruitment rate. Conclusions: A definitive trial is unlikely to be feasible currently, mainly because of the small number of patients meeting the eligibility criteria. The recruitment and follow-up rates were slightly lower than anticipated; however, there is room to increase these based on information gathered and the support within the surgical community for a future trial. Future work: Development of consensus regarding the population of interest for a trial. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12094890. 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. 25, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. Objectives: To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. Design: To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. Setting: A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. Results: To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Conclusions: The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. Limitations: Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. Future work: Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space. Funding: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council–National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

Objectives To explore the experiences and perceptions of trial participants and healthcare professionals in the UK Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) with a 12-week early structured physiotherapy programme (ESP) in people with unilateral frozen shoulder referred to secondary care.Design Nested qualitative study with semistructured interviews. We used constant comparison method to develop our themes.Setting This qualitative study was nested within the UK FROST.Participants 44 trial participants (ESP: 14; MUA: 15; ACR: 15), and 8 surgeons and 8 physiotherapists who delivered the treatments in the trial.Results Trial participants found UK FROST treatments acceptable and satisfactory in terms of content, delivery and treatment benefits. Participants in all arms experienced improvements in pain, shoulder movements, and function. Participants said they would choose the same treatment that they received in the trial.Surgeons and physiotherapists felt that the content and delivery of UK FROST treatments was not significantly different to their routine practice except for the additional number of physiotherapy sessions offered in the trial. They had mixed feelings about the effectiveness of UK FROST treatments. Both stressed the value of including hydrodilatation as a comparator of other treatment options. Physiotherapists raised concerns about the capacity to deliver the number of UK FROST physiotherapy sessions in routine clinical settings.Shared perceptions of trial participants, surgeons and physiotherapists were: (1) Pain relief and return of shoulder movements and function are important outcomes and (2) Adherence to exercises leads to better outcomes.Conclusion In general, our findings indicated that trial participants, and surgeons and physiotherapists who delivered the treatments had positive experiences and perceptions in the UK FROST. Early qualitative investigations to explore the feasibility of delivering treatments in real-world settings are suggested in future trials in the frozen shoulder.Trial registration number International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ID: ISRCTN48804508. Registered on 25 July 2014; Results

Abstract Background Surgeon and patient treatment preferences are important threats to the internal and external validity of surgical trials such as PROFHER, which compared surgical versus non-surgical treatment for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus in adults. We explored the treatment preferences expressed by surgeons and patients in the trial and how these impacted on patient selection, trial conduct and patient outcome. Methods A series of exploratory secondary analyses of the PROFHER trial data were undertaken. We reviewed the extent of surgeon and patient treatment preferences (surgery or not surgery) at screening (n = 1250) as well as prior preference (including no preference) of randomised patients (n = 250), and assessed their impact on recruitment and adherence to follow-up and rehabilitation. Changes in treatment after 2 years’ follow-up were explored. Patient preference and characteristics associated with trial inclusion or treatment preference (t test, chi-squared test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) were included as treatment interaction terms in the primary trial analysis of shoulder functioning (Oxford Shoulder Score, OSS). Results Surgeons excluded 17% of otherwise eligible patients based on lack of equipoise; these patients had less complex fractures (p

Abstract Background A rotator cuff tear is a common disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a pressing need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery and the use of patch augmentation to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds new promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or intestine tissue, and completely synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or a mesh). However, clinical evidence on their use is limited. The aim of the patch-augmented rotator cuff surgery (PARCS) feasibility study is to determine, using a mixed method approach, the design of a definitive randomised trial assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. Methods The objectives of this six-stage mixed methods feasibility study are to determine current practice, evidence and views about patch use; achieve consensus on the design of a randomised trial to evaluate patch-augmented rotator cuff surgery; and assess the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed design. The six stages will involve a systematic review of clinical evidence, two surveys of surgeons, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a Delphi study and a consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons, and representatives from industry, the NHS and regulatory bodies) will be involved across the six stages. Discussion The PARCS feasibility study will inform the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch-augmented rotator cuff surgery. Consensus opinion on the basic design of a randomised trial will be sought. Trial registration Not applicable.

