Ines Rombach

Use of placebo controls in the evaluation of surgery: systematic review

Objective To investigate whether placebo controls should be used in the evaluation of surgical interventions. Design Systematic review. Data sources We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from their inception to November 2013. Study selection Randomised clinical trials comparing any surgical intervention with placebo. Surgery was defined as any procedure that both changes the anatomy and requires a skin incision or use of endoscopic techniques. Data extraction Three reviewers (KW, BJFD, IR) independently identified the relevant trials and extracted data on study details, outcomes, and harms from included studies. Results In 39 out of 53 (74%) trials there was improvement in the placebo arm and in 27 (51%) trials the effect of placebo did not differ from that of surgery. In 26 (49%) trials, surgery was superior to placebo but the magnitude of the effect of the surgical intervention over that of the placebo was generally small. Serious adverse events were reported in the placebo arm in 18 trials (34%) and in the surgical arm in 22 trials (41.5%); in four trials authors did not specify in which arm the events occurred. However, in many studies adverse events were unrelated to the intervention or associated with the severity of the condition. The existing placebo controlled trials investigated only less invasive procedures that did not involve laparotomy, thoracotomy, craniotomy, or extensive tissue dissection. Conclusions Placebo controlled trial is a powerful, feasible way of showing the efficacy of surgical procedures. The risks of adverse effects associated with the placebo are small. In half of the studies, the results provide evidence against continued use of the investigated surgical procedures. Without well designed placebo controlled trials of surgery, ineffective treatment may continue unchallenged.

The risks and benefits of glucocorticoid treatment for tendinopathy: a systematic review of the effects of local glucocorticoid on tendon.

OBJECTIVE Our primary objective was to summarise the known effects of locally administered glucocorticoid on tendon tissue and tendon cells. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature using the PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines of the Medline database using specific search criteria. The search yielded 50 articles, which consisted of 13 human studies, 36 animal studies and one combined human/animal study. RESULTS Histologically, there was a loss of collagen organisation (6 studies) and an increase in collagen necrosis (3 studies). The proliferation (8 studies) and viability (9 studies) of fibroblasts was reduced. Collagen synthesis was decreased in 17 studies. An increased inflammatory cell infiltrate was shown in 4 studies. Increased cellular toxicity was demonstrated by 3 studies. The mechanical properties of tendon were investigated by 18 studies. Descriptively, 6 of these studies showed a decrease in mechanical properties, 3 showed an increase, while the remaining 9 showed no significant change. A meta-analysis of the mechanical data revealed a significant deterioration in mechanical properties, with an overall effect size of -0.67 (95% CI = 0.01 to -1.33) (data from 9 studies). CONCLUSIONS Overall it is clear that the local administration of glucocorticoid has significant negative effects on tendon cells in vitro, including reduced cell viability, cell proliferation and collagen synthesis. There is increased collagen disorganisation and necrosis as shown by in vivo studies. The mechanical properties of tendon are also significantly reduced. This review supports the emerging clinical evidence that shows significant long-term harms to tendon tissue and cells associated with glucocorticoid injections.

Primary hip replacement prostheses and their evidence base: systematic review of literature

Objective To determine the extent to which prostheses with no readily available evidence to support their use are being implanted in primary total hip arthroplasty. Design Systematic review of the literature. Data sources The 9th annual report of the National Joint Registry of England and Wales (NJR) was analysed to identify prostheses with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel rating of “unclassified” or “pre-entry” used in primary total hip arthroplasty in 2011. A systematic review of those prostheses was carried out using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, OVID, and Google databases. Study selection Prostheses used in primary total hip arthroplasty as published in the NJR’s 9th annual report were analysed. Only literature that included the name of the prosthesis was included. Literature yielded in the search results was excluded if it reported animal, non-orthopaedic, non-total hip arthroplasty, or non-device related studies. Results The systematic review found that 24% (57/235) of all hip replacement implants available to surgeons in the UK have no evidence for their clinical effectiveness. It also shows that 10 617 (7.8%) of the 136 593 components used in primary hip replacements in 2011 were implanted without readily identifiable evidence of clinical effectiveness. These comprised 157 cemented stems (0.5% of 34 655 implanted), 936 (2.8% of 33 367) uncemented stems, 1732 (7.1% of 24 349) cemented cups, and 7577 (17.1% of 44 222) uncemented cups. Conclusions This study shows that a considerable proportion of prostheses available to orthopaedic surgeons have no readily available evidence of clinical effectiveness to support their use. Concern exists about the current system of device regulation, and the need for a revised process for introducing new orthopaedic devices is highlighted.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection With Arthroscopic Acromioplasty for Chronic Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been proposed to augment tendon healing through improving tissue structure during the initial repair phase. Purpose: To investigate both the clinical and tissue effects of the coapplication of PRP injection with arthroscopic acromioplasty (AA) in patients with chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy. Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: The study comprised 60 randomized patients diagnosed with rotator cuff tendinopathy (55% women) aged between 35 and 75 years. Patients were randomized to AA alone or in combination with an injection of autologous PRP into the subacromial bursa (AA + PRP). Efficacy of treatment was assessed by analysis of patient-reported outcomes up to 2 years after treatment (Oxford Shoulder Score [OSS]) and by analysis of tendon biopsy specimens taken 12 weeks after treatment. Results: There was no significant difference in the OSS between AA alone and AA + PRP at any time point in the study. From 12 weeks onward, there was a significant increase in the OSS for both groups compared with their baseline scores (P < .001). Bonar scoring determined no significant change in tissue structure with the coapplication of PRP compared with surgery alone. The number of blood vessels and tendon cellularity were significantly decreased in tissue biopsy specimens taken from PRP-treated patients. The expression of p53-positive apoptotic cells increased after AA + PRP but decreased after AA alone. Conclusion: Arthroscopic acromioplasty significantly improves long-term clinical outcomes up to 2 years. The coapplication of PRP did not affect clinical outcomes. PRP significantly alters the tissue characteristics in tendons after surgery with reduced cellularity and vascularity and increased levels of apoptosis. Clinical Relevance: The coapplication of PRP did not improve clinical outcomes and may have potential deleterious effects on healing tendons. Registry Number: ISRCTN 10464365

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 feasibility of performing a randomised controlled trial for femoroacetabular impingement surgery.

