Hart, Adam

Abstract Background Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of visible and endoscopically resectable colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia (CAN) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, patients with high risk CAN are often not amenable to conventional resections techniques and a consensus approach for the endoscopic management of these lesions is presently lacking. This Delphi study aims to reach consensus amongst experts on the endoscopic management of these lesions. Methods A three-round modified Delphi process was conducted to reach consensus amongst worldwide IBD and/or endoscopy experts (n=18) from three continents. Experts were chosen based on the extensive clinical experience with IBD and/or EMR/ESD in patients with IBD, and the authorship on multiple peer-reviewed publications on CAN, the endoscopic resection of CAN and/or EMR/ESD. Consensus was considered if ≥ 75% agreed or disagreed. Quality of evidence was assessed by the criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration group. Results Consensus was reached on all statements (n=14). Experts agreed on a definition for CAN and high-risk CAN (HR-CAN). Consensus was reached on the examination of the colon with enhanced endoscopic imaging prior to resection, the endoscopic resectability of a HR-CAN lesion and endoscopic assessment and standard report of CAN lesions. In addition, experts agreed on type of resections of HR-CAN (< 20mm, >20 mm, with or without good lifting), endoscopic success (technical success and outcomes), histologic assessment and follow-up in HR-CAN. Conclusion This is the first step in developing international consensus-based recommendations for endoscopic management of (HR-)CAN. Although the quality of available evidence was considered low, consensus was reached on several aspects of the management of (HR-)CAN. The present work and proposed standardization might benefit future studies.

Abstract Background Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), together known as inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), affect approximately seven million people globally. The continuous rise in IBD prevalence and the aging of populations will inevitably lead to an increasing use of health care resources. In parallel with these trends, continuing innovations in IBD therapeutics, diagnostics, and preventatives are creating more options for IBD patients seeking to reduce their disease burden. These trends pose an imminent burden on health care systems and require that we identify modifiable cost drivers in IBD care and develop strategies for delivering equitable and affordable care for all patients. Methods This Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology Commission, consisting of a diverse faculty of health care professionals with expertise in the field of IBD and health economists, was formed to deliver an extensive summary of the literature and discuss key topics on the costs and cost-effectiveness of treating IBD in the present, and how this is likely to look in the future. Furthermore, it offers suggestions for how to deliver affordable IBD care in the coming years. The report’s focus was on high-income countries in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, and Asia. Results The Commission drew together a wide range of expertise to discuss the current costs of IBD care, the drivers of increasing costs, as well as how to deliver affordable care for IBD in the future. The key conclusions are that (i) increases in health care costs must be evaluated against improved disease control and reductions in indirect costs, and (ii) that overarching systems for data interoperability, registries, and big data approaches must be established for continuous assessment of effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of care. International collaborations should be sought in order to evaluate novel models of care (such as value-based health care, including integrated health care and participatory health care models), as well as to improve the education and training of clinicians, patients, and policymakers. Measures to reduce the costs of IBD care are summarised in Table 1. Conclusion Increases in health care costs must be evaluated against improved disease control and reductions in indirect costs. Evaluations should be systematically aligned between countries and regions. Detailed analysis of the current epidemiology and the likely effects of changing IBD management on disease course and socioeconomic outcomes is essential; and will become even more imperative in the era of precision medicine, where complex biotechnologies will require expensive analyses, highly skilled personnel, and drug development for what may sometimes be relatively small patient groups.

