Search

Objectives To investigate the clinical effectiveness, efficacy and cost effectiveness of splints (orthoses) in people with symptomatic basal thumb joint OA (BTOA). Methods A pragmatic, multicentre parallel group randomized controlled trial at 17 National Health Service (NHS) hospital departments recruited adults with symptomatic BTOA and at least moderate hand pain and dysfunction. We randomized participants (1:1:1) using a computer-based minimization system to one of three treatment groups: a therapist supported self-management programme (SSM), a therapist supported self-management programme plus a verum thumb splint (SSM+S), or a therapist supported self-management programme plus a placebo thumb splint (SSM+PS). Participants were blinded to group allocation, received 90 min therapy over 8 weeks and were followed up for 12 weeks from baseline. Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) hand pain at 8 weeks was the primary outcome, using intention to treat analysis. We calculated costs of treatment. Results We randomized 349 participants to SSM (n = 116), SSM+S (n = 116) or SSM+PS (n = 117) and 292 (84%) provided AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index hand pain scores at the primary end point (8 weeks). All groups improved, with no mean treatment difference between groups: SSM+S vs SSM −0.5 (95% CI: −1.4, 0.4), P = 0.255; SSM+PS vs SSM −0.1 (95% CI: −1.0, 0.8), P = 0.829; and SSM+S vs SSM+PS −0.4 (95% CI: −1.4, 0.5), P = 0.378. The average 12-week costs were: SSM £586; SSM+S £738; and SSM+PS £685. Conclusion There was no additional benefit of adding a thumb splint to a high-quality evidence-based, supported self-management programme for thumb OA delivered by therapists. Trial registration ISRCTN 54744256 (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN54744256).

ObjectivesTo estimate the relationship between patient characteristics and referral decisions made by musculoskeletal hubs, and to assess the possible impact of an evidence-based referral tool.DesignRetrospective analysis of medical records and decision tree model evaluating policy changes using local and national data.SettingOne musculoskeletal interface clinic (hub) in England.Participants922 adults aged ≥50 years referred by general practitioners with symptoms of knee or hip osteoarthritis.InterventionsWe assessed the current frequency and determinants of referrals from one hub and the change in referrals that would occur at this centre and nationally if evidence-based thresholds for referral (Oxford Knee and Hip Scores, OKS/OHS) were introduced.Main outcome measureOKS/OHS, referrals for surgical assessment, referrals for arthroplasty, costs and quality-adjusted life years.ResultsOf 110 patients with knee symptoms attending face-to-face hub consultations, 49 (45%) were referred for surgical assessment; the mean OKS for these 49 patients was 18 (range: 1–41). Of 101 hip patients, 36 (36%) were referred for surgical assessment (mean OHS: 21, range: 5–44). No patients referred for surgical assessment were above previously reported economic thresholds for OKS (43) or OHS (45). Setting thresholds of OKS ≤31 and OHS ≤35 might have resulted in an additional 22 knee referrals and 26 hip referrals in our cohort. Extrapolating hub results across England suggests a possible increase in referrals nationally, of around 13 000 additional knee replacements and 4500 additional hip replacements each year.ConclusionsMusculoskeletal hubs currently consider OKS/OHS and other factors when making decisions about referral to secondary care for joint replacement. Those referred typically have low OHS/OKS, and introducing evidence-based OKS/OHS thresholds would prevent few inappropriate (high-functioning, low-pain) referrals. However, our findings suggest that some patients not currently referred could benefit from arthroplasty based on OKS/OHS. More research is required to explore other important patient characteristics currently influencing hub decisions.

Summary Background Late-stage isolated medial knee osteoarthritis can be treated with total knee replacement (TKR) or partial knee replacement (PKR). There is high variation in treatment choice and little robust evidence to guide selection. The Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT) therefore aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TKR versus PKR in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee, and this represents an analysis of the main endpoints at 5 years. Methods Our multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was done at 27 UK sites. We used a combined expertise-based and equipoise-based approach, in which patients with isolated osteoarthritis of the medial compartment of the knee and who satisfied general requirements for a medial PKR were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PKR or TKR by surgeons who were either expert in and willing to perform both surgeries or by a surgeon with particular expertise in the allocated procedure. The primary endpoint was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 5 years after randomisation in all patients assigned to groups. Health-care costs (in UK 2017 prices) and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN03013488) and ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01352247 ). Findings Between Jan 18, 2010, and Sept 30, 2013, we assessed 962 patients for their eligibility, of whom 431 (45%) patients were excluded (121 [13%] patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 310 [32%] patients declined to participate) and 528 (55%) patients were randomly assigned to groups. 94% of participants responded to the follow-up survey 5 years after their operation. At the 5-year follow-up, we found no difference in OKS between groups (mean difference 1·04, 95% CI −0·42 to 2·50; p=0·159). In our within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis, we found that PKR was more effective (0·240 additional quality-adjusted life-years, 95% CI 0·046 to 0·434) and less expensive (−£910, 95% CI −1503 to −317) than TKR during the 5 years of follow-up. This finding was a result of slightly better outcomes, lower costs of surgery, and lower follow-up health-care costs with PKR than TKR. Interpretation Both TKR and PKR are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes, and result in a similar incidence of re-operations and complications. Based on our clinical findings, and results regarding the lower costs and better cost-effectiveness with PKR during the 5-year study period, we suggest that PKR should be considered the first choice for patients with late-stage isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. Funding National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.