Objectives. Accurate characterisation of fractures is essential in fracture management trials. However, this is often hampered by poor inter-observer agreement. This article describes the practicalities of defining the fracture population, based on the Neer classification, within a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial in which surgical treatment was compared with non-surgical treatment in adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck. Methods. The trial manual illustrated the Neer classification of proximal humeral fractures. However, in addition to surgical neck displacement, surgeons assessing patient eligibility reported on whether either or both of the tuberosities were involved. Anonymised electronic versions of baseline radiographs were sought for all 250 trial participants. A protocol, data collection tool and training presentation were developed and tested in a pilot study. These were then used in a formal assessment and classification of the trial fractures by two independent senior orthopaedic shoulder trauma surgeons. Results. Two or more baseline radiographic views were obtained for each participant. The independent raters confirmed that all fractures would have been considered for surgery in contemporaneous practice. A full description of the fracture population based on the Neer classification was obtained. The agreement between the categorisation at baseline (tuberosity involvement) and Neer classification as assessed by the two raters was only fair (kappa 0.29). However, this disparity did not appear to affect trial findings, specifically in terms of influencing the effect of treatment on the primary outcome of the trial. Conclusions. A key reporting requirement, namely the description of the fracture population, was achieved within the context of a pragmatic multicentre randomised clinical trial. This article provides important guidance for researchers designing similar trials on fracture management. Cite this article: H. H. G. Handoll, S. D. Brealey, L. Jefferson, A. Keding, A. J. Brooksbank, A. J. Johnstone, J. J. Candal-Couto, A. Rangan. Defining the fracture population in a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial: PROFHER and the Neer classification of proximal humeral fractures.Bone Joint Res 2016;5:481–489. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.510.BJR-2016-0132.R1

Introduction. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and vessel loop assisted closure are two common methods used to assist with the closure of fasciotomy wounds. This retrospective review compares these two methods using a primary outcome measurement of skin graft requirement. Methods. A retrospective search was performed to identify patients who underwent fasciotomy at our institution. Patient demographics, location of the fasciotomy, type of assisted closure, injury characteristics, need for skin graft, length of stay and evidence of infection within 90 days were recorded. Results. A total of 56 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 49 underwent vessel loop closure and seven underwent NPWT assisted closure. Patients who underwent NPWT assisted closure were at higher risk for requiring skin grafting than patients who underwent vessel loop closure, with an odds ratio of 5.9 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 31.24). There was no difference in the rate of infection or length of stay between the two groups. Demographic factors such as age, gender, fracture mechanism, location of fasciotomy and presence of open fracture were not predictive of the need for skin grafting. Conclusion. This retrospective descriptive case series demonstrates an increased risk of skin grafting in patients who underwent fasciotomy and were treated with NPWT assisted wound closure. In our series, vessel loop closure was protective against the need for skin grafting. Due to the small sample size in the NPWT group, caution should be taken when generalising these results. Further research is needed to determine if NPWT assisted closure of fasciotomy wounds truly leads to an increased requirement for skin grafting, or if the vascular injury is the main risk factor

Background

Approximately half of all hip fractures are displaced intracapsular fractures. The standard treatment for these fractures is either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty. The recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on hip fracture management recommends the use of ‘proven’ cemented stem arthroplasty with an Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of at least 3B (97% survival at three years). The Thompsons prosthesis is currently lacking an ODEP rating despite over 50 years of clinical use, likely due to the paucity of implant survival data. Nationally, adherence to these guidelines is varied as there is debate as to which prosthesis optimises patient outcomes.

Fractures of the proximal femur are one of the greatest challenges facing the medical community, constituting a heavy socioeconomic burden worldwide. Controversy exists regarding the optimal treatment for independent patients with displaced intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur. The recognised alternatives are hemiarthroplasty and total hip replacement. At present there is no established standard of care, with both types of arthroplasty being used in many centres. The principal advantages of total hip replacement are a functional benefit over hemiarthroplasty and a reduced risk of revision surgery. The principal criticism is the increased risk of dislocation. We believe that an alternative acetabular component may reduce the risk of dislocation but still provide the functional benefit of total hip replacement in these patients. We therefore propose to investigate the dislocation risk of a dual-mobility acetabular component compared with standard polyethylene component in total hip replacement for independent patients with displaced intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur within the framework of the larger WHiTE (Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation) Comprehensive Cohort Study.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:210–13.

Fractures of the proximal femur are one of the greatest challenges facing the medical community, constituting a heavy socioeconomic burden worldwide. Controversy exists regarding the optimal treatment for patients with unstable trochanteric proximal femoral fractures. The recognised treatment alternatives are extramedullary fixation usually with a sliding hip screw and intramedullary fixation with a cephalomedullary nail. Current evidence suggests that best results and lowest complication rates occur using a sliding hip screw. Complications in these difficult fractures are relatively common regardless of type of treatment. We believe that a novel device, the X-Bolt dynamic plating system, may offer superior fixation over a sliding hip screw with lower reoperation risk and better function. We therefore propose to investigate the clinical effectiveness of the X-bolt dynamic plating system compared with standard sliding hip screw fixation within the framework of a the larger WHiTE (Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation) Comprehensive Cohort Study.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:206–9.