Objectives The number of surgical procedures performed each year to treat femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) continues to rise. Although there is evidence that surgery can improve symptoms in the short-term, there is no evidence that it slows the development of osteoarthritis (OA). We performed a feasibility study to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) comparing operative with non-operative treatment for FAI. Methods Surgeon opinion was obtained using validated questionnaires at a Specialist Hip Meeting (n = 61, 30 of whom stated that they routinely performed FAI surgery) and patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients with a new diagnosis of FAI (n = 31). Results Clinical equipoise was demonstrated when surgeons were given clinical scenarios and asked whether they would manage a patient operatively or non-operatively. A total of 23 surgeons (77%) who routinely perform FAI surgery were willing to recruit patients into a RCT, and 28 patients (90%) were willing to participate. 75% of responding surgeons believed it was appropriate to randomise patients to non-operative treatment for ≥ 12 months. Conversely, only eight patients (26%) felt this was acceptable, although 29 (94%) were willing to continue non-operative treatment for six months. More patients were concerned about their risk of developing OA than their current symptoms, although most patients felt that the two were of equal importance. Conclusions We conclude that a RCT comparing operative and non-operative management of FAI is feasible and should be considered a research priority. An important finding for orthopaedic surgical trials is that patients without life-threatening pathology appear willing to trial a treatment for six months without improvement in their symptoms.

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.

Impact of a web-based tool (WebCONSORT) to improve the reporting of randomised trials: results of a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThe CONSORT Statement is an evidence-informed guideline for reporting randomised controlled trials. A number of extensions have been developed that specify additional information to report for more complex trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of using a simple web-based tool (WebCONSORT, which incorporates a number of different CONSORT extensions) on the completeness of reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical publications.MethodsWe conducted a parallel group randomised trial. Journals which endorsed the CONSORT Statement (i.e. referred to it in the Instruction to Authors) but do not actively implement it (i.e. require authors to submit a completed CONSORT checklist) were invited to participate. Authors of randomised trials were requested by the editor to use the web-based tool at the manuscript revision stage. Authors registering to use the tool were randomised (centralised computer generated) to WebCONSORT or control. In the WebCONSORT group, they had access to a tool allowing them to combine the different CONSORT extensions relevant to their trial and generate a customised checklist and flow diagram that they must submit to the editor. In the control group, authors had only access to a CONSORT flow diagram generator. Authors, journal editors, and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of CONSORT items (main and extensions) reported in each article post revision.ResultsA total of 46 journals actively recruited authors into the trial (25 March 2013 to 22 September 2015); 324 author manuscripts were randomised (WebCONSORT n = 166; control n = 158), of which 197 were reports of randomised trials (n = 94; n = 103). Over a third (39%; n = 127) of registered manuscripts were excluded from the analysis, mainly because the reported study was not a randomised trial. Of those included in the analysis, the most common CONSORT extensions selected were non-pharmacologic (n = 43; n = 50), pragmatic (n = 20; n = 16) and cluster (n = 10; n = 9). In a quarter of manuscripts, authors either wrongly selected an extension or failed to select the right extension when registering their manuscript on the WebCONSORT study site. Overall, there was no important difference in the overall mean score between WebCONSORT (mean score 0.51) and control (0.47) in the proportion of CONSORT and CONSORT extension items reported pertaining to a given study (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI −0.02 to 0.10).ConclusionsThis study failed to show a beneficial effect of a customised web-based CONSORT checklist to help authors prepare more complete trial reports. However, the exclusion of a large number of inappropriately registered manuscripts meant we had less precision than anticipated to detect a difference. Better education is needed, earlier in the publication process, for both authors and journal editorial staff on when and how to implement CONSORT and, in particular, CONSORT-related extensions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01891448 [registered 24 May 2013].

Feasibility of surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm: a systematic review.

Objectives To find evidence, either corroborating or refuting, for many persisting beliefs regarding the feasibility of carrying out surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm, with emphasis on the challenges related to recruitment, funding, anaesthesia or blinding. Design Systematic review. Data sources and study selection The analysis involved studies published between 1959 and 2014 that were identified during an earlier systematic review of benefits and harms of placebo-controlled surgical trials published in 2014. Results 63 trials were included in the review. The main problem reported in many trials was a very slow recruitment rate, mainly due to the difficulty in finding eligible patients. Existing placebo trials were funded equally often from commercial and non-commercial sources. General anaesthesia or sedation was used in 41% of studies. Among the reviewed trials, 81% were double-blinded, and 19% were single-blinded. Across the reviewed trials, 96% (range 50–100%) of randomised patients completed the study. The withdrawal rate during the study was similar in the surgical and in the placebo groups. Conclusions This review demonstrated that placebo-controlled surgical trials are feasible, at least for procedures with a lower level of invasiveness, but also that recruitment is difficult. Many of the presumed challenges to undertaking such trials, for example, funding, anaesthesia or blinding of patients and assessors, were not reported as obstacles to completion in any of the reviewed trials.