Awaiting Joint Replacement Surgery Research Articles

Cardiometabolic disease risk in relation to objectively measured physical activity, sedentary behaviour in South African adults with knee and hip osteoarthritis

Purpose This study aimed to investigate the relationship between cardiometabolic disease risk and time spent in device-measured activity behaviours in a cohort of people with advanced osteoarthritis (OA) awaiting joint replacement surgery. Materials and methods Cardiometabolic risk biomarkers were assessed in people with OA (n = 96; hip n = 38, knee n = 58; mean (SD) age = 64.3 (9.8) years; 71% female). Physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) were measured by accelerometer over seven days (24 h/day). Results There were similar patterns of PA and SB between the hip and knee OA participants except for total number of steps (hip = 3365 (2926) vs knee 4344 (2836) steps/day; p = 0.018) and total stepping time (hip = 50.8 (38.2) vs knee = 67.2 (38.5) min/day; p = 0.005). Each additional cardiometabolic risk factor accumulated was associated with a 26.3 min/day increase in sedentary behaviour (p = 0.032; 95% CI: 2.3, 50.2), a 26.3 min/day decrease in upright time (p = 0.032; −50.2, –2.3) and a 23.6 min/day decrease in standing time (p = 0.032; −45.1, –2.1). Conclusions In people with hip or knee OA, increased cardiometabolic disease risk was associated with more sitting and less upright and standing time. Findings support targeting reductions in sedentary behaviour for improvements in cardiometabolic health in people with osteoarthritis. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION Knee and hip osteoarthritis is a condition which is associated with an increased risk of cardiometabolic disease but also due to the low levels of physical activity and high levels of sedentary behaviour. Offsetting sedentary behaviour with light physical activity offers a feasible interventional target to reduce the risk of cardiometabolic disease in people with hip and knee osteoarthritis.

PREDICTING TRANSFUSION REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIMARY HIP AND KNEE ARTHROPLASTY: DESIGNING A REGIONAL SERVICE FOR HIGH-VOLUME ARTHROPLASTY SURGERY

Extended patient waiting lists for assessment and treatment are widely reported for planned elective joint replacement surgery. The development of regionally based Elective Orthopaedic Centres, separate from units that provide acute, urgent or trauma care has been suggested as one solution to provide protected capacity and patient pathways. These centres will adopt protocolised care to allow high volume activity and increased day-case care. We report the plan to establish a new elective orthopaedic centre serving a population of 2.4 million people. A census conducted in 2022 identified that 15000 patients were awaiting joint replacement surgery with predictions for further increases in waiting timesThe principle of care will be to offer routine primary arthroplasty surgery for low risk (ASA 1 and 2) patients at a new regional centre. Pre-operative assessment and preparation will be undertaken digitally, virtually and/or in person at local centres close to the where patients live. This requires new and integrated pathways and ways of working. Predicting which patients will require perioperative transfusion of blood products is an important safety and quality consideration for new pathways. We reviewed all cases of hip and knee arthroplasty surgery conducted at our centre over a 12-month period and identified pre-operative patient related predictive factors to allow us to predict the need for the perioperative transfusion of blood products.We examined patient sex, age, pre-operative haemaglobin and platelet count, use of anti-coagulants, weight and body mass index to allow us to construct the Imperial blood transfusion tool.We have used the results of our study and the transfusion tool to propose the patient pathway for the new regional elective orthopaedic centre which we present.

Symptom management for patients awaiting joint replacement surgery.

Joint replacement surgery is a highly effective treatment option for patients with severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee when other treatments have failed. Unfortunately, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a temporary suspension of non-urgent elective surgery was implemented. Thousands of patients currently awaiting hip and knee replacements have been affected. Many of these patients will present to their general practitioners for symptom management during this interim period. The purpose of this article is to summarise current recommendations forthe non-operative management of patients with symptomatic OA. Non-operative treatment modalities for OA include education, lifestyle modification and exercise, mass reduction, physiotherapy, orthoses, psychology, pharmaceuticals and injections. Multimodal therapy is required for patients with severe symptoms. A number of useful online resources are presented, as access to public allied health services may be limited because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ibalance osteotomy in early treatment of osteoarthritis

