Search

Background Randomised controlled trials (‘trials’) are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial (SWATs) are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted. Aims PROMoting THE USE of Studies Within A Trial (PROMETHEUS) aimed to facilitate at least 25 SWATs evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMETHEUS programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised SWATs. Design A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) and one primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled SWATs of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the SWAT Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public (PPI) members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMETHEUS team to undertake SWATs. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking coordinated SWATs, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Setting CTU-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the UK were eligible. Participants CTU-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the UK. Interventions Funding of up to £5,000 and support from the PROMETHEUS team to design, implement, and report SWATs. Main outcome measures Number of host trials funded. Results 42 SWATs were funded (31 host trials), across 12 CTUs. The mean cost of a SWAT was £3,535. Twelve SWATs tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a coordinated SWAT design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMETHEUS will add 18% more SWATs to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more SWATs to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or email before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning SWATs, including involving PPI partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a SWAT; obtaining governance approvals; implementing SWATs, including individual and coordinated SWATs, and; reporting SWATs. Limitations The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five SWATs, being either delayed (n=2) or prematurely terminated (n=3). Conclusions PROMETHEUS significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented SWATs. Future research Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening SWAT uptake, undertaking more complex SWATs, and translating SWAT evidence into practice. Study registration All SWATs had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository. Funding details This project was funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R013748/1) and National Institute for Health Research as part of the MRC–NIHR Methodology Research programme.

Objective To test the feasibility of undertaking a simultaneous Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to train staff who recruit participants into surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs), by assessing key uncertainties around recruitment, randomisation, intervention delivery and data collection. Study design and setting Twelve surgical RCTs were eligible. Interested sites (clusters) were randomised 1:1, with recruiting staff (surgeons and nurses) offered training or no training. The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruiting sites across multiple surgical trials simultaneously. Secondary outcomes included numbers/types of staff enrolled, attendance at training, training acceptability, confidence in recruiting and participant recruitment rates six months later. Results Four RCTs (33%) comprising 91 sites participated. Of these, 29 sites agreed to participate (32%) and were randomised to intervention (15 sites, 29 staff) or control (14 sites, 29 staff). Research nurses attended and found the training to be acceptable; no surgeons attended. In the intervention group, there was evidence of increased confidence when pre- and post- training scores were compared (mean difference in change 1.42; 95% CI 0.56, 2.27; p = 0.002). There was no effect on recruitment rate. Conclusion It was feasible to randomise sites across four surgical RCTs in a simultaneous SWAT design. However, as small numbers of trials and sites participated, and no surgeons attended training, strategies to improve these aspects are needed for future evaluations.

Background Surgery for nail bed injuries in children is common. One of the key surgical decisions is whether to replace the nail plate following nail bed repair. The aim of this RCT was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nail bed repair with fingernail replacement/substitution compared with repair without fingernail replacement. Methods A two-arm 1 : 1 parallel-group open multicentre superiority RCT was performed across 20 secondary-care hospitals in the UK. The co-primary outcomes were surgical-site infection at around 7 days after surgery and cosmetic appearance summary score at a minimum of 4 months. Results Some 451 children presenting with a suspected nail bed injury were recruited between July 2018 and July 2019; 224 were allocated to the nail-discarded arm, and 227 to the nail-replaced arm. There was no difference in the number of surgical-site infections at around 7 days between the two interventions or in cosmetic appearance. The mean total healthcare cost over the 4 months after surgery was €84 (95 per cent c.i. 34 to 140) lower for the nail-discarded arm than the nail-replaced arm (P < 0.001). Conclusion After nail bed repair, discarding the fingernail was associated with similar rates of infection and cosmesis ratings as replacement of the finger nail, but was cost saving. Registration number: ISRCTN44551796 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Objective To test the feasibility of undertaking a simultaneous Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to train staff who recruit participants into surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs), by assessing key uncertainties around recruitment, randomisation, intervention delivery and data collection. Study design and setting Twelve surgical RCTs were eligible. Interested sites (clusters) were randomised 1:1, with recruiting staff (surgeons and nurses) offered training or no training. The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruiting sites across multiple surgical trials simultaneously. Secondary outcomes included numbers/types of staff enrolled, attendance at training, training acceptability, confidence in recruiting and participant recruitment rates six months later. Results Four RCTs (33%) comprising 91 sites participated. Of these, 29 sites agreed to participate (32%) and were randomised to intervention (15 sites, 29 staff) or control (14 sites, 29 staff). Research nurses attended and found the training to be acceptable; no surgeons attended. In the intervention group, there was evidence of increased confidence when pre and post training scores were compared (mean difference in change 1.42; 95% CI 0.56, 2.27; p = 0.002) – there was no effect on recruitment rate. Conclusion It was feasible to randomise sites across four surgical RCTs in a simultaneous SWAT design. However, as small numbers of trials and sites participated, and no surgeons attended training, strategies to improve these aspects are needed for future evaluations. Trial registration ISRCTN registry: DISC (ISRCTN18254597), registered on 4th April 2017; PROFHER 2 (ISRCTN76296703), registered on 5th April 2018; IntAct (ISRCTN13334746), registered on 10th April 2017; and START:REACTS (ISRCTN17825590), registered on 5th March 2018. The training SWAT has been submitted to the MRC SWAT repository (SWAT111) Keywords: Randomised controlled trial (RCT), Study Within A Trial (SWAT), recruitment, staff training, professional education, feasibility study, surgical trials