Background: A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh). Objectives: The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. Design: A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018. Methods: The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society’s surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2–6. Results: The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5–152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended. Limitations: The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups. Conclusion: The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available. Future work: Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study. Study registration: The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908. 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. 25, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Frozen shoulder causes pain and stiffness. It affects around 10% of people in their fifties and is slightly more common in women. Costly and invasive surgical interventions are used, without high-quality evidence that these are effective. Objectives: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three treatments in secondary care for adults with frozen shoulder; to qualitatively explore the acceptability of these treatments to patients and health-care professionals; and to update a systematic review to explore the trial findings in the context of existing evidence for the three treatments. Design: This was a pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, three-arm, randomised superiority trial with unequal allocation (2 : 2 : 1). An economic evaluation and a nested qualitative study were also carried out. Setting: The orthopaedic departments of 35 hospitals across the UK were recruited from April 2015, with final follow-up in December 2018. Participants: Participants were adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation in the affected shoulder to

Background: Scaphoid fractures account for 90% of carpal fractures and occur predominantly in young men. Immediate surgical fixation of this fracture has increased. Objective: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical fixation with cast treatment and early fixation in adults with scaphoid waist fractures that fail to unite. Design: Multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, parallel two-arm randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and a nested qualitative study. Setting: Orthopaedic departments of 31 hospitals in England and Wales recruited from July 2013, with final follow-up in September 2017. Participants: Adults (aged ≥ 16 years) presenting within 2 weeks of injury with a clear, bicortical fracture of the scaphoid waist on plain radiographs. Interventions: Early surgical fixation using Conformité Européenne-marked headless compression screws. Below-elbow cast immobilisation for 6–10 weeks and urgent fixation of confirmed non-union. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome and end point was the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation total score at 52 weeks, with a clinically relevant difference of 6 points. Secondary outcomes included Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation pain and function subscales, Short Form questionnaire 12-items, bone union, range of movement, grip strength, complications and return to work. Results: The mean age of 439 participants was 33 years; 363 participants were male (83%) and 269 participants had an undisplaced fracture (61%). The primary analysis was on 408 participants with valid Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation outcome data for at least one post-randomisation time point (surgery, n = 203 of 219; cast, n = 205 of 220). There was no clinically relevant difference in the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation total score at 52 weeks: the mean score in the cast group was 14.0 (95% confidence interval 11.3 to 16.6) and in the surgery group was 11.9 (95% confidence interval 9.2 to 14.5), with an adjusted mean difference of –2.1 in favour of surgery (95% confidence interval –5.8 to 1.6; p = 0.27). The non-union rate was low (surgery group, n = 1; cast group, n = 4). Eight participants in the surgery group had a total of 11 reoperations and one participant in the cast group required a reoperation for non-union. The base-case economic analysis at 52 weeks found that surgery cost £1295 per patient more (95% confidence interval £1084 to £1504) than cast treatment. The base-case analysis of a lifetime-extrapolated model confirmed that the cast treatment pathway was more cost-effective. The nested qualitative study identified patients’ desire to have a ‘sense of recovering’, which surgeons should address at the outset. Limitation: There were 17 participants who had initial cast treatment and surgery for confirmed non-union, which in 14 cases was within 6 months from randomisation and in three cases was after 6 months. Three of the four participants in the cast group who had a non-union at 52 weeks were not offered surgery. Conclusions: Adult patients with an undisplaced or minimally displaced scaphoid waist fracture should have cast immobilisation and suspected non-unions immediately confirmed and urgently fixed. Patients should be followed up at 5 years to investigate the effect of partial union, degenerative arthritis, malunion and screw problems on their quality of life. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67901257. 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. 24, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Hip and knee replacements are regularly carried out for patients who work. There is little evidence about these patients’ needs and the factors influencing their return to work. There is a paucity of guidance to help patients return to work after surgery and a need for structured occupational advice to enable them to return to work safely and effectively. Objectives: To develop an occupational advice intervention to support early recovery to usual activities including work that is tailored to the requirements of patients undergoing hip or knee replacements. To test the acceptability, practicality and feasibility of this intervention within current care frameworks. Design: An intervention mapping approach was used to develop the intervention. The research methods employed were rapid evidence synthesis, qualitative interviews with patients and stakeholders, a prospective cohort study, a survey of clinical practice and a modified Delphi consensus process. The developed intervention was implemented and assessed during the final feasibility stage of the intervention mapping process. Setting: Orthopaedic departments in NHS secondary care. Participants: Patients who were in work and intending to return to work following primary elective hip or knee replacement surgery, health-care professionals and employers. Interventions: Occupational advice intervention. Main outcome measures: Development of an occupational advice intervention, fidelity of the developed intervention when delivered in a clinical setting, patient and clinician perspectives of the intervention and preliminary assessments of intervention effectiveness and cost. Results: A cohort study (154 patients), 110 stakeholder interviews, a survey of practice (152 respondents) and evidence synthesis provided the necessary information to develop the intervention. The intervention included information resources, a personalised return-to-work plan and co-ordination from the health-care team to support the delivery of 13 patient and 20 staff performance objectives. To support delivery, a range of tools (e.g. occupational checklists, patient workbooks and employer information), roles (e.g. return-to-work co-ordinator) and training resources were created. Feasibility was assessed for 21 of the 26 patients recruited from three NHS trusts. Adherence to the defined performance objectives was 75% for patient performance objectives and 74% for staff performance objectives. The intervention was generally well received, although the short time frame available for implementation and concurrent research evaluation led to some confusion among patients and those delivering the intervention regarding its purpose and the roles and responsibilities of key staff. Limitations: Implementation and uptake of the intervention was not standardised and was limited by the study time frame. Evaluation of the intervention involved a small number of patients, which limited the ability to assess it. Conclusions: The developed occupational advice intervention supports best practice. Evaluation demonstrated good rates of adherence against defined performance objectives. However, a number of operational and implementation issues require further attention. Future work: The intervention warrants a randomised controlled trial to assess its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to improve rates and timing of sustained return to work after surgery. This research should include the development of a robust implementation strategy to ensure that adoption is sustained. Study registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27426982 and PROSPERO CRD42016045235. 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. 24, No. 45. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objective To obtain consensus on the content and delivery of an occupational advice intervention for patients undergoing primary hip and knee replacement surgery. The primary targets for the intervention were (1) patients, carers and employers through the provision of individualised support and information about returning to work and (2) hospital orthopaedic teams through the development of a framework and materials to enable this support and information to be delivered.Design Modified Delphi study as part of a wider intervention development study (The Occupational advice for Patients undergoing Arthroplasty of the Lower limb (OPAL) study: Health Technology Assessment Reference 15/28/02) (ISRCTN27426982).Setting Five stakeholder groups (patients, employers, orthopaedic surgeons, general practitioners, allied health professionals and nurses) recruited from across the UK.Participants Sixty-six participants.Methods Statements for the Delphi process were developed relating to the content, format, delivery, timing and measurement of an occupational advice intervention. The statements were based on evidence gathered through the OPAL study that was processed using an intervention mapping framework. Intervention content was examined in round 1 and intervention format, delivery, timing and measurement were examined in round 2. In round 3, the developed intervention was presented to the stakeholder groups for comment.Consensus For rounds 1 and 2, consensus was defined as 70% agreement or disagreement on a 4-point scale. Statements reaching consensus were ranked according to the distribution of responses to create a hierarchy of agreement. Round 3 comments were used to revise the final version of the developed occupational advice intervention.Results Consensus was reached for 36 of 64 round 1 content statements (all agreement). In round 2, 13 questions were carried forward and an additional 81 statements were presented. Of these, 49 reached consensus (44 agreement/5 disagreement). Eleven respondents provided an appraisal of the intervention in round 3.Conclusions The Delphi process informed the development of an occupational advice intervention as part of a wider intervention development study. Stakeholder agreement was achieved for a large number of intervention elements encompassing the content, format, delivery and timing of the intervention. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the developed intervention will require evaluation in a randomised controlled trial.Trial registration number International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Trial ID: ISRCTN27426982

