Simple design and analysis strategies for solving problems in observational orthopaedic clinical research

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard to establishing causal relationships in clinical research. However, these studies are expensive and time consuming to conduct. This article aims to provide orthopaedic surgeons and clinical researchers with methodology to optimize inference and minimize bias in observational studies that are often much more feasible to undertake. To mitigate the risk of bias arising from their nonexperimental design, researchers must first understand the ways in which measured covariates can influence treatment, outcomes, and missingness of follow-up data. With knowledge of these relationships, researchers can then build causal diagrams to best understand how to control sources of bias. Some common techniques for controlling for bias include matching, regression, stratification, and propensity score analysis. Selection bias may result from loss to follow-up and missing data. Strategies such as multiple imputation and time-to-event analysis can be useful for handling missingness. For longitudinal data, repeated measures allow observational studies to best summarize the impact of the intervention over time. Clinical researchers familiar with fundamental concepts of causal inference and techniques reviewed in this article will have the power to improve the quality of inferences made from clinical research in orthopaedic trauma surgery

Deep Surgical Site Infection after Fracture Has a Profound Effect on Functional Outcomes

Background: Fracture-related infection is one of the most challenging complications in orthopaedic trauma surgery. However, the effect of infection on functional and pain-related outcomes has not been well established. The aims of this study were to evaluate functional recovery for patients with fracture and a deep surgical site infection compared with patients with fracture without infection and to evaluate whether pain severity, social support, and preinjury mental health have a moderating effect on the magnitude and direction of the relationship between deep surgical site infection and functional recovery. Methods: This is a secondary retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data from the VANCO trial (Local Antibiotic Therapy to Reduce Infection After Operative Treatment of Fractures at High Risk of Infection) and the OXYGEN (Supplemental Perioperative Oxygen to Reduce Surgical Site Infection After High Energy Fracture Surgery) trial. In this study, 2,116 patients with tibial plateau, pilon, or calcaneal fractures at high risk for infection were included. Patients were divided into cohorts of patients who experienced a deep surgical site infection and those who did not. The primary outcome measure was the functional outcome using the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12). Results: After controlling for covariates, deep surgical site infection was independently associated with functional outcome, with a 3.3-point reduction in the VR-12 Physical Component Score, and pain severity was independently associated with functional outcome, with a 2.5-point reduction in the VR-12 Physical Component Score. Furthermore, the Brief Pain Inventory pain severity demonstrated an important moderating effect on the relationship between infection and functional outcome. In patients with lower pain scores, infection had a large negative impact on functional outcome, whereas, in patients with higher pain scores, infection had no significant impact on functional outcome. Furthermore, the functional outcome in the entire cohort remains at only 61% of baseline. Conclusions: This study documents the negative impact of postoperative infection on functional recovery after injury, as well as the novel finding of pain severity as an important moderating factor. This study emphasizes not only the importance of developing effective interventions designed to reduce postoperative infection, but also the role that factors that moderate pain severity plays in limiting recovery of physical function

PREVENTion of CLots in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREVENT CLOT): a randomised pragmatic trial protocol comparing aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin for blood clot prevention in orthopaedic trauma patients.

IntroductionPatients who sustain orthopaedic trauma are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including fatal pulmonary embolism (PE). Current guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for VTE prophylaxis in orthopaedic trauma patients. However, emerging literature in total joint arthroplasty patients suggests the potential clinical benefits of VTE prophylaxis with aspirin. The primary aim of this trial is to compare aspirin with LMWH as a thromboprophylaxis in fracture patients.Methods and analysisPREVENT CLOT is a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic trial that aims to enrol 12 200 adult patients admitted to 1 of 21 participating centres with an operative extremity fracture, or any pelvis or acetabular fracture. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality. We will evaluate non-inferiority by testing whether the intention-to-treat difference in the probability of dying within 90 days of randomisation between aspirin and LMWH is less than our non-inferiority margin of 0.75%. Secondary efficacy outcomes include cause-specific mortality, non-fatal PE and deep vein thrombosis. Safety outcomes include bleeding complications, wound complications and deep surgical site infections.Ethics and disseminationThe PREVENT CLOT trial has been approved by the ethics board at the coordinating centre (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and all participating sites. Recruitment began in April 2017 and will continue through 2021. As both study medications are currently in clinical use for VTE prophylaxis for orthopaedic trauma patients, the findings of this trial can be easily adopted into clinical practice. The results of this large, patient-centred pragmatic trial will help guide treatment choices to prevent VTE in fracture patients.Trial registration numberNCT02984384

PREVENTion of CLots in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREVENT CLOT): a randomised pragmatic trial protocol comparing aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin for blood clot prevention in orthopaedic trauma patients

Introduction Patients who sustain orthopaedic trauma are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including fatal pulmonary embolism (PE). Current guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for VTE prophylaxis in orthopaedic trauma patients. However, emerging literature in total joint arthroplasty patients suggests the potential clinical benefits of VTE prophylaxis with aspirin. The primary aim of this trial is to compare aspirin with LMWH as a thromboprophylaxis in fracture patients.Methods and analysis PREVENT CLOT is a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic trial that aims to enrol 12 200 adult patients admitted to 1 of 21 participating centres with an operative extremity fracture, or any pelvis or acetabular fracture. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality. We will evaluate non-inferiority by testing whether the intention-to-treat difference in the probability of dying within 90 days of randomisation between aspirin and LMWH is less than our non-inferiority margin of 0.75%. Secondary efficacy outcomes include cause-specific mortality, non-fatal PE and deep vein thrombosis. Safety outcomes include bleeding complications, wound complications and deep surgical site infections.Ethics and dissemination The PREVENT CLOT trial has been approved by the ethics board at the coordinating centre (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and all participating sites. Recruitment began in April 2017 and will continue through 2021. As both study medications are currently in clinical use for VTE prophylaxis for orthopaedic trauma patients, the findings of this trial can be easily adopted into clinical practice. The results of this large, patient-centred pragmatic trial will help guide treatment choices to prevent VTE in fracture patients.Trial registration number NCT02984384