Exercise and physical activity can improve bone strength and the risk of falls, which may offer benefits in the prevention and management of osteoporosis. However, uncertainty about the types of exercise that are safe and effective instigates lack of confidence in people with osteoporosis and health professionals. Existing guidelines leave some questions unresolved. This consensus statement aimed to determine the physical activity and exercise needed to optimise bone strength, reduce fall and fracture risk, improve posture and manage vertebral fracture symptoms, while minimising potential risks in people with osteoporosis. The scope of this statement was developed following stakeholder consultation. Meta-analyses were reviewed and where evidence was lacking, individual studies or expert opinion were used to develop recommendations. A multidisciplinary expert group reviewed evidence to make recommendations, by consensus when evidence was not available. Key recommendations are that people with osteoporosis should undertake (1) resistance and impact exercise to maximise bone strength; (2) activities to improve strength and balance to reduce falls; (3) spinal extension exercise to improve posture and potentially reduce risk of falls and vertebral fractures. For safety, we recommend avoiding postures involving a high degree of spinal flexion during exercise or daily life. People with vertebral fracture or multiple low trauma fractures should usually exercise only up to an impact equivalent to brisk walking. Those at risk of falls should start with targeted strength and balance training. Vertebral fracture symptoms may benefit from exercise to reduce pain, improve mobility and quality of life, ideally with specialist advice to encourage return to normal activities. Everyone with osteoporosis may benefit from guidance on adapting postures and movements. There is little evidence that physical activity is associated with significant harm, and the benefits, in general, outweigh the risks.

Background Vulval lichen sclerosus (VLS) is a chronic inflammatory condition predominantly affecting the anogenital skin. Symptoms can be distressing and affect quality of life and everyday activities. Very little research has been undertaken to explore the experience of living with VLS from the perspective of people with the condition. Objectives To understand individuals’ experiences of VLS and its impact on their lives. Participants and methods Semi‐structured remote (telephone or video) interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 20 women living in the UK with VLS recruited via online support groups and social media. Data collection and analysis was informed by social constructionist grounded theory, using a constant comparison method. Results We developed three themes to interpret the experience of living with VLS: missed opportunities (participants experienced delayed diagnosis, lack of information and disempowering encounters with healthcare professionals); learning to live with a long‐term condition (the amount of work involved in learning how to self‐manage the disease and the impact on everyday life); a secret life (experiences of the condition were often shrouded in secrecy, and there was stigma associated with a vulval skin condition resulting in them feeling isolated and lonely). Conclusions Patients attending healthcare appointments with vulval complaints should be examined and LS should be considered as a diagnosis. Healthcare professionals’ awareness and knowledge of VLS needs to be improved and they should avoid language which is blaming or minimizing of patients’ experiences. VLS is a chronic condition and patients need to be supported in self‐management. Support groups may be a source of support and information but can also be challenging when hearing others’ difficult experiences. Wider public health educational activities are needed to change societal attitudes towards female genitals and tackle the stigma around vulval conditions. What is already known about this topic? Vulval lichen sclerosus (VLS) can have a profound impact on quality of life and self‐identity but is relatively underexplored from the perspective of those living with the condition. What does this study add? In‐depth findings about the experiences of living with VLS including ongoing issues with timely diagnosis, learning to live with a long‐term condition and the secrecy and stigma about the condition. The needs of women with symptoms of and diagnoses of VLS are not being met sufficiently by the healthcare system. What are the clinical implications of this work? Healthcare professionals should consider addressing knowledge gaps in vulval conditions including VLS to prevent delayed diagnosis and avoid the use of certain terminology which can minimize patients’ experiences. Patients with vulval complaints should be examined and LS should be considered as a diagnosis. Regular follow‐up would reflect its chronic nature and could provide patients with reassurance and confidence in self‐management. Wid...

Introduction Knee replacement (KR) is a clinically proven procedure typically offered to patients with severe knee osteoarthritis (OA) to relieve pain and improve quality of life. However, artificial joints fail over time, requiring revision associated with higher mortality and inferior outcomes. With more young people presenting with knee OA and increasing life expectancy, there is an unmet need to postpone time to first KR. Knee joint distraction (KJD), the practice of using external fixators to open up knee joint space, is proposed as potentially effective to preserve the joint following initial studies in the Netherlands, however, has not been researched within an NHS setting. The KARDS trial will investigate whether KJD is non-inferior to KR in terms of patient-reported postoperative pain 12 months post-surgery. Methods and analysis KARDS is a phase III, multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing KJD with KR in patients with severe knee OA, employing a hybrid-expertise design, with internal pilot phase and process evaluation. 344 participants will be randomised (1:1) to KJD or KR. The primary outcome measure is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) pain domain score at 12 months post-operation. Secondary outcome measures include patient-reported overall KOOS, Pain Visual Analogue Scale and Oxford Knee Scores, knee function assessments, joint space width, complications and further interventions over 24 months post-operation. Per patient cost difference between KR and KJD and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained over 24 months will be estimated within trial, and incremental cost per QALY gained over 20 years by KJD relative to KR predicted using decision analytic modelling. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Research Authority (HRA). Trial results will be disseminated at clinical conferences, through relevant patient groups and published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT14879004;recruitment opened April 2021.