Targeted rehabilitation to improve outcome after total knee replacement (TRIO): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Trials

Gordon D Murray⁷  Gary J Macfarlane⁵  Andrew Stoddard³  Chris Tuck³  James D Hutchison⁸  Timothy Wilton⁶  Karen L Barker⁴  David J Beard¹  David F Hamilton²  A Hamish RW Simpson² 

[1] Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK;Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4SB, UK;Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, UK;Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford OX3 7HE, UK;Epidemiology Group, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK;Department of Orthopaedics, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby DE22 3NE, UK;Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK;Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK

关键词: Stratified treatment;    Rehabilitation;    Outcomes;    Total knee replacement;   

Others  :  807520
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-15-44

 received in 2013-12-04, accepted in 2014-01-16,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Approximately 20% of patients are not satisfied with the outcome of total knee replacement, great volumes of which are carried out yearly. Physiotherapy is often provided by the NHS to address dysfunction following knee replacement; however the efficacy of this is unknown. Although clinically it is accepted that therapy is useful, provision of physiotherapy to all patients post-operatively does not enhance outcomes at one year. No study has previously assessed the effect of targeting therapy to individuals struggling to recover in the early post-operative phase.

The aim of the TRIO study is to determine whether stratifying care by targeting physiotherapy to those individuals performing poorly following knee replacement is effective in improving the one year outcomes. We are also investigating whether the structure of the physiotherapy provision itself influences outcomes.

Methods/Design

The study is a multi-centre prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) of patients undergoing primary total knee replacement, with treatment targeted at those deemed most susceptible to gain from it. Use of the national PROMS programme for pre-operative data collection allows us to screen all patients at initial post-operative clinical review, and recruit only those deemed to be recovering slowly.

We aim to recruit 440 patients through various NHS orthopaedic centres who will undergo six weeks of physiotherapy. The intervention will be either ‘intensive’ involving both hospital and home-based functional exercise rehabilitation, or ‘standard of care’ consisting of home exercises. Patients will be randomised to either group using a web-based system. Both groups will receive pre and post-intervention physiotherapy review. Patients will be followed-up to one year post-operation. The primary outcome measure is the Oxford Knee Score. Secondary outcomes are patient satisfaction, functional ability, pain scores and cost-effectiveness.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN23357609. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01849445.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Simpson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Seventh Annual Report: Seventh Annual Report. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk webcite
• [2]Culliford DJ, Maskell J, Kiran A, Judge A, Javaid MK, Cooper C, Arden NK: The lifetime risk of total hip and knee arthroplasty: results from the UK general practice research database. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012, 20:519-524.
• [3]Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P, Patton JT, Macdonald D, Simpson AH, Howie CR: What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4,709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open 2013, 9:3(4).
• [4]Hamilton DF, Henderson GR, Gaston P, MacDonald D, Howie C, Simpson AH: Comparative outcomes of total hip and knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Postgrad Med J 2012, 88:627-631.
• [5]Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L: Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 22,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 2000, 71:262-267.
• [6]Baker PM, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Greggs PJ: The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2007, 89:893-900.
• [7]Minns Lowe C, Barker KL, Dewey M, Sackley CM: Effectiveness of physiotherapy exercise after knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br Med J 2007, 335:812-815.
• [8]Khan F, Ng L, Gonzalez S, Hale T, Turner-Stokes L: Multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes following joint replacement at the hip and knee in chronic arthropathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 Apr 16., 2CD004957 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004957.pub3
• [9]Mitchell C, Walker J, Walters S, Morgan AB, Binns T, Mathers N: Cost and effectiveness of pre and post-operative home physiotherapy for total knee replacement: randomised controlled trial. J Eval Clin Pract 2005, 11:283-292.
• [10]Briggs AH, Willan AR, Hoch JS, Glick HA: Dancing with the Devil: the Importance of Subgroup Analysis in Economic Evaluation. Health Economists’ Study Group conference proceedings: Norwich; 2002.
• [11]McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer A: The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold - what it is and what it means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26:733-744.
• [12]Rothwell AG, Hooper GJ, Hobbs A, Frampton CM: An analysis of the Oxford hip and knee scores and their relationship to early joint revision in the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2010, 92:413-418.
• [13]Johnston L, MacLennan G, McCormack K, Ramsay C, Walker A, Campbell M, Fiddan N, Fitzpatrick R, Grant A, Gray A, Morris R, Murray D, Rowley D: The KAT Trail group: the Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT) design features, baseline characteristics, and two-year functional outcomes after alternative approaches to knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91:134-141.
• [14]Garrat AM, Brealey S, Gillespie WJ: Patient assessed health instruments for the knee: a structured review. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004, 43:1414-1423.
• [15]Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A: Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1998, 80:63-69.
• [16]Murray D, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard D, Carr A, Dawson J: The use of the Oxford hip and knee score. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2007, 89:1010-1014.
• [17]van Koff M, Jensen M, Karloy P: Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research. Spine 2000, 24:3140-3151.
• [18]Jensen M, Turner L, Turner J, Romano JM: Use of multiple-item scale for pain intensity measurement in chronic pain patients. Pain 1996, 67:35-40.
• [19]Perrot S, Rozenberg S, Moyse D, Legout V, Marty M: Comparison of daily, weekly or monthly pain assessments in hip and knee osteoarthritis. A 29-day prospective study. Joint Bone Spine 2011, 78:510-515.
• [20]Bischoff HA, Stähelin HB, Monsch AU, Iversen MD, Weyh A, von Dechend M, Akos R, Conzelmann M, Dick W, Theiler R: Identifying a cut-off point for normal mobility: a comparison of the timed ‘up and go’ test in community-dwelling and institutionalised elderly women. Age Ageing 2003, 32:315-320.
• [21]Ng SS, Hui-Chan CW: The Timed up and go test: its reliability and association with lower limb impairments and locomotor capacities in people with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005, 86:1641-1647.
• [22]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf webcite
• [23]Brooks R: EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996, 37:53-72.
• [24]Piva SR, Gil AB, Almeida GJ, DiGioia AM 3rd, Levison TJ, Fitzgerald GK: A balance exercise program appears to improve function for patients with total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther 2010, 90:880-894.
• [25]Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQoL health states. Med Care 1997, 35:1095-1108.
• [26]Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polski D: Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.