A Trial of Wound Irrigation in the Initial Management of Open Fracture Wounds

Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. BACKGROUND The management of open fractures requires wound irrigation and dridement to remove contaminants, but the effectiveness of various pressures and solutions for irrigation remains controversial. We investigated the effects of castile soap versus normal saline irrigation delivered by means of high, low, or very low irrigation pressure. METHODS In this study with a 2-by-3 factorial design, conducted at 41 clinical centers, we randomly assigned patients who had an open fracture of an extremity to undergo irrigation with one of three irrigation pressures (high pressure [\u3e20 psi], low pressure [5 to 10 psi], or very low pressure [1 to 2 psi]) and one of two irrigation solutions (castile soap or normal saline). The primary end point was reoperation within 12 months after the index surgery for promotion of wound or bone healing or treatment of a wound infection. RESULTS A total of 2551 patients underwent randomization, of whom 2447 were deemed eligible and included in the final analyses. Reoperation occurred in 109 of 826 patients (13.2%) in the high-pressure group, 103 of 809 (12.7%) in the low-pressure group, and 111 of 812 (13.7%) in the very-low-pressure group. Hazard ratios for the three pairwise comparisons were as follows: for low versus high pressure, 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.20; P = 0.53), for high versus very low pressure, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.33; P = 0.89), and for low versus very low pressure, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.23; P = 0.62). Reoperation occurred in 182 of 1229 patients (14.8%) in the soap group and in 141 of 1218 (11.6%) in the saline group (hazard ratio, 1.32, 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.66; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS The rates of reoperation were similar regardless of irrigation pressure, a finding that indicates that very low pressure is an acceptable, low-cost alternative for the irrigation of open fractures. The reoperation rate was higher in the soap group than in the saline group. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; FLOW ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00788398

Risk Factors Associated With Infection in Open Fractures of the Upper and Lower Extremities

Introduction: Open fractures are associated with a high risk of infection. The prevention of infection is the single most important goal, influencing perioperative care of patients with open fractures. Using data from 2,500 participants with open fracture wounds enrolled in the Fluid Lavage of Open Wounds trial, we conducted a multivariable analysis to determine the factors that are associated with infections 12 months postfracture. Methods: Eighteen predictor variables were identified for infection a priori from baseline data, fracture characteristics, and surgical data from the Fluid Lavage of Open Wounds trial. Twelve predictor variables were identified for deep infection, which included both surgically and nonoperatively managed infections.We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to identify the factors associated with infection. Irrigation solution and pressure were included as variables in the analysis. The results were reported as adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and associated P values. All tests were two tailed with alpha = 0.05. Results: Factors associated with any infection were fracture location (tibia: HR 5.13 versus upper extremity, 95% CI 3.28 to 8.02; other lower extremity: HR 3.63 versus upper extremity, 95% CI 2.38 to 5.55; overall P\u3c 0.001), low energy injury (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.46; P = 0.019), degree of wound contamination (severe: HR 2.12 versus mild, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.32; moderate: HR 1.08 versus mild, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.49; overall P = 0.004), and need for flap coverage (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.99; P = 0.017). Discussion: The results of this study provide a better understanding of which factors are associated with a greater risk of infection in open fractures. In addition, it can allow for surgeons to better counsel patients regarding prognosis, helping patients to understand their individual risk of infection

Risk Factors Associated With Infection in Open Fractures of the Upper and Lower Extremities

