Postoperative analgesic effect, of preoperatively administered dexamethasone, after operative fixation of fractured neck of femur: randomised, double blinded controlled study.

Background: Fractured neck of femur is a common cause of hospital admission in the elderly and usually requires operative fixation. In a variety of clinical settings, preoperative glucocorticoid administration has improved analgesia and decreased opioid consumption. Our objective was to define the postoperative analgesic efficacy of single dose of dexamethasone administered preoperatively in patients undergoing operative fixation of fractured neck of femur. Methods: Institutional ethical approval was granted and written informed consent was obtained from each patient. Patients awaiting for surgery at Cork University Hospital were recruited between July 2009 and August 2012. Participating patients, scheduled for surgery were randomly allocated to one of two groups (Dexamethasone or Placebo). Patients in the dexamethasone group received a single dose of intravenous dexamethasone 0.1 mg kg -1 immediately preoperatively. Patients in the placebo group received the same volume of normal saline. Patients underwent operative fixation of fractured neck of femur using standardised spinal anaesthesia and surgical techniques. The primary outcome was pain scores at rest 6 h after the surgery. Results: Thirty seven patients were recruited and data from thirty patients were analysed. The groups were similar in terms of patient characteristics. Pain scores at rest 6 h after the surgery (the principal outcome) were lesser in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group [0.8(1.3) vs. 3.9(2.9), mean(SD) p = 0.0004]. Cumulative morphine consumption 24 h after the surgery was also lesser in the dexamethasone group [7.7(8.3) vs. 15.1(9.4), mean(SD) mg, p = 0.04]. Conclusions: A single dose of intravenous dexamethasone 0.1 mg kg -1 administered before operative fixation of fractured neck of femur improve significantly the early postoperative analgesia. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01550146, date of registration: 07/03/2012

The use of atraumatic restorative treatment in elderly patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial

Objectives: to assess elderly patients’ dental status and dental habits and compare the survival rates, impact on patients’ quality of life and cost-effectiveness of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) and a conventional treatment (CT) to restore carious lesions in an elderly population. Methods: In this randomised clinical trial, 99 independently living adults (65-90 yrs) with carious lesions were randomly allocated to receive either ART or CT. Details of restored, missing and carious teeth were recorded and patients answered some questions about their oral hygiene and dental attendance habits. Direct and indirect costs were measured based on treatment time, materials and labour. Effectiveness was measured using restoration survival percentage after one year. The survival of restorations was assessed 6 months and one year after restoration placement by an independent examiner. Oralhealth related quality of life (OHRQoL) was assessed using the OHIP-14 at baseline and 2 months after treatment together with a global transition statement. Results: The patient sample comprised 46 (46.46%) male and 53 (53.54) female participants at baseline, with a mean age of 73.18 (SD=6.76). The mean DMFT of the entire sample was 27.10. Ninety patients and 268 restorations could be assessed after one year, 127 ART (46 patients) and 141 conventional restorations (44 patients). 93.7% and 97.2% of the restorations placed were considered successful in the ART and CT groups, respectively. The OHIP scores did not change dramatically 2 months after treatment, in either group. The global transition scale showed an improvement in overall oral health after treatment for the majority of patients. The ART were more cost-effective compared to the CT restorations. Conclusions: ART presented survival rates similar to CT after 1 year and was a more cost-effective alternative to treat the elderly.

The effectiveness of using patient-reported outcome measures as quality improvement tools

Aim: To investigate the value of using PROMs as quality improvement tools. Methods: Two systematic reviews were undertaken. The first reviewed the quantitative literature on the impact of PROMs feedback and the second reviewed the qualitative literature on the use of PROMs in practice. These reviews informed the focus of the primary research. A cluster randomised controlled trial (PROFILE) examined the impact of providing peer benchmarked PROMs feedback to consultant orthopaedic surgeons on improving outcomes for hip replacement surgery. Qualitative interviews with surgeons in the intervention arm of the trial examined the view of and reactions to the feedback. Results: The quantitative review of 17 studies found weak evidence to suggest that providing PROMs feedback to professionals improves patient outcomes. The qualitative review of 16 studies identified the barriers and facilitators to the use of PROMs based on four themes: practical considerations, attitudes towards the data, methodological concerns and the impact of feedback on care. The PROFILE trial included 11 surgeons and 215 patients in the intervention arm, and 10 surgeons and 217 patients in the control arm. The trial found no significant difference in the Oxford Hip Score between the arms (-0.7, 95% CI -1.9-0.5, p=0.2). Interviews with surgeons revealed mixed opinions about the value of the PROMs feedback and the information did not promote explicit changes to their practice. Conclusion: It is important to use PROMs which have been validated for the specific purpose of performance measurement, consult with professionals when developing a PROMs feedback intervention, communicate with professionals about the objectives of the data collection, educate professionals on the properties and interpretation of the data, and support professionals in using the information to improve care. It is also imperative that the burden of data collection and dissemination of the information is minimised.

Comparison between local anaesthetic agents, lidocaine and bupivacaine, in patients undergoing third molar extraction in terms of patient satisfaction.

AIMS: (1) To determine if anaesthetic agent bupivacaine, has a prolonged effect on the period of acute postoperative pain when compared to lidocaine, a shorter acting agent. (2) To determine patient’s post-operative satisfaction and preference with regard to anaesthetic choice. METHODS: This double blind, randomised, interventional clinical trial included 85 patients. All patients had bilateral impacted lower third molars of removed under general anaesthetic. All patients received 0.5% plain bupivacaine on one randomly allocated side, with 2% lidocaine (with adrenaline) administered on the opposite side. Pain was measured using visual analogue scales at 0, 30, 60 minutes and 3, 4, 6 and 8 hours post-surgery. Pain was analysed for 1 week following surgery. Psychological evaluations and patient reported outcomes, including patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: A significant difference in pain (P=0.001) was seen during the 3-8 hour post-operative period. The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was 10.0 or above at 3hours and 4 hours post-surgery. Two-thirds of patients preferred bupivacaine. CONCLUSION: Longer lasting anaesthetics such as bupivacaine offer a longer period of analgesia, and improve overall patient satisfaction.

A study protocol of a randomised controlled trial to measure the effects of an augmented prescribed exercise programme (APEP) for frail older medical patients in the acute setting

Background: Older adults experience functional decline in hospital leading to increased healthcare burden and morbidity. The benefits of augmented exercise in hospital remain uncertain. The aim of this trial is to measure the short and longer-term effects of augmented exercise for older medical in-patients on their physical performance, quality of life and health care utilisation. Design and Methods: Two hundred and twenty older medical patients will be blindly randomly allocated to the intervention or sham groups. Both groups will receive usual care (including routine physiotherapy care) augmented by two daily exercise sessions. The sham group will receive stretching and relaxation exercises while the intervention group will receive tailored strengthening and balance exercises. Differences between groups will be measured at baseline, discharge, and three months. The primary outcome measure will be length of stay. The secondary outcome measures will be healthcare utilisation, activity (accelerometry), physical performance (Short Physical Performance Battery), falls history in hospital and quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L). Discussion: This simple intervention has the potential to transform the outcomes of the older patient in the acute setting.