Importance: Over half of patients report significant acute post-operative pain following knee replacement.\ud \ud \ud Objective: To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of peri-articular liposomal bupivacaine (LB) for recovery and pain following knee replacement.\ud \ud \ud Design, Setting and Participants: This multi-centre, patient-blinded, pragmatic, randomized controlled superiority trial (RCT) involved 533 participants at 11 institutions within the National Health Service in England. Adults undergoing primary unilateral knee replacement for symptomatic end-stage osteoarthritis were enrolled between March 29th, 2018 and February 29th, 2020 and followed up for one year after surgery.\ud \ud \ud Interventions: LB (266mg) admixed with bupivacaine hydrochloride (100mg) compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride (100mg) alone (control) administered by peri-articular injection at the time of surgery.\ud \ud \ud Main Outcome and Measures: The co-primary outcomes were Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) score at 72hours and pain visual analogue score (VAS) area under the curve (AUC) 6 to 72hours. Secondary outcomes included: QoR-40 and mean pain VAS at days 0 (evening of surgery), 1, 2 and 3, cumulative opioid consumption over 72hours, functional outcomes and quality of life at 6weeks, 6months and 1year, and cost-effectiveness over 1year. Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events up to 12months post-randomization were also assessed.\ud \ud \ud Results: 533 participants, mean age 69years were randomized with baseline characteristics balanced between arms. There was no difference in QoR-40 at 72hours nor pain VAS AUC 6 to 72hours between LB and control arm (adjusted mean difference for QoR-40: 0.54 (97.5% CI -2.05 to 3.13, p=0.643); pain VAS AUC -21.5 (97.5% CI -46.8 to 3.8; p=0.057)). Analyses of pain VAS and QoR-40 scores demonstrated only one statistically significant difference, with the LB arm having lower pain scores the evening of surgery (day 0; adjusted difference -0.54, 97.5% CI - 1.07 to -0.02; p=0.021). No difference in cumulative opioid consumption and functional outcomes was detected. LB was not cost-effective compared to control. No difference in adverse or serious adverse events was found between LB and control arms.\ud \ud \ud Conclusion and Relevance: This study found no difference in post-operative recovery associated with the use of peri-articular LB compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride alone. This study does not support the use of peri-articular LB for knee replacement.\ud \ud \ud Trial Registration: ISRCTN 54191675, registered on 14 November 2017. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN54191675

Background The introduction of robot-assisted surgery is costly and requires whole system transformation, which makes the assessment of benefits (or drawbacks) complex. To date, there has been little agreement on which outcomes should be used in this regard. The aim of the RoboCOS study was to develop a core outcome set for the evaluation of robot-assisted surgery that would account for its impact on the whole system. Methods Identification of a long-list of potentially relevant outcomes through systematic review of trials and health technology assessments; interviews with individuals from a range of stakeholder groups (surgeons, service managers, policy makers and evaluators) and a focus group with patients and public; prioritisation of outcomes via a 2-round online international Delphi survey; consensus meeting. Results 721 outcomes were extracted from the systematic reviews, interviews and focus group which were conceptualised into 83 different outcome domains across four distinct levels (patient, surgeon, organisation and population) for inclusion in the international Delphi prioritisation survey (128 completed both rounds). The consensus meeting led to the agreement of a 10-item core outcome set including outcomes at: patient level (treatment effectiveness; overall quality of life; disease-specific quality of life; complications (including mortality); surgeon level (precision/accuracy; visualisation); organisation (equipment failure; standardisation of operative quality; cost-effectiveness); and population (equity of access). Conclusion The RoboCOS core outcome set, which includes the outcomes of importance to all stakeholders, is recommended for use in all future evaluations of robot-assisted surgery to ensure relevant and comparable reporting of outcomes.