Abstract Background Shoulder pain is a common problem in the general population and is responsible for prolonged periods of disability, loss of productivity, absence from work and inability to carry out household activities. Rotator cuff problems account for up to 70% of shoulder pain problems and are the third most prevalent musculoskeletal disorder after those occurring in the lower back and neck. Rotator cuff surgery has high failure rates (25–50% within 12 months), and as a result, there is a pressing need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery. Patch augmented surgery for rotator cuff repairs has recently been developed and is increasingly being used within the UK National Health Service. Patch augmented surgery could lead to a dramatic improvement in patient and surgical outcomes, but its clinical and cost effectiveness needs rigorous evaluation. The existing evidence on the use of patches may be at risk of bias as currently only a small number of single-centre comparative studies appear to have been carried out. Additionally, it is unclear for which patches a clinical study (comparative and non-comparative) has been conducted. This paper outlines the protocol for a systematic review intended to summarise the best available clinical evidence and will indicate what further research is required. Methods Electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane) will be systematically searched between April 2006 and the present day for relevant publications using a specified search strategy, which can be adapted for the use in multiple electronic databases, and inclusion criteria. Screening of both titles and abstracts will be done by two independent reviewers with any discrepancies resolved by a third independent reviewer. Data extraction will include information regarding the type of participants, type of intervention and outcomes including but not limited to shoulder-specific function and pain scores, patch-related adverse events and type of study. The results will be summarised in a narrative review where qualitative analysis is not possible. Discussion This review aims to collate the current evidence base regarding the use of patches to augment rotator cuff repair. The results of this review will help to develop, using consensus methods, the design of a definitive randomised trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and is feasible. Systematic review registration CRD42017057908

Abstract Background There are an increasing number of patients of working age undergoing hip and knee replacements. Currently there is variation in the advice and support given about sickness absence, recovery to usual activities and return to work after these procedures. Earlier, sustainable, return to work improves the health of patients and benefits their employers and society. An intervention that encourages and supports early recovery to usual activities, including work, has the potential to reduce the health and socioeconomic burden of hip and knee replacements. Methods/design A two-phase research programme delivered over 27 months will be used to develop and subsequently test the feasibility of an occupational advice intervention to facilitate return to work and usual activities in patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty. The 2 phases will incorporate a six-stage intervention mapping process: Phase 1: Intervention mapping stages 1–3:1Needs assessment (including rapid evidence synthesis, prospective cohort analysis and structured stakeholder interviews)2Identification of intended outcomes and performance objectives3Selection of theory-based methods and practical strategies Phase 2: Intervention mapping stages 4–6:4Development of components and materials for the occupational advice intervention using a modified Delphi process5Adoption and implementation of the intervention6Evaluation and feasibility testing The study will be undertaken in four National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in the United Kingdom and two Higher Education Institutions. Discussion OPAL (Occupational advice for Patients undergoing Arthroplasty of the Lower limb) aims to develop an occupational advice intervention to support early recovery to usual activities including work, which is tailored to the requirements of patients undergoing hip and knee replacements. The developed intervention will then be assessed with a specific focus on evaluating its feasibility as a potential trial intervention to improve speed of recovery to usual activities including work. Trial registration The study was registered retrospectively with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN): 27426982 (Date 20/12/2016) and the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42016045235 (Date 04/08/2016).