Ibalance osteotomy in early treatment of osteoarthritis

An investigation of the validity of six measures of physical function in people awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee

Objective: To assess and compare the validity of six physical function measures in people awaiting hip or knee joint replacement. Design: Eighty-two people awaiting hip or knee replacement were assessed using six physical function measures including the WOMAC Function scale, SF-36 Physical Function scale, SF-36 Physical Component Summary scale, Patient Specific Functional Scale, 30-second chair stand test, and 50-foot timed walk. Validity was assessed using a head-to-head comparison design. Results: Convergent validity was demonstrated with significant correlations between most measures (Spearman’s rho 0.22 to 0.71). The Patient Specific Functional Scale had the lowest correlations with other measures of physical function. Discriminant validity was demonstrated with low correlations between mental health and physical function scores (Spearman’s rho −0.12 to 0.33). Only the WOMAC Function scale, 30-second chair stand test, and 50-foot timed walk demonstrated known groups validity when scores for participants who walked with a gait aid were compared with those who did not. Standardized response means and Guyatt’s responsiveness indexes indicated that the SF-36 was the least responsive measure. Conclusions: For those awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee, the current investigation found that the WOMAC Function scale, 30-second chair stand test, and 50-foot timed walk demonstrated the most evidence of validity. The Patient Specific Functional Scale might complement other measures by capturing a different aspect of physical function.

Practice, practitioner, or placebo? A multifactorial, mixed-methods randomized controlled trial of acupuncture

The nonspecific effects of acupuncture are well documented; we wished to quantify these factors in osteoarthritic (OA) pain, examining needling, the consultation, and the practitioner. In a prospective randomised, single-blind, placebo-controlled, multifactorial, mixed-methods trial, 221 patients with OA awaiting joint replacement surgery were recruited. Interventions were acupuncture, Streitberger placebo acupuncture, and mock electrical stimulation, each with empathic or nonempathic consultations. Interventions involved eight 30-minute treatments over 4 weeks. The primary outcome was pain (VAS) at 1 week posttreatment. Face-to-face qualitative interviews were conducted (purposive sample, 27 participants). Improvements occurred from baseline for all interventions with no significant differences between real and placebo acupuncture (mean difference −2.7 mm, 95% confidence intervals −9.0 to 3.6; P = .40) or mock stimulation (−3.9, −10.4 to 2.7; P = .25). Empathic consultations did not affect pain (3.0 mm, −2.2 to 8.2; P = .26) but practitioner 3 achieved greater analgesia than practitioner 2 (10.9, 3.9 to 18.0; P = .002). Qualitative analysis indicated that patients’ beliefs about treatment veracity and confidence in outcomes were reciprocally linked. The supportive nature of the trial attenuated differences between the different consultation styles. Improvements occurred from baseline, but acupuncture has no specific efficacy over either placebo. The individual practitioner and the patient’s belief had a significant effect on outcome. The 2 placebos were equally as effective and credible as acupuncture. Needle and nonneedle placebos are equivalent. An unknown characteristic of the treating practitioner predicts outcome, as does the patient’s belief (independently). Beliefs about treatment veracity shape how patients self-report outcome, complicating and confounding study interpretation.

Land-Based Versus Pool-Based Exercise for People Awaiting Joint Replacement Surgery of the Hip or Knee: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Gill SD, McBurney H, Schulz DL. Land-based versus pool-based exercise for people awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee: results of a randomized controlled trial. Objective To compare the preoperative effects of multidimensional land-based and pool-based exercise programs for people awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee. Design Randomized, single-blind, before-after trial. Setting Physiotherapy gymnasium and hydrotherapy pool. Participants Patients awaiting elective hip or knee joint replacement surgery. Interventions Land-based (n=40) or pool-based exercise program (n=42). Each 6-week program included an education session, twice-weekly exercise classes, and an occupational therapy home assessment. Main Outcome Measures Participants were assessed immediately before and after the 6-week intervention, then 8 weeks later. Primary outcomes were pain and self-reported function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) and patient global assessment. Secondary outcomes were performance-based measures (timed walk and chair stand) and psychosocial status (Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey mental component score). Pain was also measured before and after each exercise class on a 7-point verbal rating scale. Results Although both interventions were effective in reducing pain and improving function, there were no postintervention differences between the groups for the primary and secondary outcomes. However, the pool-based group had less pain immediately after the exercise classes. Conclusions While our multidimensional exercise-based interventions appeared to be effective in reducing disability in those awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee, there were no large differences in the postintervention effects of the interventions. However, pool-based exercise appeared to have a more favorable effect on pain immediately after the exercise classes.

Efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol immediate release and oxycodone HCl immediate release in patients awaiting primary joint replacement surgery for end-stage joint disease: A 10-day, phase III, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol immediate release (IR) in patients who were candidates for joint replacement surgery due to end-stage joint disease. A secondary objective was to compare tapentadol IR with oxycodone HCl IR with respect to efficacy and prespecified tolerability end points. Methods: This 10-day, Phase III, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol IR, oxycodone HCl IR, and placebo in patients with uncontrolled osteoarthritis pain who were candidates for primary replacement of the hip or knee as a result of end-stage degenerative joint disease. Patients received tapentadol IR 50 mg, tapentadol IR 75 mg, oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg, or placebo every 4 to 6 hours during waking hours. The primary end point was the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over 5 days. Secondary efficacy end points included 2- and 10-day SPID; 2-, 5-, and 10-day total pain relief (TOTPAR); and the sum of total pain relief and pain intensity difference (SPRID). Prespecified noninferiority comparisons with oxycodone HCl IR were performed with respect to efficacy (based on 5-day SPID) and tolerability (based on incidence of the reported adverse events (AEs) of nausea and/or vomiting and constipation). Results: Of 666 patients originally enrolled, 659 were included in the efficacy analysis (51% male; 91% white; mean age, 61.2 years; mean weight, 97 kg). Five-day SPID was significantly lower in those treated with tapentadol IR (tapentadol IR 50 mg: least squares mean difference [LSMD] = 101.2 [95% CI, 54.58- 147.89]; tapentadol IR 75 mg: LSMD = 97.5 [95% CI, 51.81-143.26]) or oxycodone HCl IR (LSMD = 111.9 [95% CI, 66.49-157.38]) (all, P < 0.001). Tapentadol IR 50 and 75 mg and oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg were associated with significant reductions in pain intensity compared with placebo, based on 2- and 10-day SPID and 2-, 5-, and 10-day TOTPAR and SPRID (all, P < 0.001). The efficacy of tapentadol IR 50 and 75 mg was noninferior to that of oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg; however, the incidence of selected gastrointestinal AEs (nausea, vomiting, and constipation) was significantly lower for both doses of tapentadol IR compared with oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg (nominal P < 0.001). The odds ratios for nausea and/or vomiting for tapentadol IR 50 and 75 mg relative to oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg were 0.21 (95% CI, 0.128-0.339) and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.204-0.501), respectively; for constipation, the corresponding odds ratios were 0.13 (95% CI, 0.057-0.302) and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.098-0.398). Rates of treatment discontinuation were 18% (28/157) in the tapentadol IR 50-mg group, 26% (43/168) in the tapentadol IR 75-mg group, 35% (60/172) in the oxycodone HCl IR 10-mg group, and 10% (17/169) in the placebo group. In a post hoc analysis, tapentadol IR 50 mg was associated with a significantly lower incidence of treatment discontinuation than was oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: In these patients with uncontrolled osteoarthritis pain who were awaiting joint replacement surgery, tapentadol IR 50 and 75 mg were associated with analgesia that was noninferior to that provided by oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg. Tapentadol treatment was associated with improved gastrointestinal tolerability. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00361582.