Importance: More than half of patients who undergo knee replacement surgery report substantial acute postoperative pain. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine for recovery and pain management after knee replacement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, patient-blinded, pragmatic, randomized clinical superiority trial involved 533 participants at 11 institutions within the National Health Service in England. Adults undergoing primary unilateral knee replacement for symptomatic end-stage osteoarthritis were enrolled between March 29, 2018, and February 29, 2020, and followed up for 1 year after surgery. Follow-up was completed March 1, 2021. A per-protocol analysis for each coprimary outcome was performed in addition to the main intention-to-treat analysis. Interventions: Two hundred sixty-six milligrams of liposomal bupivacaine admixed with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride compared with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride alone (control) administered by periarticular injection at the time of surgery. Main Outcome and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) score at 72 hours and pain visual analog scale (VAS) score area under the curve (AUC) from 6 to 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included QoR-40 and mean pain VAS at days 0 (evening of surgery), 1, 2, and 3; cumulative opioid consumption for 72 hours; functional outcomes and quality of life at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year; and cost-effectiveness for 1 year. Adverse events and serious adverse events up to 12 months after randomization were also assessed. Results: Among the 533 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 69.0 (9.7) years; 287 patients were women (53.8%) and 246 were men (46.2%). Baseline characteristics were balanced between study groups. There was no difference between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups in QoR-40 score at 72 hours (adjusted mean difference, 0.54 [97.5% CI, −2.05 to 3.13]; P = .64) or the pain VAS score AUC at 6 to 72 hours (−21.5 [97.5% CI, −46.8 to 3.8]; P = .06). Analyses of pain VAS and QoR-40 scores demonstrated only 1 statistically significant difference, with the liposomal bupivacaine arm having lower pain scores the evening of surgery (adjusted difference −0.54 [97.5% CI, −1.07 to −0.02]; P = .02). No difference in cumulative opioid consumption and functional outcomes was detected. Liposomal bupivacaine was not cost-effective compared with the control treatment. No difference in adverse or serious adverse events was found between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found no difference in postoperative recovery or pain associated with the use of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride alone in patients who underwent knee replacement surgery.

Background Implementation of Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS) is complex as it requires adjustments to associated physical infrastructure, but also changes to processes and behaviours. With the global objective of optimising and improving RAS implementation, this study aimed to: 1) Explore the barriers and enablers to RAS service adoption, incorporating an assessment of behavioural influences; 2) Provide an optimised plan for effective RAS implementation, with the incorporation of theory-informed implementation strategies that have been adapted to address the barriers/enablers that affect RAS service adoption. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with RAS personnel and stakeholders, including: surgeons, theatre staff, managers, industry representatives, and policy-makers/commissioners. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to identify barriers and enablers that represent individual behaviours, capabilities, attitudes, beliefs, and external organisational factors that influence the implementation of RAS. Results Findings suggest that implementation planning has three separate phases–pre-, early, and late implementation. For pre-implementation, barriers and enablers identified included the cost of RAS equipment and issues of economic viability, weak outcome evidence for RAS, a preponderance of an eminence driven model, the clinician/manager relationship, and views around the uptake and expansion of RAS in the future. Early implementation findings revealed role changes for theatre personnel and an enhanced team approach, reliance on industry for training provision, and changes in skill sets and attentional processes. Late implementation factors included equipment maintenance costs, technological limitations, changes to cognition during RAS routine use, and benefits to institutions/healthcare professionals (such as ergonomic improvement). Conclusion Together, findings suggest the factors that affect RAS implementation are multi-faceted and change across the life-cycle of intervention adoption. Theory-informed strategies are suggested which can optimise implementation of RAS. Optimisation strategies need planning from the outset.

Aims To calculate how the likelihood of obtaining measurable benefit from hip or knee arthroplasty varies with preoperative patient-reported scores. Methods Existing UK data from 222,933 knee and 209,760 hip arthroplasty patients were used to model an individual’s probability of gaining meaningful improvement after surgery based on their preoperative Oxford Knee or Hip Score (OKS/OHS). A clinically meaningful improvement after arthroplasty was defined as ≥ 8 point improvement in OHS, and ≥ 7 in OKS. Results The upper preoperative score threshold, above which patients are unlikely to achieve any meaningful improvement from surgery, is 41 for knees and 40 for hips. At lower scores, the probability of improvement increased towards a maximum of 88% (knee) and 95% for (hips). Conclusion By our definition of meaningful improvement, patients with preoperative scores above 41 (OKS) and 40 (OHS) should not be routinely referred to secondary care for possible arthroplasty. Using lower thresholds would incrementally increase the probability of meaningful benefit for those referred but will exclude some patients with potential to benefit. The findings are useful to support the complex shared decision-making process in primary care for referral to secondary care; and in secondary care for experienced clinicians counselling patients considering knee or hip arthroplasty, but should not be used in isolation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):941–949.

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.