Cargando…

Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted knee replacement systems have been introduced to healthcare services worldwide in an effort to improve clinical outcomes for people, although high-quality evidence that they are clinically, or cost-effective remains sparse. Robotic-arm systems may improve surgical accu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Griffin, James, Davis, Edward T, Parsons, Helen, Gemperle Mannion, Elke, Khatri, Chetan, Ellard, David R, Blyth, Mark J, Clement, Nicholas David, Deehan, David, Flynn, Nicholas, Fox, Josephine, Grant, Nicholas J, Haddad, Fares S, Hutchinson, Charles E, Mason, James, Mohindru, Bishal, Scott, Chloe E H, Smith, Toby O, Skinner, John A, Toms, Andrew D, Rees, Sophie, Underwood, Martin, Metcalfe, Andrew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10277111/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37295832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068255
_version_ 1785060220366487552
author Griffin, James
Davis, Edward T
Parsons, Helen
Gemperle Mannion, Elke
Khatri, Chetan
Ellard, David R
Blyth, Mark J
Clement, Nicholas David
Deehan, David
Flynn, Nicholas
Fox, Josephine
Grant, Nicholas J
Haddad, Fares S
Hutchinson, Charles E
Mason, James
Mohindru, Bishal
Scott, Chloe E H
Smith, Toby O
Skinner, John A
Toms, Andrew D
Rees, Sophie
Underwood, Martin
Metcalfe, Andrew
author_facet Griffin, James
Davis, Edward T
Parsons, Helen
Gemperle Mannion, Elke
Khatri, Chetan
Ellard, David R
Blyth, Mark J
Clement, Nicholas David
Deehan, David
Flynn, Nicholas
Fox, Josephine
Grant, Nicholas J
Haddad, Fares S
Hutchinson, Charles E
Mason, James
Mohindru, Bishal
Scott, Chloe E H
Smith, Toby O
Skinner, John A
Toms, Andrew D
Rees, Sophie
Underwood, Martin
Metcalfe, Andrew
author_sort Griffin, James
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted knee replacement systems have been introduced to healthcare services worldwide in an effort to improve clinical outcomes for people, although high-quality evidence that they are clinically, or cost-effective remains sparse. Robotic-arm systems may improve surgical accuracy and could contribute to reduced pain, improved function and lower overall cost of total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. However, TKR with conventional instruments may be just as effective and may be quicker and cheaper. There is a need for a robust evaluation of this technology, including cost-effectiveness analyses using both within-trial and modelling approaches. This trial will compare robotic-assisted against conventional TKR to provide high-quality evidence on whether robotic-assisted knee replacement is beneficial to patients and cost-effective for healthcare systems. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial-Knee is a multicentre, participant-assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted TKR compared with TKR using conventional instruments. A total of 332 participants will be randomised (1:1) to provide 90% power for a 12-point difference in the primary outcome measure; the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months postrandomisation. Allocation concealment will be achieved using computer-based randomisation performed on the day of surgery and methods for blinding will include sham incisions for marker clusters and blinded operation notes. The primary analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle. Results will be reported in line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. A parallel study will collect data on the learning effects associated with robotic-arm systems. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by an ethics committee for patient participation (East Midlands—Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee, 29 July 2020. NRES number: 20/EM/0159). All results from the study will be disseminated using peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, lay summaries and social media as appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27624068.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10277111
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102771112023-06-19 Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol Griffin, James Davis, Edward T Parsons, Helen Gemperle Mannion, Elke Khatri, Chetan Ellard, David R Blyth, Mark J Clement, Nicholas David Deehan, David Flynn, Nicholas Fox, Josephine Grant, Nicholas J Haddad, Fares S Hutchinson, Charles E Mason, James Mohindru, Bishal Scott, Chloe E H Smith, Toby O Skinner, John A Toms, Andrew D Rees, Sophie Underwood, Martin Metcalfe, Andrew BMJ Open Surgery INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted knee replacement systems have been introduced to healthcare services worldwide in an effort to improve clinical outcomes for people, although high-quality evidence that they are clinically, or cost-effective remains sparse. Robotic-arm systems may improve surgical accuracy and could contribute to reduced pain, improved function and lower overall cost of total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. However, TKR with conventional instruments may be just as effective and may be quicker and cheaper. There is a need for a robust evaluation of this technology, including cost-effectiveness analyses using both within-trial and modelling approaches. This trial will compare robotic-assisted against conventional TKR to provide high-quality evidence on whether robotic-assisted knee replacement is beneficial to patients and cost-effective for healthcare systems. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial-Knee is a multicentre, participant-assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted TKR compared with TKR using conventional instruments. A total of 332 participants will be randomised (1:1) to provide 90% power for a 12-point difference in the primary outcome measure; the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months postrandomisation. Allocation concealment will be achieved using computer-based randomisation performed on the day of surgery and methods for blinding will include sham incisions for marker clusters and blinded operation notes. The primary analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle. Results will be reported in line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. A parallel study will collect data on the learning effects associated with robotic-arm systems. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by an ethics committee for patient participation (East Midlands—Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee, 29 July 2020. NRES number: 20/EM/0159). All results from the study will be disseminated using peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, lay summaries and social media as appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27624068. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10277111/ /pubmed/37295832 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068255 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Surgery
Griffin, James
Davis, Edward T
Parsons, Helen
Gemperle Mannion, Elke
Khatri, Chetan
Ellard, David R
Blyth, Mark J
Clement, Nicholas David
Deehan, David
Flynn, Nicholas
Fox, Josephine
Grant, Nicholas J
Haddad, Fares S
Hutchinson, Charles E
Mason, James
Mohindru, Bishal
Scott, Chloe E H
Smith, Toby O
Skinner, John A
Toms, Andrew D
Rees, Sophie
Underwood, Martin
Metcalfe, Andrew
Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol
title Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol
title_full Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol
title_fullStr Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol
title_full_unstemmed Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol
title_short Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol
title_sort robotic arthroplasty clinical and cost effectiveness randomised controlled trial (racer-knee): a study protocol
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10277111/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37295832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068255
work_keys_str_mv AT griffinjames roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT davisedwardt roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT parsonshelen roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT gemperlemannionelke roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT khatrichetan roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT ellarddavidr roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT blythmarkj roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT clementnicholasdavid roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT deehandavid roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT flynnnicholas roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT foxjosephine roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT grantnicholasj roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT haddadfaress roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT hutchinsoncharlese roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT masonjames roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT mohindrubishal roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT scottchloeeh roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT smithtobyo roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT skinnerjohna roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT tomsandrewd roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT reessophie roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT underwoodmartin roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol
AT metcalfeandrew roboticarthroplastyclinicalandcosteffectivenessrandomisedcontrolledtrialracerkneeastudyprotocol