Objectives

We aimed first to summarise minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) after total hip (THR) or knee replacement (TKR) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Secondly, we aimed to improve the precision of MCID estimates by means of meta-analysis.

For clinical movement analysis, optical marker-based motion capture is the gold standard. With the advancement of AI-driven computer vision, markerless motion capture (MMC) has emerged. Validity against the marker-based standard has only been examined for lightly-dressed subjects as required for marker placement. This pilot study investigates how different clothing affects the measurement of typical gait metrics. Gait tests at self-selected speed (4 km/h) were performed on a treadmill (Motek Grail), captured by 9 cameras (Qualisys Miqus, 720p, f=100Hz) and analyzed by a leading MMC application (Theia, Canada). A healthy subject (female, h=164cm, m=54kg) donned clothes between trials starting from lightly dressed (LD: bicycle tight, short-sleeved shirt), adding a short skirt (SS: hip occlusion) or a midi-skirt (MS: partial knee occlusion) or street wear (SW: jeans covering ankle, long-sleeved blouse), the lattern combined with a short jacket (SWJ) or a long coat (SWC). Gait parameters (mean±SD, t=10s) calculated (left leg, mid-stance) were ankle pronation (AP-M), knee flexion (KF-M), pelvic obliquity (PO-M) and trunk lateral lean (TL-M) representing clinically common metrics, different joints and anatomic planes. Four repetitions of the base style (LD) were compared to states of increased garment coverage using the t-test (Bonferroni correction). For most gait metrics, differences between the light dress (LD) and various clothing styles were absent (p>0.0175), small (< 2SD) or below the minimal clinically important differences (MCID). For instance, KF-M was for LD=10.5°±1.7 versus MD=12.0°±0.5 (p=0.07) despite partial knee cover. AP-M measured for LD=5.2°±0.6 versus SW=4.1°±0.7 (p<0.01) despite ankle cover-up. The difference for KF-M between LD=10.5°±1.7 versus SWL=6.0°±0.9, SW and SWJ (7.6°±1.5, p<0.01) indicates more intra-subject gait variability than clothing effect. This study suggests that typical clothings styles only have a small clinically possibly negligible effect on common gait parameters measured with MMC. Thus, patients may not need to change clothes or be instructed to wear specific garments. In addition to avoiding marker placement, this further increases speed, ease and economy of clinical gait analysis with MMC facilitating high volume or routine application

Introduction and Objective. Evidence in literature is contradicting regarding outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) and whether they are inferior to TKA in primary osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this review was to find out if any difference exists in the results of TKA between the two indications. Materials and Methods. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Collaboration, and PubMed were searched and screened in duplicate for relevant studies. The selected studies were further subjected to quality assessment using the modified Coleman method. The primary outcome measure was patient reported outcome, and secondary outcome measures were infection, revision, stiffness, and patella tendon rupture. Results. A total of 18 studies involved 1129 patients with a mean age of 60.6 years (range 45.7–69) and follow up of 6.3 years. The time interval from index injury to TKA was 9.1 years. Knee Society Score (KSS) in PTOA reported in 12/18 studies showed functional improvement from 42.5 to 70 post-TKA exceeding minimally clinically important difference. In TKA for primary OA vs PTOA, deep peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) was reported in 1.9% vs 5.4% of patients, whilst revision of prosthesis at an average of 6 years post-operatively was performed in 2.6 vs 9.7% of patients. Conclusions. TKA is a successful treatment option for PTOA. However, the risk of significant complications like PJI and implant failure requiring revision is higher than primary OA cases. Patients should be counselled about those risks. Further well-designed comparative cohort-matched studies are needed to compare outcomes between the two populations

Introduction and Objective. Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a frequent disease for which therapeutic possibilities are limited. In current recommendations, the first-line analgesic is acetaminophen. However, low efficacy of acetaminophen, frequently leads to the use of weak opioids (WO) despite their poor tolerance, especially in elderly patients. The primary objective was to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of a new wearable transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (W-TENS) to weak opioids (WO) in the treatment of moderate to severe, nociceptive, chronic pain in knee osteoarthritis patients. Materials and Methods. ArthroTENS study is a phase 3, non-inferiority, multicentric, prospective, randomized, single-blinded for primary efficacy outcome, controlled, in 2-parallel groups, clinical study comparing W-TENS versus WO over a 3-month controlled period with an additional, optional, non-controlled, 3-month follow-up for patients in W-TENS group. The co-primary outcome was KOA pain intensity (PI) at month 3 and the number of adverse events (AEs) over 3 months. Results. The non-inferiority of W-TENS was demonstrated in both the PP and ITT populations. At M3, PI in PP population was 3.87 (2.12) compared to 4.66 (2.37) (delta: −0.79 (0.44); 95% CI (−1.65; 0.08)) in W-TENS and WO groups, respectively. Since the absolute value of the 95% CI of the between-treatments mean PI difference [−1.71, – 0.12] was above 0 in ITT set, the planned superiority analysis was performed, demonstrating that W-TENS was significantly superior to WO at M3 (P=0.0124). At M1 and M3, the W-TENS group reached the absolute minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for an analgesic (1.8 (2.1) and 2.1 (2.3), respectively), corresponding to a 20 mm reduction in PI (interquartile range: 15–30) on a 0–100 mm visual analogic scale – i.e. 2 points on a numerical rating scale – which equates to “much better”. Conversely, in the WO group, a 0.5 (1.8) and a 1.1 (2.1) reduction in PI were observed at M1 and M3, respectively, while a 1-point reduction in PI is required to be considered as a “slightly better” improvement. In WO group, AEs were the common systemic AEs reported with WO (nausea, constipation, drowsiness, dizziness, pruritus, vomiting, dry mouth). AEs in W-TENS group were local, such as local cutaneous reaction (erythema). Thirty-nine (70.9%) patients wished to extend W-TENS treatment for 3 additional months. Only one patient discontinued this additional period and results were maintained at M6. Conclusions. W-TENS was more effective and better tolerated than WO in the treatment of nociceptive KOA chronic pain and could represent an interesting non-pharmacological alternative to WO

Background. The majority of studies assessing minimal clinical important difference in outcome do so for management of chronic low back pain. Those that identify MCID following spinal surgical intervention fail to differentiate between the different pathologies and treatments or use variable methods and anchors in the calculation. Aim. To identify the MCID in scores across the most common spinal surgical procedures using standardised methods of calculation. Method. Prospective longitudinal study following elective lumbar spinal surgery. All patients had a complete set of spinal outcome assessments (ODI and VAS) and self perceived rating of the global and Mcnab criteria. MCID was calculated as defined by Hagg et al. Results. 244 patients of average age 53 years were followed up for 62 months post surgery. The MCID across the range of spinal surgeries was a 10 point change in ODI and 28 points for the VAS. A MCID following lumbar decompression surgery was a 3 point change in ODI and 29 points for VAS; 24 points in ODI and 37 points in the VAS for a discectomy, and 13 points in ODI and 23 point change in VAS for revision surgery. This value also varied depending on the anchor and method used for calculation. Conclusion. The MCID in score varies between different spinal procedures, method of calculation and the external anchor used. Standardised methods of calculating MCID in outcome measures should be used to allow comparative research and assessment. Generalisation of MCID in scores across a range of spinal procedures should be strongly discouraged. Conflicts of Interest. None. Source of Funding. None. This abstract has not been previously published in whole or substantial part nor has it been presented previously at a national meeting