Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article

Is the timing of fixation associated with fracture-related infection among tibial plateau fracture patients with compartment syndrome? A multicenter retrospective cohort study of 729 patients.

BACKGROUND: Tibial plateau fractures with an ipsilateral compartment syndrome are a clinical challenge with limited guidance regarding the best time to perform open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) relative to fasciotomy wound closure. This study aimed to determine if the risk of fracture-related infection (FRI) differs based on the timing of tibial plateau ORIF relative to closure of ipsilateral fasciotomy wounds. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified patients with tibial plateau fractures and an ipsilateral compartment syndrome treated with 4-compartment fasciotomy at 22 US trauma centers from 2009 to 2019. The primary outcome measure was FRI requiring operative debridement after ORIF. The ORIF timing relative to fasciotomy closure was categorized as ORIF before, at the same time as, or after fasciotomy closure. Bayesian hierarchical regression models with a neutral prior were used to determine the association between timing of ORIF and infection. The posterior probability of treatment benefit for ORIF was also determined for the three timings of ORIF relative to fasciotomy closure. RESULTS: Of the 729 patients who underwent ORIF of their tibial plateau fracture, 143 (19.6%) subsequently developed a FRI requiring operative treatment. Patients sustaining infections were: 21.0% of those with ORIF before (43 of 205), 15.9% at the same time as (37 of 232), and 21.6% after fasciotomy wound closure (63 of 292). ORIF at the same time as fasciotomy closure demonstrated a 91% probability of being superior to before closure (RR, 0.75; 95% CrI, 0.38 to 1.10). ORIF after fasciotomy closure had a lower likelihood (45%) of a superior outcome than before closure (RR, 1.02; 95% CrI; 0.64 to 1.39). CONCLUSION: Data from this multicenter cohort confirms previous reports of a high FRI risk in patients with a tibial plateau fracture and ipsilateral compartment syndrome. Our results suggest that ORIF at the time of fasciotomy closure has the highest probability of treatment benefit, but that infection was common with all three timings of ORIF in this difficult clinical situation

Is the timing of fixation associated with fracture-related infection among tibial plateau fracture patients with compartment syndrome? A multicenter retrospective cohort study of 729 patients.

BACKGROUND: Tibial plateau fractures with an ipsilateral compartment syndrome are a clinical challenge with limited guidance regarding the best time to perform open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) relative to fasciotomy wound closure. This study aimed to determine if the risk of fracture-related infection (FRI) differs based on the timing of tibial plateau ORIF relative to closure of ipsilateral fasciotomy wounds. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified patients with tibial plateau fractures and an ipsilateral compartment syndrome treated with 4-compartment fasciotomy at 22 US trauma centers from 2009 to 2019. The primary outcome measure was FRI requiring operative debridement after ORIF. The ORIF timing relative to fasciotomy closure was categorized as ORIF before, at the same time as, or after fasciotomy closure. Bayesian hierarchical regression models with a neutral prior were used to determine the association between timing of ORIF and infection. The posterior probability of treatment benefit for ORIF was also determined for the three timings of ORIF relative to fasciotomy closure. RESULTS: Of the 729 patients who underwent ORIF of their tibial plateau fracture, 143 (19.6%) subsequently developed a FRI requiring operative treatment. Patients sustaining infections were: 21.0% of those with ORIF before (43 of 205), 15.9% at the same time as (37 of 232), and 21.6% after fasciotomy wound closure (63 of 292). ORIF at the same time as fasciotomy closure demonstrated a 91% probability of being superior to before closure (RR, 0.75; 95% CrI, 0.38 to 1.10). ORIF after fasciotomy closure had a lower likelihood (45%) of a superior outcome than before closure (RR, 1.02; 95% CrI; 0.64 to 1.39). CONCLUSION: Data from this multicenter cohort confirms previous reports of a high FRI risk in patients with a tibial plateau fracture and ipsilateral compartment syndrome. Our results suggest that ORIF at the time of fasciotomy closure has the highest probability of treatment benefit, but that infection was common with all three timings of ORIF in this difficult clinical situation

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials.

IntroductionCluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent.MethodsThe PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have.ResultsPatient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation.DiscussionInvolvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials

Introduction: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. Methods: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. Results: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. Discussion: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal