Cushla Cooper

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair [the UK Rotator Cuff Surgery (UKUFF) randomised trial]

BACKGROUND Uncertainty exists regarding the best management of patients with degenerative tears of the rotator cuff. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair in patients aged ≥ 50 years with degenerative rotator cuff tendon tears. DESIGN Two parallel-group randomised controlled trial. SETTING Nineteen teaching and district general hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS Patients (n = 273) aged ≥ 50 years with degenerative rotator cuff tendon tears. INTERVENTIONS Arthroscopic surgery and open rotator cuff repair, with surgeons using their usual and preferred method of arthroscopic or open repair. Follow-up was by telephone questionnaire at 2 and 8 weeks after surgery and by postal questionnaire at 8, 12 and 24 months after randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at 24 months was the primary outcome measure. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the shoulder was made at 12 months after surgery to assess the integrity of the repair. RESULTS The mean OSS improved from 26.3 [standard deviation (SD) 8.2] at baseline to 41.7 (SD 7.9) at 24 months for arthroscopic surgery and from 25.0 (SD 8.0) at baseline to 41.5 (SD 7.9) at 24 months for open surgery. When effect sizes are shown for the intervention, a negative sign indicates that an open procedure is favoured. For the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no statistical difference between the groups, the difference in OSS score at 24 months was -0.76 [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.75 to 1.22; p = 0.452] and the CI excluded the predetermined clinically important difference in the OSS of 3 points. There was also no statistical difference when the groups were compared per protocol (difference in OSS score -0.46, 95% CI -5.30 to 4.39; p = 0.854). The questionnaire response rate was > 86%. At 8 months, 77% of participants reported that shoulder problems were much or slightly better, and at 24 months this increased to 85%. There were no significant differences in mean cost between the arthroscopic group and the open repair group for any of the component resource-use categories, nor for the total follow-up costs at 24 months. The overall treatment cost at 2 years was £2567 (SD £176) for arthroscopic surgery and £2699 (SD £149) for open surgery, according to intention-to-treat analysis. For the per-protocol analysis there was a significant difference in total initial procedure-related costs between the arthroscopic group and the open repair group, with arthroscopic repair being more costly by £371 (95% CI £135 to £607). Total quality-adjusted life-years accrued at 24 months averaged 1.34 (SD 0.05) in the arthroscopic repair group and 1.35 (SD 0.05) in the open repair group, a non-significant difference of 0.01 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.10). The rate of re-tear was not significantly different across the randomised groups (46.4% and 38.6% for arthroscopic and open surgery, respectively). The participants with tears that were impossible to repair had the lowest OSSs, the participants with re-tears had slightly higher OSSs and the participants with healed repairs had the most improved OSSs. These findings were the same when analysed per protocol. CONCLUSION In patients aged > 50 years with a degenerative rotator cuff tear there is no difference in clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness between open repair and arthroscopic repair at 2 years for the primary outcome (OSS) and all other prespecified secondary outcomes. Future work should explore new methods to improve tendon healing and reduce the high rate of re-tears observed in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97804283. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 80. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Genetic influences in the progression of tears of the rotator cuff

The aim of this study was to investigate genetic influences on the development and progression of tears of the rotator cuff. From a group of siblings of patients with a tear of the rotator cuff and of controls studied five years earlier, we determined the prevalence of tears of the rotator cuff with and without associated symptoms using ultrasound and the Oxford Shoulder Score. In the five years since the previous assessment, three of 62 (4.8%) of the sibling group and one of the 68 (1.5%) controls had undergone shoulder surgery. These subjects were excluded from the follow-up. Full-thickness tears were found in 39 of 62 (62.9%) siblings and in 15 of 68 (22.1%) controls (p = 0.0001). The relative risk of full-thickness tears in siblings as opposed to controls was 2.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75 to 4.64), compared to 2.42 (95% CI 1.77 to 3.31) five years earlier. Full-thickness tears associated with pain were found in 30 of 39 (76.9%) tears in the siblings and in eight of 15 (53.3%) tears in the controls (p = 0.045). The relative risk of pain associated with a full-thickness tear in the siblings as opposed to the controls was 1.44 (95% CI 2.04 to 8.28) (p = 0.045). In the siblings group ten of 62 (16.1%) had progressed in terms of tear size or development compared to one of 68 (1.5%) in the control group which had increased in size. Full-thickness rotator cuff tears in siblings are significantly more likely to progress over a period of five years than in a control population. This implies that genetic factors have a role, not only in the development but also in the progression of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff.

Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): A multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial

Summary Background Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. Methods We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. Findings Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5–5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8–6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). Interpretation Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. Funding Arthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).

The CSAW Study (Can Shoulder Arthroscopy Work?) – a placebo-controlled surgical intervention trial assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic subacromial decompression for shoulder pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundArthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASAD) is a commonly performed surgical intervention for shoulder pain. The rationale is that removal of a bony acromial spur relieves symptoms by decompressing rotator cuff tendons passing through the subacromial space. However, the efficacy of this procedure is uncertain. The objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ASAD in patients with subacromial pain using appropriate control groups, including placebo intervention.Methods/DesignThe trial is a three-group, parallel design, pragmatic, randomised controlled study. The intervention content for each group (ASAD, active monitoring with specialist reassessment (AMSR) and investigational shoulder arthroscopy only (AO)) enables assessment of (1) the efficacy of the surgery against no surgery; (2) the need for a specific component of the surgery—namely, removal of the bony spur; and (3) quantification of the placebo effect. Concealed allocation was performed using a 1:1:1 randomisation ratio and using age, sex, baseline Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and centre as minimisation criteria. The primary outcome measure is the OSS at 6 months post randomisation. A total of 300 patients recruited over 24 months from a minimum of 14 UK shoulder units over 24 months were required to detect a difference of 4.5 points on the OSS (standard deviation, 9) with 90% power and to allow for 15% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, pain, complications and patient satisfaction. A substantial qualitative research component is included. The primary analysis will be conducted on the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Sensitivity analysis will be used to assess the robustness of the results with regard to the underlying assumptions about missing data using multiple imputation.DiscussionThis trial uses an innovative design to account for the known placebo effects of surgery, but it also will delineate the mechanism for any benefit from surgery. The investigational AO group is considered a placebo intervention (not sham surgery), as it includes all components of subacromial decompression except the critical surgical element. Some discussion is also dedicated to the challenges of conducting placebo surgery trials.Trial registrationsUK Clinical Research Network UKCRN12104. Registered 22 May 2012.International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial ISRCTN33864128. Registered 22 June 2012.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01623011. Registered 15 June 2012.

Protocol for the Femoroacetabular Impingement Trial (FAIT): a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing surgical and non-surgical management of femoroacetabular impingement

Aims Femoroacetabular Junction Impingement (FAI) describes abnormalities in the shape of the femoral head–neck junction, or abnormalities in the orientation of the acetabulum. In the short term, FAI can give rise to pain and disability, and in the long-term it significantly increases the risk of developing osteoarthritis. The Femoroacetabular Impingement Trial (FAIT) aims to determine whether operative or non-operative intervention is more effective at improving symptoms and preventing the development and progression of osteoarthritis. Methods FAIT is a multicentre superiority parallel two-arm randomised controlled trial comparing physiotherapy and activity modification with arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of symptomatic FAI. Patients aged 18 to 60 with clinical and radiological evidence of FAI are eligible. Principal exclusion criteria include previous surgery to the index hip, established osteoarthritis (Kellgren–Lawrence ≥ 2), hip dysplasia (centre-edge angle < 20°), and completion of a physiotherapy programme targeting FAI within the previous 12 months. Recruitment will take place over 24 months and 120 patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio and followed up for three years. The two primary outcome measures are change in hip outcome score eight months post-randomisation (approximately six-months post-intervention initiation) and change in radiographic minimum joint space width 38 months post-randomisation. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01893034. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:321–7.

Protocol for the United Kingdom Rotator Cuff Study (UKUFF): a randomised controlled trial of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

This protocol describes a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic and open surgery in the management of rotator cuff tears. This trial began in 2007 and was modified in 2010, with the removal of a non-operative arm due to high rates of early crossover to surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:155–60.

Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial - TOPKAT: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundIn the majority of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee the disease originates in the medial compartment. There are two fundamentally different approaches to knee replacement for patients with unicompartmental disease: some surgeons feel that it is always best to replace both the knee compartments with a total knee replacement (TKR); whereas others feel it is best to replace just the damaged component of the knee using a partial or unicompartment replacement (UKR). Both interventions are established and well-documented procedures. Little evidence exists to prove the clinical and cost-effectiveness of either management option. This provides an explanation for the high variation in treatment of choice by individual surgeons for the same knee pathology.The aim of the TOPKAT study will be to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of TKRs compared to UKRs in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis.Methods/DesignThe design of the study is a single layer multicentre superiority type randomised controlled trial of unilateral knee replacement patients. Blinding will not be possible as the surgical scars for each procedure differ.We aim to recruit 500 patients from approximately 28 secondary care orthopaedic units from across the UK including district general and teaching hospitals. Participants will be randomised to either UKR or TKR. Randomisation will occur using a web-based randomisation system. The study is pragmatic in terms of implant selection for the knee replacement operation. Participants will be followed up for 5 years. The primary outcome is the Oxford Knee Score, which will be collected via questionnaires at 2 months, 1 year and then annually to 5 years. Secondary outcomes will include cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction and complications data.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01352247

Effectiveness of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (UKUFF): a randomised controlled trial

AIMS The appropriate management for patients with a degenerative tear of the rotator cuff remains controversial, but operative treatment, particularly arthroscopic surgery, is increasingly being used. Our aim in this paper was to compare the effectiveness of arthroscopic with open repair of the rotator cuff. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 273 patients were recruited to a randomised comparison trial (136 to arthroscopic surgery and 137 to open surgery) from 19 teaching and general hospitals in the United Kingdom. The surgeons used their usual preferred method of repair. The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), two years post-operatively, was the primary outcome measure. Imaging of the shoulder was performed at one year after surgery. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN97804283. RESULTS The mean OSS improved from 26.3 (standard deviation (sd) 8.2) at baseline, to 41.7 (sd 7.9) two years post-operatively for arthroscopic surgery and from 25.0 (sd 8.0) to 41.5 (sd 7.9) for open surgery. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed no statistical difference between the groups at two years (difference in OSS score -0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.75 to 1.22; p = 0.452). The confidence interval excluded the pre-determined clinically important difference in the OSS of three points. The rate of re-tear was not significantly different between the two groups (46.4% for arthroscopic and 38.6% for open surgery; 95% CI -6.9 to 25.8; p = 0.256). Healed repairs had the most improved OSS. These findings were the same when analysed per-protocol. CONCLUSION There is no evidence of difference in effectiveness between open and arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears. The rate of re-tear is high in both groups, for all sizes of tear and ages and this adversely affects the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:107-15.

The UKUFF trial and the NIHR comprehensive local research networks

Research opportunities in the NHS have changed greatly over the last year or so. The UKUFF study demonstrates the advantages of these changes to orthopaedic research. Analysing the recruitment rates of each surgeon involved in the study found inconsistencies in recruitment patterns. As a result projected recruitment targets were suffering. The UKUFF team took advantage of the new research initiative and at the end of 2008 obtained the support offered by the new infrastructure at many participating sites. The recruitment total at the end of June 2009 showed that supported sites recruited almost double the number of patients compared to the unsupported sites. Surgeons involved in research need to access available resources to help them improve their participation in research. Being actively involved in specialist research like UKUFF can lead to further support for new studies instigated by shoulder surgeons.

Costs, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic and open repair for rotator cuff tears

AIMS A trial-based comparison of the use of resources, costs and quality of life outcomes of arthroscopic and open surgical management for rotator cuff tears in the United Kingdom NHS was performed using data from the United Kingdom Rotator Cuff Study (UKUFF) randomised controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Using data from 273 patients, healthcare-related use of resources, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated at 12 months and 24 months after surgery on an intention-to-treat basis with adjustment for covariates. Uncertainty about the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for arthroscopic versus open management at 24 months of follow-up was incorporated using bootstrapping. Multiple imputation methods were used to deal with missing data. RESULTS There were no significant differences between the arthroscopic and open groups in terms of total mean use and cost of resources or QALYs at any time post-operatively. Open management dominated arthroscopic management in 59.8% of bootstrapped cost and effect differences. The probability that arthroscopic management was cost-effective compared with open management at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained was 20.9%. CONCLUSION There was no significant overall difference in the use or cost of resources or quality of life between arthroscopic and open management in the trial. There was uncertainty about which strategy was most cost-effective. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1648-55.