Aims

This 501-patient, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial sought to establish the effect of low-intensity, pulsed, ultrasound (LIPUS) on tibial shaft fractures managed with intramedullary nailing. We conducted an economic evaluation as part of this trial.

Purpose: Unbiased outcome assessment in orthopedic clinical trials has the potential to improve trial validity. The approaches used to limit bias in outcome assessment in orthopaedic trials remain unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the reporting and process of outcomes assessment practices in the current orthopaedic trauma literature.

Method: We searched eight high-impact-factor medical and orthopaedic journals manually and using the MED-LINE electronic database for reports of randomized controlled trials published from 2005 to 2008 pertaining to the surgical treatment of trauma-related injuries. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility and extracted relevant data from included trials.

Results: Of the 7910 citations identified during our search, 47 randomized controlled trials, which included a total of 4706 patients, met our inclusion criteria. Of 47 studies, 39 (83%) provided a statement to describe some process of outcome assessment and 29 (74%) reported using an unblinded individual as the outcome adjudicator. Four studies (10%) reported using a second assessor to verify outcome measurements, and three studies (8%) reported the use of an adjudication committee to reach endpoint decisions via consensus. No included study provided a rationale for the use of their chosen approach to adjudication. The most commonly adjudicated outcomes included fracture healing (15 studies), reoperation rate (6 studies), and general clinical assessment of post-operative complications and limb function (30 studies), mainly by orthopaedic surgeons. Blinding of outcome assessors was not performed or unclear in 38 studies (81%).

Conclusion: Despite the importance of the outcome assessment process in orthopedic trauma trials, key aspects of outcome assessment are insufficiently reported. This limits the ability of readers to assess the validity of published trials.

Purpose: Although blinding of outcome assessors is crucial to minimize bias in clinical trials, the majority of surgical trials do not blind these individuals in part due to practical difficulties inherent in surgical interventions. We devised and tested techniques to blind outcome assessors in trials of femoral neck fracture fixation.

Method: We developed three techniques to mask radiographs of femoral neck fractures fixated with cancellous screws or dynamic hip screws: Blackout, Subtraction, and Overlay. 50 orthopaedic trauma surgeons assessed 32 radiographs blinded with each of these techniques. We considered:

The ability to mask the surgeons (the proportion of radiographs in which the surgeons were able to correctly identify the implant and the Bang Blinding Index);

Results: All three techniques achieved low proportions of correct identification of cancellous or dynamic screws (14.9% for Blackout, 26.9% for Subtraction, 22.1% for Overlay) and high proportions of “don’t know” responses (72.3%, 48.4%, 52.8% respectively). The Bang Blinding Indices were close to 0 (perfect blinding) for all three techniques (−0.024 to 0.008). The interrater reliability of quality of reduction in the blinded images (ICC = 0.55 – 0.57) was similar to the reliability of the unblinded radiographs (ICC = 0.60). Surgeons perceived the Overlay images as much more difficult to rate in 6.9% of radiographs, compared with 9.7% of Subtraction images (p=0.25) and 28.0% of Blackout images (p< 0.001).

Conclusion: Three techniques of blinding radiographs of femoral neck fractures successfully mask surgeons to the type of implant fixated, do not compromise reliability of reduction ratings, and do not make the rating process substantially more difficult. Trialists should explore creative approaches such as these to blind as many individuals as possible when designing trials, and should incorporate rigorous approaches to testing the success of blinding.

The reliability of the radiological assessment of the healing of tibial fractures remains undetermined. We examined the inter- and intraobserver agreement of the healing of such fractures among four orthopaedic trauma surgeons who, on two separate occasions eight weeks apart, independently assessed the radiographs of 30 patients with fractures of the tibial shaft which had been treated by intramedullary fixation. The radiographs were selected from a database to represent fractures at various stages of healing. For each radiograph, the surgeon scored the degree of union, quantified the number of cortices bridged by callus or with a visible fracture line, described the extent and quality of the callus, and provided an overall rating of healing.

The interobserver chance-corrected agreement using a quadratically weighted kappa (κ) statistic in which values of 0.61 to 0.80 represented substantial agreement were as follows: radiological union scale (κ = 0.60); number of cortices bridged by callus (κ = 0.75); number of cortices with a visible fracture line (κ = 0.70); the extent of the callus (κ = 0.57); and general impression of fracture healing (κ = 0.67). The intraobserver agreement of the overall impression of healing (κ = 0.89) and the number of cortices bridged by callus (κ = 0.82) or with a visible fracture line (κ = 0.83) was almost perfect.

There are no validated scales which allow surgeons to grade fracture healing radiologically. Among those examined, the number of cortices bridged by bone appears to be a reliable, and easily measured radiological variable to assess the healing of fractures after intramedullary fixation.

We have systematically reviewed the effect of alternative methods of stabilisation of open tibial fractures on the rates of reoperation, and the secondary outcomes of nonunion, deep and superficial infection, failure of the implant and malunion by the analysis of 799 citations on the subject, identified from computerised databases. Although 68 proved to be potentially eligible, only eight met all criteria for inclusion. Three investigators independently graded the quality of each study and extracted the relevant data.

One study (n = 56 patients) suggested that the use of external fixators significantly decreased the requirement for reoperation when compared with fixation with plates. The use of unreamed nails, compared with external fixators (five studies, n = 396 patients), reduced the risk of reoperation, malunion and superficial infection.

Comparison of reamed with unreamed nails showed a reduced risk of reoperation (two studies, n = 132) with the reamed technique. An indirect comparison between reamed nails and external fixators also showed a reduced risk of reoperation (two studies) when using nails.

We have identified compelling evidence that unreamed nails reduced the incidence of reoperations, superficial infections and malunions, when compared with external fixators. The relative merits of reamed versus unreamed nails in the treatment of open tibial fractures remain uncertain.