Background: Osteonecrosis of the hip is the underlying etiology for 3% to 12% of total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Compared with patients who undergo THA because of osteoarthritis, those who do so because of osteonecrosis typically are younger, have a greater number of underlying diagnoses, and have inferior clinical outcomes and implant survivorship. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term implant survivorship (median follow-up, 10 years), functional outcomes, and radiographic results of contemporary THAs with a highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) liner between patients with osteonecrosis and those with osteoarthritis. Methods: All patients who underwent primary THA with an HXLPE liner from 1999 to 2007 were identified from our institutional total joint registry. Patients with a primary diagnosis of osteonecrosis were matched 1:1, on the basis of age, sex, and body mass index (BMI), to patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. This resulted in 461 hips in 413 patients with osteonecrosis matched to 461 hips in 427 patients with osteoarthritis (mean age, 59 years; 47% female; and mean BMI, 29 kg/m 2 ). Long-term implant survivorship, patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic findings were compared. In addition, a subgroup analysis of the osteonecrosis group was performed to see whether certain underlying etiologies portended poor outcomes. The median follow-up was 10 years. Results: The 15-year cumulative rates of revision were 6.6% and 4.5% in the osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.8, p = 0.09). The 15-year cumulative rates of any reoperation were 10.5% and 6.4% in the osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis groups, respectively (HR = 2.2, p = 0.008). There were no radiographic signs of component loosening or osteolysis in the entire cohort. Despite a lower median preoperative Harris hip score (HHS) for patients with osteonecrosis, both groups had marked improvements in their scores, which were similar at all time points after surgery. The cumulative rate of reoperations at 15 years was 0% for hips with radiation-induced osteonecrosis, 6.3% for those with alcohol-induced osteonecrosis, 9.0% for those with posttraumatic osteonecrosis, 12.1% for those with steroid-induced osteonecrosis, and 25% for those with idiopathic osteonecrosis. Conclusions: Contemporary THA with an HXLPE liner offers excellent long-term implant survivorship and functional outcomes for patients with osteonecrosis; however, the risk of a reoperation is higher when compared with patients with osteoarthritis. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Povidone-iodine (PI) irrigation is often used prior to wound closure in total joint arthroplasty, but there are limited reports evaluating its efficacy in decreasing joint infections. The goal of this study was to compare the rate of any reoperation for infection (both superficial and deep) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) among patients who did and did not receive PI irrigation prior to wound closure. Methods: Using our institution’s total joint registry, we identified 5,534 primary THA and 6,204 primary TKA procedures performed from 2013 to 2017. Cases were grouped on the basis of whether or not the wound was irrigated with 1 L of 0.25% PI prior to closure. PI irrigation was used in 1,322 (24%) of the THA cases and in 2,410 (39%) of the TKA cases. The rates of reoperation for infection at 3 months and 1 year were compared between the 2 groups. The same comparisons were then performed using propensity scores to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Results: The rate of reoperation for infection as assessed at 3 months following THA was similar between those who received dilute PI irrigation (0.9%) and who did not (0.7%) (p = 0.7). At 1 year, the rate of reoperation for infection was similar between those who received dilute PI irrigation (0.7%) and those who did not (0.9%) (p = 0.6). After using the propensity score, there was no difference between the groups in the risk of septic reoperations. For TKA, the rate of reoperation as assessed at 3 months was similar between those who received dilute PI irrigation (0.8%) and those who did not (0.3%) (p = 0.06). At 1 year, there was a greater rate of reoperations for infection among those who received dilute PI irrigation (1.2%) compared with those who did not (0.6%) (p = 0.03). However, there was no difference in the risk of septic reoperations between the groups after using the propensity score. Conclusions: Despite enthusiasm for and progressive adoption of the use of dilute PI irrigation at our institution, there was not a significant reduction in the risk of reoperation for infection as assessed at 3 months and 1 year following primary THA and TKA. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Postoperative infection remains a major challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Wound irrigation with dilute povidone-iodine (PI) solution has emerged as a simple, inexpensive, and potentially successful means of reducing postoperative infections. The aim of this study was to assess its effectiveness in reducing infection following revision THA and TKA in, to our knowledge, the largest revision cohort to date. Methods: Using our institution’s total joint registry, we identified 1,402 revision THAs and 1,482 revision TKAs performed during the study period (2013, when the PI irrigation protocol was first implemented, to 2017). The PI lavage protocol was employed in 27% of the revision THA cases and 34% of the revision TKA cases; in the remaining cases, the protocol was not used. Demographics, comorbid conditions, underlying surgical diagnoses, and whether the revision was for a septic or an aseptic etiology were compared between the groups (use or no use of PI irrigation). Any reoperation due to infection, as assessed at 3 and 12 months following revision arthroplasty, was compared between the groups and propensity scores were calculated to account for differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. Results: After adjusting for baseline differences between the groups using the propensity-score weighted models, we found no significant difference in the rate of reoperation for infection at 3 months (p = 0.58 for revision THA, and p = 0.06 for revision TKA) and at 12 months (p = 0.78 for revision THA, and p = 0.06 for revision TKA). Nonetheless, the hazard ratios from the propensity-score model trended higher for patients who received PI lavage: 1.6 and 1.3 for revision THA at 3 and 12 months, respectively, and 2.9 at both 3 and 12 months for revision TKA. Conclusions: PI wound lavage demonstrated no benefit in reducing any reoperation for infection following revision THA and TKA. Moreover, the trend toward higher rates for reoperation for infection among patients who received PI irrigation merit further consideration. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.