Abstract Background Frozen shoulder (also known as adhesive capsulitis) occurs when the capsule, or the soft tissue envelope around the ball and socket shoulder joint, becomes scarred and contracted, making the shoulder tight, painful and stiff. It affects around 1 in 12 men and 1 in 10 women of working age. Although this condition can settle with time (typically taking 1 to 3 years), for some people it causes severe symptoms and needs referral to hospital. Our aim is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two invasive and costly surgical interventions that are commonly used in secondary care in the National Health Service (NHS) compared with a non-surgical comparator of Early Structured Physiotherapy. Methods We will conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 500 adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of frozen shoulder, and who have radiographs that exclude other pathology. Early Structured Physiotherapy with an intra-articular steroid injection will be compared with manipulation under anaesthesia with a steroid injection or arthroscopic (keyhole) capsular release followed by manipulation. Both surgical interventions will be followed with a programme of post-procedural physiotherapy. These treatments will be undertaken in NHS hospitals across the United Kingdom. The primary outcome and endpoint will be the Oxford Shoulder Score (a patient self-reported assessment of shoulder function) at 12 months. This will also be measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months after randomisation; and on the day that treatment starts and 6 months later. Secondary outcomes include the Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score, the EQ-5D-5 L score, pain, extent of recovery and complications. We will explore the acceptability of the different treatments to patients and health care professionals using qualitative methods. Discussion The three treatments being compared are the most frequently used in secondary care in the NHS, but there is uncertainty about which one works best and at what cost. UK FROST is a rigorously designed and adequately powered study to inform clinical decisions for the treatment of this common condition in adults. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ID: ISRCTN48804508 . Registered on 25 July 2014.

Background and purpose — Increasing numbers of shoulder arthroplasty are performed internationally. The predictors of intraoperative complications when implanting primary shoulder replacements are unknown. We determined the incidence of intraoperative complications during primary shoulder arthroplasty using the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR), and analyzed the associated risk factors for complications. Patients and methods — NJR data on primary shoulder arthroplasty were scrutinized for intraoperative complications. 2 analyses were performed: the first examined the incidence and predictors of any recorded complication; the second examined the incidence and predictors for intraoperative fractures specifically. Analysis of risk factors was performed using multivariable binary logistic regression modeling. Results — 12,559 primary shoulder arthroplasties were recorded, with an intraoperative complication rate of 2.5%, the majority being fractures (1.6% overall). The incidence of all complications was lower in men (RR vs. women =0.63 (95% CI 0.47–0.84)). Patients undergoing surgery for avascular necrosis (RR =2.3 (1.3–4.2)) or trauma sequelae (RR =1.6 (1.2–2.7)) had a higher risk of complications compared with OA. Patients undergoing a stemmed hemiarthroplasty (RR =1.8 (1.2–2.5)) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RR 1.6 (1.1–2.5)) had a higher risk of complications compared with total shoulder arthroplasty. The incidence of all complications was less in patients undergoing resurfacing arthroplasty (vs. total shoulder arthroplasty (RR 0.42 (0.24–0.73)) and when performing the superior approach (vs. deltopectoral (RR 0.56 (0.39–0.80)). Interpretation — This is the first study to use a national data set to examine risk factors for intraoperative complications during all types of primary shoulder arthroplasty, and identifies several previously unrecognized risk factors, such as surgical approach.

Abstract Background Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to poor outcomes after total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR), including lower patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), peri-prosthetic infection and longer hospital stay. We present a randomised feasibility trial protocol designed to prospectively investigate the influence of vitamin D testing, and subsequent supplementation for deficiency, prior to THR/TKR. Methods/design One hundred adult patients undergoing primary THR/TKR for osteoarthritis at two NHS hospital trusts in North East England will be recruited. Exclusion criteria include lack of mental capacity, revision surgery, participants already taking vitamin D/calcium supplements, or a known contraindication to vitamin D treatment. Participants will be ineligible for the trial if they have an estimated glomerular filtration rate