Reliability of performance‐based measures in people awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee

Understanding the reliability of selected measurement tools is a prerequisite to understanding the effects of clinical interventions. The aim of this investigation was to determine the reliability of the 50-Foot Timed Walk (50 FTW) and 30-second Chair Stand Test (30 CST) in subjects awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee. Eighty-two subjects participating in a 6-week exercise programme were assessed at baseline, 7 weeks and 15 weeks. Four trials of the 50 FTW and two trials of the 30 CST were completed at each assessment. Eleven trained assessors completed the assessments. Intra-class correlations were consistently high for the 50 FTW and 30 CST at all assessments. At the baseline assessment, trial 1 was found to be significantly different from subsequent trials for both the 50 FTW and 30 CST. This effect was not evident at the 7-week and 15-week assessments. At the baseline assessment, scores for the 50 FTW became stable after the first trial. Estimates of minimum detectable change indicated that participants needed to change by more than 3.08 seconds and 1.64 stands to be 90% confident that a real change had occurred for the 50 FTW and 30 CST, respectively. The 50 FTW and 30 CST can be reliable measures of physical performance. However, because we found a practice effect at the baseline assessment, a practice trial should be allowed before data collection begins. Because only two trials of the 30 CST were completed, further research is required to confirm whether scores at the initial assessment become stable on repeated testing.

Analgesic effectiveness of celecoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip requiring joint replacement surgery: a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, double-dummy, noninferiority study

Background: The hip is the second most common large joint that is affected by osteoarthritis (OA), with prevalence ranging from 3% to 11% in patients aged ≥35 years. OA is often associated with significant pain, disability, and impaired quality of life. Treatment should be tailored according to the level of pain, disability, and handicap. Pharmacologic treatment options for hip OA include acetaminophen (recommended by the European League Against Rheumatism as a first-line treatment), NSAIDs such as diclofenac, and cyclooxygenase-2-selective NSAIDs such as celecoxib. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether celecoxib 200 mg QD is noninferior to diclofenac 50 mg TID in the treatment of OA of the hip. Methods: This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, double-dummy, noninferiority study conducted at 40 centers in the United Kingdom. Patients with OA flare at baseline (determined by visual analog scale [VAS] measurement of ≥40 to <90 mm and patient's and physician's global assessments of arthritis ratings of “poor” or “very poor”) and awaiting joint replacement surgery were randomized to receive celecoxib QD or diclofenac TID. Patients were excluded if surgery was anticipated within 8 weeks. The United Kingdom National Health Service initiatives on waiting-list times caused a reduction in the number of potential patients available for participation. Therefore, the study protocol was amended such that change from baseline to week 6 (as opposed to week 12) in the patient's assessment of arthritis pain on walking, measured by VAS (0-100 mm), was the primary outcome. Primary analysis was carried out on the evaluable population (subjects with baseline and week 6 arthritis pain on walking VAS scores and no major protocol deviations). Celecoxib was declared noninferior to diclofenac if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference (celecoxib vs diclofenac) in the mean change from baseline in VAS did not exceed 10 mm. Tolerability was assessed by the documentation of observed and volunteered adverse events (AEs), physical examination findings, sitting blood pressure, and pulse at screening and at the end of the study (week 12 or early withdrawal). Results: A total of 249 patients aged ≥45 years were randomized to treatment. There were 126 patients in the celecoxib group and 123 patients in the diclofenac group. One patient in the celecoxib group did not receive any treatment and was excluded from analysis. Additionally, 54 patients in the celecoxib group and 45 patients in the diclofenac group discontinued treatment due to AEs and/or lack of treatment effectiveness. Therefore, 71 patients in the celecoxib group and 78 patients in the diclofenac group completed the study. No significant differences in demographic characteristics were observed between treatment groups. The mean (SD) age was 64.0 (9.0) years, 53.9% (76/141) of the patients were men and 46.1% (65/141) were women, and 99.3% (140/141) were white. At weeks 6 and 12, the patient's assessment of arthritis pain on walking (VAS) improved in both groups (-20.0 [23.6] mm in the celecoxib group and This work was presented in poster form at the European Federation of the International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters 5th Congress, September 13-16, 2006, Istanbul, Turkey. Accepted for publication November 28, 2007. -35 [27.0] mm in the diclofenac group [mean treatment difference, 14.4 mm; 95% CI, 6.1 to 22.7]). However, treatment differences in change from baseline favored diclofenac at week 6 (14.4 mm; 95% CI, 6.1 to 22.7) and week 12 (12.2 mm; 95% CI, 2.2 to 22.1). A post hoc analysis, performed after unblinding due to an imbalance in the numbers of patients previously receiving NSAIDs, found a greater treatment difference at week 6 between celecoxib and diclofenac in arthritis pain, favoring diclofenac, in previous nonusers of NSAIDs (n = 49, 18.6 mm; 95% CI, 4.5 to 32.8) compared with previous NSAID users (n = 92, 9.5 mm; 95% CI, -0.4 to 19.3). Celecoxib and diclofenac were generally well tolerated. A similar proportion of patients in both treatment groups experienced AEs (all causality): 67/125 of celecoxib-treated patients (53.6%) compared with 66/123 of diclofenac-treated patients (53.7%). Conclusion: This study did not demonstrate nonin-feriority of celecoxib 200 mg QD to diclofenac 50 mg TID in treating arthritis pain in patients with OA of the hip requiring joint replacement.

P.5.044 Psychological features of patients withmigraine

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol immediate release (IR) in patients who were candidates for joint replacement surgery due to end-stage joint disease. A secondary objective was to compare tapentadol IR with oxycodone HCl IR with respect to efficacy and prespecified tolerability end points.Methods: This 10-day, Phase III, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol IR, oxycodone HCl IR, and placebo in patients with uncontrolled osteoarthritis pain who were candidates for primary replacement of the hip or knee as a result of end-stage degenerative joint disease. Patients received tapentadol IR 50 mg, tapentadol IR 75 mg, oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg, or placebo every 4 to 6 hours during waking hours. The primary end point was the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over 5 days. Secondary efficacy end points included 2- and 10-day SPID; 2-, 5-, and 10-day total pain relief (TOTPAR); and the sum of total pain relief and pain intensity difference (SPRID). Prespecified noninferiority comparisons with oxycodone HCl IR were performed with respect to efficacy (based on 5-day SPID) and tolerability (based on incidence of the reported adverse events (AEs) of nausea and/or vomiting and constipation).Results: Of 666 patients originally enrolled, 659 were included in the efficacy analysis (51% male; 91% white; mean age, 61.2 years; mean weight, 97 kg). Five-day SPID was significantly lower in those treated with tapentadol IR (tapentadol IR 50 mg: least squares mean difference [LSMD] = 101.2 [95% CI, 54.58- 147.89]; tapentadol IR 75 mg: LSMD = 97.5 [95% CI, 51.81-143.26]) or oxycodone HCl IR (LSMD = 111.9 [95% CI, 66.49-157.38]) (all, P < 0.001). Tapentadol IR 50 and 75 mg and oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg were associated with significant reductions in pain intensity compared with placebo, based on 2- and 10-day SPID and 2-, 5-, and 10-day TOTPAR and SPRID (all, P < 0.001). The efficacy of tapentadol IR 50 and 75 mg was noninferior to that of oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg; however, the incidence of selected gastrointestinal AEs (nausea, vomiting, and constipation) was significantly lower for both doses of tapentadol IR compared with oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg (nominal P < 0.001). The odds ratios for nausea and/or vomiting for tapentadol IR 50 and 75 mg relative to oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg were 0.21 (95% CI, 0.128-0.339) and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.204-0.501), respectively; for constipation, the corresponding odds ratios were 0.13 (95% CI, 0.057-0.302) and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.098-0.398). Rates of treatment discontinuation were 18% (28/157) in the tapentadol IR 50-mg group, 26% (43/168) in the tapentadol IR 75-mg group, 35% (60/172) in the oxycodone HCl IR 10-mg group, and 10% (17/169) in the placebo group. In a post hoc analysis, tapentadol IR 50 mg was associated with a significantly lower incidence of treatment discontinuation than was oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg (P < 0.001).Conclusions: In these patients with uncontrolled osteoarthritis pain who were awaiting joint replacement surgery, tapentadol IR 50 and 75 mg were associated with analgesia that was noninferior to that provided by oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg. Tapentadol treatment was associated with improved gastrointestinal tolerability. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00361582.