IMPORTANCE Hip fractures in older adults are serious injuries that result in disability, higher rates of illness and death, and a substantial strain on health care resources. High-quality evidence... Show moreIMPORTANCE Hip fractures in older adults are serious injuries that result in disability, higher rates of illness and death, and a substantial strain on health care resources. High-quality evidence to improve hip fracture care regarding the surgical approach of hemiarthroplasty is lacking. OBJECTIVE To compare 6-month outcomes of the posterolateral approach (PLA) and direct lateral approach (DLA) for hemiarthroplasty in patients with acute femoral neck fracture. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter, randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing DLA and PLA was performed alongside a natural experiment (NE) at 14 centers in the Netherlands. Patients aged 18 years or older with an acute femoral neck fracture were included, with or without dementia. Secondary surgery of the hip, pathological fractures, or patients with multitrauma were excluded. Recruitment took place between February 2018 and January 2022. Treatment allocation was random or pseudorandom based on geographical location and surgeon preference. Statistical analysis was performed from July 2022 to September 2022. EXPOSURE Hemiarthroplasty using PLA or DLA. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES The primary outcome was health-related quality of life 6 months after surgery, quantified with the EuroQol Group 5-Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). Secondary outcomes included dislocations, fear of falling and falls, activities of daily living, pain, and reoperations. To improve generalizability, a novel technique was used for data fusion of the RCT and NE. RESULTS A total of 843 patients (542 [64.3%] female; mean [SD] age, 82.2 [7.5] years) participated, with 555 patients in the RCT (283 patients in the DLA group; 272 patients in the PLA group) and 288 patients in the NE (172 patients in the DLA group; 116 patients in the PLA group). In the RCT, mean EQ-5D-5L utility scores at 6 months were 0.50 (95% CI, 0.45-0.55) after DLA and 0.49 (95% CI, 0.44-0.54) after PLA, with 77% completeness. The between-group difference (-0.04 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.04]) was not statistically significant nor clinically meaningful. Most secondary outcomes were comparable between groups, but PLA was associated with more dislocations than DLA (RCT: 15 of 272 patients [5.5%] in PLA vs 1 of 283 patients [0.4%] in DLA; NE: 6 of 113 patients [5.3%]) in PLA vs 2 of 175 patients [1.1%] in DLA). Data fusion resulted in an effect size of 0.00 (95% CI, -0.04 to 0.05) for the EQ-5D-5L and an odds ratio of 12.31(95% CI, 2.77 to 54.70) for experiencing a dislocation after PLA. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This combined RCT and NE found that among patients treated with a cemented hemiarthroplasty after an acute femoral neck fracture, PLA was not associated with a better quality of life than DLA. Rates of dislocation and reoperation were higher after PLA. Randomized and pseudorandomized data yielded similar outcomes, which suggests a strengthening of these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04438226 Show less
Clinical relevance and statistical significance are different concepts, linked via the sample size calculation. Threshold values for detecting a minimal important change over time are frequently ... Show moreClinical relevance and statistical significance are different concepts, linked via the sample size calculation. Threshold values for detecting a minimal important change over time are frequently (mis)interpreted as a threshold for the clinical relevance of a difference between groups. The magnitude of a difference between groups that is considered clinically relevant directly impacts the sample size calculation, and thereby the statistical significance in clinical study outcomes. Especially in non-inferiority trials the threshold for clinical relevance, i.e. the predefined margin for non-inferiority, is a crucial choice. A truly inferior treatment will be accepted as non-inferior when this margin is chosen too large. The magnitude of a clinically relevant difference between groups should be carefully considered, by determining the smallest effect for each specific study that is considered worthwhile. This means taking into account the (dis)advantages of both study interventions in terms of benefits, harms, costs, and potential side effects. This article clarifies common sources of confusion, illustrates the implications for clinical research with an example and provides specific suggestions to improve the design and interpretation of clinical research. Show less
Background: Intraoperative chlorhexidine irrigation could be a valuable additive to systemic antibiotics to prevent infections after total joint arthroplasties. However, it may cause cytotoxicity... Show moreBackground: Intraoperative chlorhexidine irrigation could be a valuable additive to systemic antibiotics to prevent infections after total joint arthroplasties. However, it may cause cytotoxicity and impair wound healing. This study evaluates the incidence of infection and wound leakage before and after the introduction of intraoperative chlorhexidine lavage.Methods: All 4453 patients receiving a primary hip or knee prosthesis between 2007 and 2013 in our hospital were retrospectively included. They all underwent intraoperative lavage before wound closure. Initially, wound irrigation with 0.9% NaCl was standard care (n = 2271). In 2008, additional irrigation with a chlorhexidine-cetrimide (CC) solution was gradually introduced (n = 2182). Data on the incidence of prosthetic joint infections and wound leakage, as well as relevant baseline and surgical characteristics, were derived from medical charts. Chi-square analysis was used to compare the incidence of infection and wound leakage between patients with and without CC irrigation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess robustness of these effects by adjusting for potential confounders.Results: The prosthetic infection rate was 2.2% in the group without CC irrigation vs 1.3% in the group with CC irrigation (P = .021). Wound leakage occurred in 15.6% of the group without CC irrigation and in 18.8% of the group with CC irrigation (P = .004). However, multivariable analyses showed that both findings were likely due to confounding variables, rather than by the change in intraoperative CC irrigation.Conclusions: Intraoperative wound irrigation using a CC solution does not seem to affect the risk of prosthetic joint infection or wound leakage. Observational data easily yield misleading results, so prospective randomized studies are needed to verify causal inference. Level of Evidence: Level IIIduncontrolled before and after the study.(c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Show less
IMPORTANCE There is a paucity of high-quality evidence about the long-term effects (ie, 3-5 years and beyond) of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy vs exercise-based physical therapy for patients... Show moreIMPORTANCE There is a paucity of high-quality evidence about the long-term effects (ie, 3-5 years and beyond) of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy vs exercise-based physical therapy for patients with degenerative meniscal tears. OBJECTIVES To compare the 5-year effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and exercise-based physical therapy on patient-reported knee function and progression of knee osteoarthritis in patients with a degenerative meniscal tear. Design, Setting, and Participants A noninferiority, multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in the orthopedic departments of 9 hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 321 patients aged 45 to 70 years with a degenerative meniscal tear participated. Data collection took place between July 12, 2013, and December 4, 2020. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly allocated to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or 16 sessions of exercise-based physical therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was patient-reported knee function (International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]) during 5 years of follow-up based on the intention-to-treat principle, with a noninferiority threshold of 11 points. The secondary outcome was progression in knee osteoarthritis shown on radiographic images in both treatment groups. RESULTS Of 321 patients (mean [SD] age, 58 [6.6] years; 161 women [50.2%]), 278 patients (87.1%) completed the 5-year follow-up with a mean follow-up time of 61.8 months (range, 58.8-69.5 months). From baseline to 5-year follow-up, the mean (SD) improvement was 29.6 (18.7) points in the surgery group and 25.1 (17.8) points in the physical therapy group. The crude between-group difference was 3.5 points (95% CI, 0.7-6.3 points; P < .001 for noninferiority). The 95% CI did not exceed the noninferiority threshold of 11 points. Comparable rates of progression of radiographic-demonstrated knee osteoarthritis were noted between both treatments. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this noninferiority randomized clinical trial after 5 years, exercise-based physical therapy remained noninferior to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for patient-reported knee function. Physical therapy should therefore be the preferred treatment over surgery for degenerative meniscal tears. These results can assist in the development and updating of current guideline recommendations about treatment for patients with a degenerative meniscal tear. Show less
Introduction: Current literature is inconclusive about the optimal treatment of elderly patients with displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures. Cast treatment is less invasive and less... Show moreIntroduction: Current literature is inconclusive about the optimal treatment of elderly patients with displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures. Cast treatment is less invasive and less expensive than surgical treatment. Nevertheless, surgery is often the preferred treatment for this common type of distal radius fracture. Patients with a non-acceptable position after closed reduction are more likely to benefit from surgery than patients with an acceptable position after dosed reduction. Therefore, this study aims to assess non-inferiority of functional outcomes after casting versus surgery in elderly patients with a non-acceptable position following a distal radius fracture. Methods and analysis: This study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a non-inferiority design and an economic evaluation alongside. The population consists of patients aged 65 years and older with a displaced intra-articular distal radius fracture with non-acceptable radiological characteristics following either inadequate reduction or redisplacement after adequate reduction. Patients will be randomised between surgical treatment (open reduction and internal fixation) and non-operative treatment (closed reduction followed by cast treatment). We will use two age strata (65-75 and >75 years of age) and a web-based mixed block randomisation. A total of 154 patients will be enrolled and evaluated with the patient-rated wrist evaluation as the primary outcome at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D), wrist range of motion, grip strength and adverse events. In addition, we will perform a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis from a societal and healthcare perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be presented..Ethics and dissemination: The Research and Ethics Committee approved this RCT (NL56858.100.16). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal. We will present the results of this study at (inter) national conferences and disseminate the results through guideline committees. Show less
Noorduyn, J.C.A.; Graaf, V.A. van de; Willigenburg, N.W.; Scholten-Peeters, G.G.M.; Mol, B.W.; Heymans, M.W.; ... ; ESCAPE Res Grp 2022
Purpose Marker-by-treatment analyses are promising new methods in internal medicine, but have not yet been implemented in orthopaedics. With this analysis, specific cut-off points may be obtained,... Show morePurpose Marker-by-treatment analyses are promising new methods in internal medicine, but have not yet been implemented in orthopaedics. With this analysis, specific cut-off points may be obtained, that can potentially identify whether meniscal surgery or physical therapy is the superior intervention for an individual patient. This study aimed to introduce a novel approach in orthopaedic research to identify relevant treatment selection markers that affect treatment outcome following meniscal surgery or physical therapy in patients with degenerative meniscal tears. Methods Data were analysed from the ESCAPE trial, which assessed the treatment of patients over 45 years old with a degenerative meniscal tear. The treatment outcome of interest was a clinically relevant improvement on the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form at 3, 12, and 24 months follow-up. Logistic regression models were developed to predict the outcome using baseline characteristics (markers), the treatment (meniscal surgery or physical therapy), and a marker-by-treatment interaction term. Interactions with p < 0.10 were considered as potential treatment selection markers and used these to develop predictiveness curves which provide thresholds to identify marker-based differences in clinical outcomes between the two treatments. Results Potential treatment selection markers included general physical health, pain during activities, knee function, BMI, and age. While some marker-based thresholds could be identified at 3, 12, and 24 months follow-up, none of the baseline characteristics were consistent markers at all three follow-up times. Conclusion This novel in-depth analysis did not result in clear clinical subgroups of patients who are substantially more likely to benefit from either surgery or physical therapy. However, this study may serve as an exemplar for other orthopaedic trials to investigate the heterogeneity in treatment effect. It will help clinicians to quantify the additional benefit of one treatment over another at an individual level, based on the patient's baseline characteristics. Show less
Background and purpose: Ceramic liners may reduce early stability of uncemented acetabular components due to higher stiffness. However, the bone ingrowth capacities of porous trabecular titanium... Show moreBackground and purpose: Ceramic liners may reduce early stability of uncemented acetabular components due to higher stiffness. However, the bone ingrowth capacities of porous trabecular titanium might compensate for this effect. This prospective randomized trial quantifies migration patterns of the Delta-TT cup, and compares polyethylene and ceramic liners. Patients and methods: Patients undergoing primary uncemented total hip arthroplasty with the Delta-TT cup and femoral stem with ceramic head were randomized to a polyethylene (n = 25) or ceramic (n = 28) liner. Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) radiographs, patient-reported hip function (HOOS-PS, OHS), and quality of life (EQ5D) were collected at baseline and 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Model-based RSA was used to calculate 3D cup translation and rotation, and mixed models were used to compare effects over time between groups.Results: At 2 years follow-up, Delta-TT cups showed similar mean proximal translation of 0.56 mm (95% CI 0.38-0.75) in the ceramic (CE) group and 0.54 mm (0.30-0.77) in the polyethylene (PE) group, with a between group effect of 0.02 mm (-0.20-0.23). Most cup migration occurred in the first 1.5 to 3 months, stabilizing within 6 months. Any between-group effects were = 0.30 mm for translation and <= 0.45 degrees for rotation. Improvements in patient-reported hip function and quality of life were similar in both groups.Interpretation: Regardless of liner type, Delta-TT cups showed some initial migration and stabilized within 6 months, which seems promising for long-term fixation in both cup-liner constructs. Show less