Background: Shoulder dislocations are the most common joint dislocations seen in emergency departments. Most traumatic cases are anterior and cause recurrent dislocations. Management options include surgical and conservative treatments. There is a lack of evidence about which method is most effective after the first traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (TASD). Objectives: To produce UK age- and sex-specific incidence rates for TASD. To assess whether or not surgery within 6 months of a first-time TASD decreases re-dislocation rates compared with no surgery. To identify clinical predictors of recurrent dislocation. Design: A population-based cohort study of first-time TASD patients in the UK. An initial validation study and subsequent propensity-score-matched analysis to compare re-dislocation rates between surgery and no surgery after a first-time TASD. Prediction modelling was used to identify potential predictors of recurrent dislocation. Setting: UK primary and secondary care data. Participants: Patients with a first-time TASD between 1997 and 2015. Interventions: Stabilisation surgery within 6 months of a first-time TASD (compared with no surgery). Stabilisation surgery within 12 months of a first-time TASD was also carried out as a sensitivity analysis. Main outcome measure: Re-dislocation rate up to 2 years after the first TASD. Methods: Eligible patients were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) (1997–2015). Accuracy of shoulder dislocation coding was internally validated using the CPRD General Practitioner questionnaire service. UK age- and sex-specific incidence rates for TASD were externally validated against rates from the USA and Canada. A propensity-score-matched analysis using linked CPRD and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data compared re-dislocation rates for patients aged 16–35 years, comparing surgery with no surgery. Multivariable Cox regression models for predicting re-dislocation were developed for the surgical and non-surgical cohorts. Results: Shoulder dislocation was coded correctly for 89% of cases in the CPRD [95% confidence interval (CI) 83% to 95%], with a ‘primary’ dislocation confirmed for 76% of cases (95% CI 67% to 85%). Far fewer patients than expected received stabilisation surgery within 6 months of a first TASD, leading to an underpowered study. Around 20% of re-dislocation rates were observed for both surgical and non-surgical patients. The sensitivity analysis at 12 months also showed little difference in re-dislocation rates. Missing data on risk factors limited the value of the prediction modelling; however, younger age, epilepsy and sex (male) were identified as statistically significant predictors of re-dislocation. Limitations: Far fewer than the expected number of patients had surgery after a first-time TASD, resulting in an underpowered study. This and residual confounding from missing risk factors mean that it is not possible to draw valid conclusions. Conclusions: This study provides, for the first time, UK data on the age- and sex-specific incidence rates for TASD. Most TASD occurs in men, but an unexpected increased incidence was observed in women aged > 50 years. Surgery after a first-time TASD is uncommon in the NHS. Re-dislocation rates for patients receiving surgery after their first TASD are higher than previously expected; however, important residual confounding risk factors were not recorded in NHS primary and secondary care databases, thus preventing useful recommendations. Future work: The high incidence of TASD justifies investigation into preventative measures for young men participating in contact sports, as well as investigating the risk factors in women aged > 50 years. A randomised controlled trial would account for key confounders missing from CPRD and HES data. A national TASD registry would allow for a more relevant data capture for this patient group. Study registration: Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (ISAC protocol 15_0260). Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Objective To run a UK based James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership for ‘Surgery for Common Shoulder Problems’.Setting This was a nationally funded and conducted process. It was organised from a musculoskeletal research centre and Biomedical Research Unit in Oxford.Participants UK shoulder patients, carers and clinicians, involved in treating patients with shoulder pain and shoulder problems that might require surgery.Interventions These were national electronic and paper surveys capturing treatment uncertainties that are important to shoulder patients, carers and clinicians.Outcome measures The outcomes relevant to this study were the survey results and rankings.Results The process took 18 months to complete, with 371 participants contributing 404 in scope questions. The James Lind process then produced a final 10 research priorities and uncertainties that relate to the scope of ‘Surgery for Common Shoulder Problems’.Conclusions The final top 10 UK research priorities have been produced and are now being disseminated to partner organisations and funders to guide funding of shoulder research for the next 5–10 years on topics that are important to patients, their carers and clinicians.

