Proactive geriatrics consultation was successfully implemented with good adherence after hip-fracture repair. Geriatrics consultation reduced delirium by over one-third, and reduced severe delirium by over one-half. Our trial provides strong preliminary evidence that proactive geriatrics consultation may play an important role in the acute hospital management of hip-fracture patients.

No abstract

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01583153.

No abstract

BackgroundThe 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is a commonly used metric for measuring change in mobility after knee arthroplasty, however, what is considered an improvement after surgery has not been defined. The determination of important change in an outcome assessment tool is controversial and may require more than one approach. This study, nested within a combined randomised and observational trial, aimed to define a minimal important improvement threshold for the 6MWT in a knee arthroplasty cohort through a triangulation of methods including patient-perceived anchor-based thresholds and distribution-based thresholds.MethodsIndividuals with osteoarthritis performed a 6MWT pre-arthroplasty then at 10 and 26 weeks post-surgery. Each rated their perceived improvement in mobility post-surgery on a 7-point transition scale anchored from “much better” to “much worse”. Based on these responses the cohort was dichotomised into ‘improved’ and ‘not improved’. The thresholds for patient-perceived improvements were then identified using two receiver operating curve methods producing sensitivity and specificity indices. Distribution-based change thresholds were determined using two methods utilising effect size (ES). Agreement between the anchor- and distribution-based methods was assessed using kappa.ResultsOne hundred fifty-eight from 166 participants in the randomised cohort and 222 from 243 in the combined randomised and observational cohort were included at 10 and 26 weeks, respectively. The slightly or more patient-perceived improvement threshold at 26 weeks (an absolute improvement of 26 m) was the only one to demonstrate sensitivity and specificity results both better than chance. At 10- and 26-weeks, the ES based on the mean change score divided by the baseline standard deviation (SD), was an absolute change of 24.5 and 37.9 m, respectively. The threshold based on a moderate ES (a 0.5 SD of the baseline score) was a change of 55.0 and 55.4 m at 10- and 26-weeks, respectively. The level of agreement between the 26-week anchor-based and distribution-based minimal absolute changes was very good (k = 0.88 (95 % CI 0.81 0.95)).ConclusionA valid threshold of improvement for the 6MWT can only be proposed for changes identified from baseline to 26 weeks post-surgery. The level of agreement between anchor- and distribution-based methods indicates that a true minimal or more threshold of meaningful improvement following surgery is likely within the ranges proposed by the triangulation of all four methods, that is, 26 to 55 m.

BackgroundArthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is extensively used to relieve pain in patients with symptomatic meniscal tear (MT) and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Recent studies have failed to show the superiority of APM compared to other treatments. We aim to examine whether existing evidence is sufficient to reject use of APM as a cost-effective treatment for MT+OA.MethodsWe built a patient-level microsimulation using Monte Carlo methods and evaluated three strategies: Physical therapy (‘PT’) alone; PT followed by APM if subjects continued to experience pain (‘Delayed APM’); and ‘Immediate APM’. Our subject population was US adults with symptomatic MT and knee OA over a 10 year time horizon. We assessed treatment outcomes using societal costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incorporating productivity costs as a sensitivity analysis. We also conducted a value-of-information analysis using probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsCalculated ICERs were estimated to be $12,900/QALY for Delayed APM as compared to PT and $103,200/QALY for Immediate APM as compared to Delayed APM. In sensitivity analyses, inclusion of time costs made Delayed APM cost-saving as compared to PT. Improving efficacy of Delayed APM led to higher incremental costs and lower incremental effectiveness of Immediate APM in comparison to Delayed APM. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that PT had 3.0% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY. Delayed APM was cost effective 57.7% of the time at WTP = $50,000/QALY and 50.2% at WTP = $100,000/QALY. The probability of Immediate APM being cost-effective did not exceed 50% unless WTP exceeded $103,000/QALY.ConclusionsWe conclude that current cost-effectiveness evidence does not support unqualified rejection of either Immediate or Delayed APM for the treatment of MT+OA. The amount to which society would be willing to pay for additional information on treatment outcomes greatly exceeds the cost of conducting another randomized controlled trial on APM.

Background: Retrospective studies have found that daily opioid use pre-arthroplasty predicts worse longer-term service, clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these observations. This prospective, exploratory study aimed to determine: the proportion of total knee or hip arthroplasty (TKA, THA) patients who use opioids regularly (daily) pre-surgery; if opioid use pre-surgery is associated with acute and subacute outcomes to 12-weeks post-surgery. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing primary TKA or THA were prospectively enrolled pre-surgery and followed-up by telephone to 12-weeks post-surgery. Acute-care (oral morphine equivalent dosage (OMED), length of stay, discharge to inpatient rehabilitation, complications) and 12-week outcomes (Oxford Knee or Hip Score, Euroqol 'today' health score, current use of opioids, and complications including readmissions) were monitored. Unadjusted and adjusted Odds Ratios (ORs) (95% Confidence Interval, CI), Rate Ratios and β coefficients (standard error) were calculated. Results: Five Hundred Twenty-One patients were included (TKA n = 381). 15.7% (95%CI 12.6 to 18.9) used opioids regularly pre-surgery. 86.8% (452/521) were available for follow-up at 12-weeks. In unadjusted analyses, pre-surgical opioid use was significantly associated with higher average acute daily OMED [β 0.40 (0.07), p < 0.001], presence of an acute complication [OR 1.75 (1.02 to 3.00)], and ongoing use of opioids at 12-weeks [OR 5.06 (2.86 to 8.93)]. After adjusting for covariates, opioid use pre-surgery remained significantly associated with average acute daily OMED [β 0.40 (0.07), p < 0.001] and ongoing use at 12-weeks [OR 5.38 (2.89 to 9.99)]. Conclusion: People who take daily opioids pre-surgery have significantly greater odds for greater opioid consumption acutely and ongoing use post-surgery. Adequately powered prospective studies are required to confirm whether pre-surgical opioid use is or is not associated with poorer joint and quality of life scores or a complication in the short-term.

No abstract