Objectives To determine the level of agreement between both proxy versions and the self-completed EQ-5D-5L. Design A randomized agreement study. Setting and participants We recruited 120 patients ... Show moreObjectives To determine the level of agreement between both proxy versions and the self-completed EQ-5D-5L. Design A randomized agreement study. Setting and participants We recruited 120 patients (compos mentis) and their proxies at the orthopaedic outpatient clinic. Patients completed the regular EQ-5D-5L and their proxy completed the proxy version of the EQ-5D-5L and rated the patients' health from their own (proxy-proxy) perspective (i.e. how do you rate the health of the patient), and from the patient's (proxy-patient) perspective (i.e. how do you think the patient would rate their own health if they were able to). Measures The primary outcome was the agreement between patients and their proxy, quantified as the intra class correlation coefficient for the EQ-5D-5L Utility score. Results Average Utility scores were 0.65 with the self completed EQ-5D-5L, versus 0.60 with the proxy-patient version and 0.58 with the proxy-proxy version. The ICC was 0.66 (95% CI 0.523, 0.753) for the proxy-patient perspective and 0.58 (95% CI 0.411, 0.697) for the proxy-proxy perspective. The mean gold standard score of the VAS-Health was 69.7 whereas the proxy-proxy perspective was 66.5 and the proxy-patient perspective was 66.3. Conclusion and implications The proxy-patient perspective yielded substantial agreement with the self completed EQ-5D-5L, while the agreement with the proxy-proxy perspective was moderate. In this study population of patients without cognitive impairment, proxies tended to underestimate the quality of life of their relative. Show less
Noorduyn, J.C.A.; Teuwen, M.M.H.; Graaf, V.A. van de; Willigenburg, N.W.; Schavemaker, M.; Dijk, R. van; ... ; Escape Res Grp 2021
Purpose Although physical therapy is the recommended treatment in patients over 45 years old with a degenerative meniscal tear, 24% still opt for meniscal surgery. The aim was to identify those... Show morePurpose Although physical therapy is the recommended treatment in patients over 45 years old with a degenerative meniscal tear, 24% still opt for meniscal surgery. The aim was to identify those patients with a degenerative meniscal tear who will undergo surgery following physical therapy. Methods The data for this study were generated in the physical therapy arm of the ESCAPE trial, a randomized clinical trial investigating the effectiveness of surgery versus physical therapy in patients of 45-70 years old, with a degenerative meniscal tear. At 6 and 24 months patients were divided into two groups: those who did not undergo surgery, and those who did undergo surgery. Two multivariable prognostic models were developed using candidate predictors that were selected from the list of the patients' baseline variables. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed with backward Wald selection and a cut-off of p < 0.157. For both models the performance was assessed and corrected for the models' optimism through an internal validation using bootstrapping technique with 500 repetitions. Results At 6 months, 32/153 patients (20.9%) underwent meniscal surgery following physical therapy. Based on the multivariable regression analysis, patients were more likely to opt for meniscal surgery within 6 months when they had worse knee function, lower education level and a better general physical health status at baseline. At 24 months, 43/153 patients (28.1%) underwent meniscal surgery following physical therapy. Patients were more likely to opt for meniscal surgery within 24 months when they had worse knee function and a lower level of education at baseline at baseline. Both models had a low explained variance (16 and 11%, respectively) and an insufficient predictive accuracy. Conclusion Not all patients with degenerative meniscal tears experience beneficial results following physical therapy. The non-responders to physical therapy could not accurately be predicted by our prognostic models. Show less
Background: It is unknown whether the treatment effects of partial meniscectomy and physical therapy differ when focusing on activities most valued by patients with degenerative meniscal tears... Show moreBackground: It is unknown whether the treatment effects of partial meniscectomy and physical therapy differ when focusing on activities most valued by patients with degenerative meniscal tears.Purpose: To compare partial meniscectomy with physical therapy in patients with a degenerative meniscal tear, focusing on patients' most important functional limitations as the outcome.Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.Methods: This study is part of the Cost-effectiveness of Early Surgery versus Conservative Treatment with Optional Delayed Meniscectomy for Patients over 45 years with non-obstructive meniscal tears (ESCAPE) trial, a multicenter noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted in 9 orthopaedic hospital departments in the Netherlands. The ESCAPE trial included 321 patients aged between 45 and 70 years with a symptomatic, magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed meniscal tear. Exclusion criteria were severe osteoarthritis, body mass index >35 kg/m(2), locking of the knee, and prior knee surgery or knee instability due to an anterior or posterior cruciate ligament rupture. This study compared partial meniscectomy with physical therapy consisting of a supervised incremental exercise protocol of 16 sessions over 8 weeks. The main outcome measure was the Dutch-language equivalent of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), a secondary outcome measure of the ESCAPE trial. We used crude and adjusted linear mixed-model analyses to reveal the between-group differences over 24 months. We calculated the minimal important change for the PSFS using an anchor-based method.Results: After 24 months, 286 patients completed the follow-up. The partial meniscectomy group (n = 139) improved on the PSFS by a mean of 4.8 +/- 2.6 points (from 6.8 +/- 1.9 to 2.0 +/- 2.2), and the physical therapy group (n = 147) improved by a mean of 4.0 +/- 3.1 points (from 6.7 +/- 2.0 to 2.7 +/- 2.5). The crude overall between-group difference showed a -0.6-point difference (95% CI, -1.0 to -0.2; P = .004) in favor of the partial meniscectomy group. This improvement was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful, as the calculated minimal important change was 2.5 points on an 11-point scale.Conclusion: Both interventions were associated with a clinically meaningful improvement regarding patients' most important functional limitations. Although partial meniscectomy was associated with a statistically larger improvement at some follow-up time points, the difference compared with physical therapy was small and clinically not meaningful at any follow-up time point.Registration: NCT01850719 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier) and NTR3908 (the Netherlands Trial Register). Show less
Background and purpose - Dislocation is the leading reason for early revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The dual-mobility (DM) cup was developed to provide more stability and... Show moreBackground and purpose - Dislocation is the leading reason for early revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The dual-mobility (DM) cup was developed to provide more stability and mechanically reduce the risk of dislocation. Despite the increased use of DM cups, high-quality evidence of their (cost-)effectiveness is lacking. The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate whether there is a difference in the number of hip dislocations following primary THA, using the posterolateral approach, with a DM cup compared with a unipolar (UP) cup in elderly patients 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include the number of revision surgeries, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and cost-effectiveness.Methods and analysis - This is a prospective multicenter nationwide, single-blinded RCT nested in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry. Patients >= 70 years old, undergoing elective primary THA using the posterolateral approach, will be eligible. After written informed consent, 1,100 participants will be randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. The intervention group receives a THA with a DM cup and the control group a THA with a UP cup. PROMs are collected preoperatively, and 3 months, 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Primary outcome is the difference in number of dislocations between the UP and DM cup within 1 year, reported in the registry (revisions), or by the patients (closed or open reduction). Data will be analyzed using multilevel models as appropriate for each outcome (linear/logistic/survival). An economic evaluation will be performed from the healthcare and societal perspective, for dislocation and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Show less
Background: The posterolateral approach (PLA) and direct lateral approach (DLA) are the most commonly used approaches for inserting a hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. A... Show moreBackground: The posterolateral approach (PLA) and direct lateral approach (DLA) are the most commonly used approaches for inserting a hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. A recent review concluded that the routine use of PLA should be questioned, but this conclusion itself can be questioned. The aim of this study is to provide an updated overview and critical appraisal of the available evidence, focussing on outcomes most relevant for patients. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of literature in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and Cochrane Library. Studies (till June 2018) to identify hip fracture clinical trials/comparative studies comparing alternative surgical approaches (PLA and DLA). We explored sources of heterogeneity and conducted pooled analyses when appropriate. Results: 264 potentially eligible studies were identified of which 1 RCT, 3 prospective, 3 registry data and 5 retrospective studies were included. The RCT consisted performance and attrition bias. The mean MINORS score of the prospective/register studies was 17.3 (SD 3.5) and 13.8 (SD 1.9) of the 5 retrospective studies. The GRADE score for all the outcomes was very low. Due to the high and various types of biases across the included studies, we did not pool the data. None of studies assessed the activities of daily living functionality. 6 studies reported significantly more dislocations or reoperations due to dislocation in the PLA group, 6 other studies found no differences. DLA patients were more likely to develop abductor insufficiency leading to limping and more need for walking aids. The PLA patients tended to have better quality of life, less pain and more satisfaction compared to the DLA patients. Conclusion: Based on low-quality studies, PLA may be associated with more dislocations, but patients had less walking problems and a lower tendency to abductor insufficiency compared with DLA. Further clinical trials with methodology rigor are needed to determine which approach is more effective in terms of outcomes relevant to patients. Show less
