SummaryBackgroundFemoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery, including reshaping the hip, or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care.MethodsUK FASHIoN is a pragmatic, multicentre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial, done at 23 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. We enrolled patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome who presented at these hospitals. Eligible patients were at least 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology but no osteoarthritis, and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. Patients with bilateral femoroacetabular impingement syndrome were eligible; only the most symptomatic hip was randomly assigned to treatment and followed-up. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive hip arthroscopy or personalised hip therapy (an individualised, supervised, and progressive physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre and was done by research staff at each hospital, using a central telephone randomisation service. Patients and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but researchers who collected the outcome assessments and analysed the results were masked. The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, as measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed in all eligible participants who were allocated to treatment (the intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN64081839, and is closed to recruitment.FindingsBetween July 20, 2012, and July 15, 2016, we identified 648 eligible patients and recruited 348 participants: 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (319 of 348 participants). At 12 months after randomisation, mean iHOT-33 scores had improved from 39·2 (SD 20·9) to 58·8 (27·2) for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35·6 (18·2) to 49·7 (25·5) in the personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in iHOT-33 scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline iHOT-33 score, and centre, was 6·8 (95% CI 1·7–12·0) in favour of hip arthroscopy (p=0·0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6·1 points). There were 147 patient-reported adverse events (in 100 [72%] of 138 patients) in the hip arthroscopy group) versus 102 events (in 88 [60%] of 146 patients) in the personalised hip therapy group, with muscle soreness being the most common of the...
Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
Ammalife Charity and ELLY Appeal, Bart's Charity.
Background: Synovial biomarkers have recently been adopted as diagnostic tools for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but their utility is uncertain. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize the evidence on the accuracy of the alpha-defensin immunoassay and leukocyte esterase colorimetric strip test for the diagnosis of PJI compared with the Musculoskeletal Infection Society diagnostic criteria. Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify diagnostic technique studies evaluating the accuracy of alpha-defensin or leukocyte esterase in the diagnosis of PJI. MEDLINE and Embase on Ovid, ACM, ADS, arXiv, CERN DS (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire Document Server), CrossRef DOI (Digital Object Identifier), DBLP (Digital Bibliography & Library Project), Espacenet, Google Scholar, Gutenberg, HighWire, IEEE Xplore (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers digital library), INSPIRE, JSTOR (Journal Storage), OAlster (Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting), Open Content, Pubget, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for appropriate studies indexed from inception until May 30, 2015, along with unpublished or gray literature. The classification of studies and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers. Data extraction permitted meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with construction of receiver operating characteristic curves for each test. Results: We included 11 eligible studies. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of alpha-defensin (6 studies) for PJI were 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.00) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.89 to 0.99), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) for alpha-defensin and PJI was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.00). The pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of leukocyte esterase (5 studies) for PJI were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.49 to 0.95) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.99), respectively. The AUC for leukocyte esterase and PJI was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95 to 0.98). There was substantial heterogeneity among studies for both diagnostic tests. Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy for PJI was high for both tests. Given the limited number of studies and the large cost difference between the tests, more independent research on these tests is warranted. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.