Background: Proximal humeral fractures account for 5–6% of all fractures in adults. There is considerable variation in whether or not surgery is used in the management of displaced fractures involving the surgical neck. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical compared with non-surgical treatment of the majority of displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck in adults. Design: A pragmatic parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation. Follow-up was for 2 years. Setting: Recruitment was undertaken in the orthopaedic departments of 33 acute NHS hospitals in the UK. Patient care pathways included outpatient and community-based rehabilitation. Participants: Adults (aged ≥ 16 years) presenting within 3 weeks of their injury with a displaced fracture of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck. Interventions: The choice of surgical intervention was left to the treating surgeons, who used techniques with which they were experienced. Non-surgical treatment was initial sling immobilisation followed by active rehabilitation. Provision of rehabilitation was comparable in both groups. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) assessed at 6, 12 and 24 months. Secondary outcomes were the 12-item Short Form health survey, surgical and other shoulder fracture-related complications, secondary surgery to the shoulder or increased/new shoulder-related therapy, medical complications during inpatient stay and mortality. European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions data and treatment costs were also collected. Results: The mean age of the 250 trial participants was 66 years and 192 (77%) were female. Independent assessment using the Neer classification identified 18 one-part fractures, 128 two-part fractures and 104 three- or four-part fractures. OSS data were available for 215 participants at 2 years. We found no statistically or clinically significant differences in OSS scores between the two treatment groups (scale 0–48, with a higher score indicating a better outcome) over the 2-year period [difference of 0.75 points in favour of the surgery group, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.33 to 2.84; p = 0.479; data from 114 surgery and 117 non-surgery participants] or at individual time points. We found no statistically significant differences between surgical and non-surgical group participants in SF-12 physical or mental component summary scores; surgical or shoulder fracture-related complications (30 vs. 23 respectively); those undergoing further shoulder-related therapy, either surgery (11 vs. 11 respectively) or other therapy (seven vs. four respectively); or mortality (nine vs. five respectively). The base-case economic analysis showed that, at 2 years, the cost of surgical intervention was, on average, £1780.73 more per patient (95% CI £1152.71 to £2408.75) than the cost of non-surgical intervention. It was also slightly less beneficial in terms of utilities, although this difference was not statistically significant. The net monetary benefit associated with surgery is negative. There was only a 5% probability of surgery achieving the criterion of costing

Background: In high-income countries, 6% of all women will have sustained a fracture of the wrist (distal radius) by the age of 80 years and 9% by the age of 90 years. Advances in orthopaedic surgery have improved the outcome for patients: many such fractures can be treated in a plaster cast alone, but others require surgical fixation to hold the bone in place while they heal. The existing evidence suggests that modern locking-plate fixation provides improved functional outcomes, but costs more than traditional wire fixation. Methods: In this multicentre trial, we randomly assigned 461 adult patients having surgery for an acute dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius to either percutaneous Kirschner-wire fixation or locking-plate fixation. The primary outcome measure was the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation© (PRWE) questionnaire at 12 months after the fracture. In this surgical trial, neither the patients nor the surgeons could be blind to the intervention. We also collected information on complications and combined costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to assess cost-effectiveness. Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were well balanced and over 90% of patients completed follow-up. Both groups of patients recovered wrist function by 12 months. There was no clinically relevant difference in the PRWE questionnaire score at 3 months, 6 months or 12 months [difference at 12 months: –1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.5 to 1.8; p = 0.398]. There was no difference in the number of complications in each group and small differences in QALY gains (0.008; 95% CI –0.001 to 0.018); Kirschner-wire fixation represents a cost-saving intervention (–£727; 95% CI –£588 to –£865), particularly in younger patients. Conclusions: Contrary to the existing literature, and against the increasing use of locking-plate fixation, this trial shows that there is no difference between Kirschner wires and volar locking plates for patients with dorsally displaced fractures of the distal radius. A Kirschner-wire fixation is less expensive and quicker to perform. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN31379280. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.