Introduction: Open fractures are associated with a high risk of infection. The prevention of infection is the single most important goal, influencing perioperative care of patients with open fractures. Using data from 2,500 participants with open fracture wounds enrolled in the Fluid Lavage of Open Wounds trial, we conducted a multivariable analysis to determine the factors that are associated with infections 12 months postfracture. Methods: Eighteen predictor variables were identified for infection a priori from baseline data, fracture characteristics, and surgical data from the Fluid Lavage of Open Wounds trial. Twelve predictor variables were identified for deep infection, which included both surgically and nonoperatively managed infections.We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to identify the factors associated with infection. Irrigation solution and pressure were included as variables in the analysis. The results were reported as adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and associated P values. All tests were two tailed with alpha = 0.05. Results: Factors associated with any infection were fracture location (tibia: HR 5.13 versus upper extremity, 95% CI 3.28 to 8.02; other lower extremity: HR 3.63 versus upper extremity, 95% CI 2.38 to 5.55; overall P\u3c 0.001), low energy injury (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.46; P = 0.019), degree of wound contamination (severe: HR 2.12 versus mild, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.32; moderate: HR 1.08 versus mild, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.49; overall P = 0.004), and need for flap coverage (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.99; P = 0.017). Discussion: The results of this study provide a better understanding of which factors are associated with a greater risk of infection in open fractures. In addition, it can allow for surgeons to better counsel patients regarding prognosis, helping patients to understand their individual risk of infection

Are large clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma justified?

© 2018 The Author(s). Background: The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the necessity of large clinical trials using FLOW trial data. Methods: The FLOW pilot study and definitive trial were factorial trials evaluating the effect of different irrigation solutions and pressures on re-operation. To explore treatment effects over time, we analyzed data from the pilot and definitive trial in increments of 250 patients until the final sample size of 2447 patients was reached. At each increment we calculated the relative risk (RR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment effect, and compared the results that would have been reported at the smaller enrolments with those seen in the final, adequately powered study. Results: The pilot study analysis of 89 patients and initial incremental enrolments in the FLOW definitive trial favored low pressure compared to high pressure (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.75-3.04; RR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.60-3.23, respectively), which is in contradiction to the final enrolment, which found no difference between high and low pressure (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.81-1.33). In the soap versus saline comparison, the FLOW pilot study suggested that re-operation rate was similar in both the soap and saline groups (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.50-1.92), whereas the FLOW definitive trial found that the re-operation rate was higher in the soap treatment arm (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.04-1.57). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that studies with smaller sample sizes would have led to erroneous conclusions in the management of open fracture wounds. Trial registration: NCT01069315 (FLOW Pilot Study) Date of Registration: February 17, 2010, NCT00788398 (FLOW Definitive Trial) Date of Registration: November 10, 2008

Fluid lavage in patients with open fracture wounds (FLOW): an international survey of 984 surgeons

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although surgeons acknowledge the importance of irrigating open fracture wounds, the choice of irrigating fluid and delivery pressure remains controversial. Our objective was to clarify current opinion with regard to the irrigation of open fracture wounds.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used a cross-sectional survey and a sample-to-redundancy strategy to examine surgeons' preferences in the initial management of open fracture wounds. We mailed this survey to members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association and delivered it to attendees of an international fracture course (AO, Davos, Switzerland).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 1,764 surgeons who received the questionnaire, 984 (55.8%) responded. In the management of open wounds, the majority of surgeons surveyed, 676 (70.5%), favoured normal saline alone. Bacitracin solution was used routinely by only 161 surgeons (16.8%). The majority of surgeons, 695 (71%) used low pressures when delivering the irrigating solution to the wound. There was, however considerable variation in what pressures constituted high versus low pressure lavage. The overwhelming majority of surgeons, 889 (94.2%), reported they would change their practice if a large randomized controlled trial showed a clear benefit of an irrigating solution – especially if it was different from the solution they used.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The majority of surgeons favour both normal saline and low pressure lavage for the initial management of open fracture wounds. However, opinions varied as regards the comparative efficacy of different solutions, the use of additives and high versus low pressure. Surgeons have expressed considerable support for a trial evaluating both irrigating solutions and pressures.</p

Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience

Contains fulltext : 110505.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Surgeons in the Netherlands, Canada and the US participate in the FAITH trial (Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures). Dutch sites are managed and visited by a financed central trial coordinator, whereas most Canadian and US sites have local study coordinators and receive per patient payment. This study was aimed to assess how these different trial management strategies affected trial performance. METHODS: Details related to obtaining ethics approval, time to trial start-up, inclusion, and percentage completed follow-ups were collected for each trial site and compared. Pre-trial screening data were compared with actual inclusion rates. RESULTS: Median trial start-up ranged from 41 days (P25-P75 10-139) in the Netherlands to 232 days (P25-P75 98-423) in Canada (p = 0.027). The inclusion rate was highest in the Netherlands; median 1.03 patients (P25-P75 0.43-2.21) per site per month, representing 34.4% of the total eligible population. It was lowest in Canada; 0.14 inclusions (P25-P75 0.00-0.28), representing 3.9% of eligible patients (p < 0.001). The percentage completed follow-ups was 83% for Canadian and Dutch sites and 70% for US sites (p = 0.217). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, a central financed trial coordinator to manage all trial related tasks in participating sites resulted in better trial progression and a similar follow-up. It is therefore a suitable alternative for appointing these tasks to local research assistants. The central coordinator approach can enable smaller regional hospitals to participate in multicenter randomized controlled trials. Circumstances such as available budget, sample size, and geographical area should however be taken into account when choosing a management strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00761813

Interobserver reliability of classification and characterization of proximal humeral fractures: a comparison of two and three-dimensional CT

Interobserver reliability for the classification of proximal humeral fractures is limited. The aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis that interobserver reliability of the AO classification of proximal humeral fractures, the preferred treatment, and fracture characteristics is the same for two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) computed tomography (CT). Members of the Science of Variation Group--fully trained practicing orthopaedic and trauma surgeons from around the world--were randomized to evaluate radiographs and either 2-D CT or 3-D CT images of fifteen proximal humeral fractures via a web-based survey and respond to the following four questions: (1) Is the greater tuberosity displaced? (2) Is the humeral head split? (3) Is the arterial supply compromised? (4) Is the glenohumeral joint dislocated? They also classified the fracture according to the AO system and indicated their preferred treatment of the fracture (operative or nonoperative). Agreement among observers was assessed with use of the multirater kappa (&kappa;) measure. Interobserver reliability of the AO classification, fracture characteristics, and preferred treatment generally ranged from &quot;slight&quot; to &quot;fair.&quot; A few small but statistically significant differences were found. Observers randomized to the 2-D CT group had slightly but significantly better agreement on displacement of the greater tuberosity (&kappa; = 0.35 compared with 0.30, p &lt; 0.001) and on the AO classification (&kappa; = 0.18 compared with 0.17, p = 0.018). A subgroup analysis of the AO classification results revealed that shoulder and elbow surgeons, orthopaedic trauma surgeons, and surgeons in the United States had slightly greater reliability on 2-D CT, whereas surgeons in practice for ten years or less and surgeons from other subspecialties had slightly greater reliability on 3-D CT. Proximal humeral fracture classifications may be helpful conceptually, but they have poor interobserver reliability even when 3-D rather than 2-D CT is utilized. This may contribute to the similarly poor interobserver reliability that was observed for selection of the treatment for proximal humeral fractures. The lack of a reliable classification confounds efforts to compare the outcomes of treatment methods among different clinical trials and reports

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

Factors Associated with Revision Surgery after Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

Background: Femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of revision surgery after management with internal fixation. Using data from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial evaluating methods of internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures, we investigated associations between baseline and surgical factors and the need for revision surgery to promote healing, relieve pain, treat infection or improve function over 24 months postsurgery. Additionally, we investigated factors associated with (1) hardware removal and (2) implant exchange from cancellous screws (CS) or sliding hip screw (SHS) to total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or another internal fixation device. Methods: We identified 15 potential factors a priori that may be associated with revision surgery, 7 with hardware removal, and 14 with implant exchange. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses in our investigation. Results: Factors associated with increased risk of revision surgery included: female sex, [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.50; P = 0.001], higher body mass index (fo