No abstract

Purpose There remains controversy as to whether computernavigated total knee replacement (TKR) improves the overall prosthesis alignment and patient function. The aim of this study was to determine whether computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty provides superior prosthesis positioning when compared to a conventional jig-assisted total knee replacement and whether this affected the functional outcome. Methods This prospective, randomised controlled study compared computer navigated and conventional jig-assisted total knee replacement in 37 patients who underwent bilateral TKR. A quantitative assessment of the spatial positioning of the implant in the 74 total knee replacements was determined using a low-dose dual-beam CT scanning technique. This resulted in six parameters of alignment that were compared. Functional outcomes using the high activity arthroplasty score and Knee Society score were assessed pre-operatively, postoperatively, at three years and at five years. Patients also indicated which knee they felt was subjectively the best. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the prosthesis alignment between both groups and the number of outliers was not decreased with navigation. All function scores improved from pre-operative to postoperative but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups at five years. At five years, 40.6 % of patients thought their jigassisted knee was the better knee compared with 21.9 % their computer assisted knee and 37.5 % of patients who felt they were the same. Conclusion Computer-assisted implantation of total knee replacements does not offer a significant advantage in prosthesis alignment. There was no difference in functional outcome or subjective "best knee" between the computer-assisted or jig-assisted knee.

IntroductionThere are multiple configurations of specialist nurses working in the field of Parkinson’s. Parkinson’s Nurse Specialists (PNSs) are recognised as playing a pivotal role; however, there is little published evidence to demonstrate their effectiveness. Further evidence is needed to establish which aspects of the PNSs provide the greatest benefit to people with Parkinson’s and their families, and the cost-effectiveness of different models of care.Methods and analysisRealist approaches explain how and why programmes work (or not) through striving to answer the question: what works, for whom and under what circumstances. This research uses a realist evaluation and aims to integrate an economic analysis within the realist framework. We refer to this as ‘realist economic evaluation’. It comprises four phases: (1) developing resource-sensitive initial programme theories (IPTs) using surveys to gain a better understanding of the role and impact (costs and benefits) of the PNSs; (2) testing the IPTs through qualitative interviews and quantitative data analysis; (3) evaluating the cost and resource use implications alongside the benefits associated with the role of the PNSs and (4) iteratively refining the IPTs throughout the project. The IPTs will draw on both quantitative and qualitative data. The result of the study will be a series of refined programme theories, which will explain how specialist nurses work in the field of Parkinson’s in the UK, what impact they have on people with Parkinson’s and their families and carers, and at what cost.Ethics and disseminationNorthumbria University, the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales have approved this study. Key findings will be disseminated throughout the duration of the project online and through social media, and via annual and regional Parkinson’s meetings and the Parkinson’s UK Excellence Network. Academic dissemination will occur through publication and conference presentations.

No abstract