Aims. Olecranon fractures are usually caused by falling directly on to the olecranon or following a fall on to an outstretched arm. Displaced fractures of the olecranon with a stable ulnohumeral joint are commonly managed by open reduction and internal fixation. The current predominant method of management of simple displaced fractures with ulnohumeral stability (Mayo grade IIA) in the UK and internationally is a low-cost technique using tension band wiring. Suture or suture anchor techniques have been described with the aim of reducing the hardware related complications and reoperation. An all-suture technique has been developed to fix the fracture using strong synthetic sutures alone. The aim of this trial is to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tension suture repair versus traditional tension band wiring for the surgical fixation of Mayo grade IIA fractures of the olecranon. Methods. SOFFT is a multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Participants will be assigned 1:1 to receive either tension suture fixation or tension band wiring. 280 adult participants will be recruited. The primary outcome will be the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at four months post-randomization. Secondary outcome measures include DASH (at 12, 18, and 24 months), pain, Net Promotor Score (patient satisfaction), EuroQol five-dimension five-level score (EQ-5D-5L), radiological union, complications, elbow range of motion, and re-operations related to the injury or to remove metalwork. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments. Discussion. There is currently no high-quality evidence comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of the tension suture repair to the traditional tension band wiring currently offered for the internal fixation of displaced fractures of the olecranon. The Simple Olecranon Fracture Fixation Trial (SOFFT) is a randomized controlled trial with sufficient power and design rigour to provide this evidence for the subtype of Mayo grade IIA fractures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):27–37

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. Design. This study design is a multi-centre, multi-surgeon, parallel, two arm, standard-of-care pragmatic randomised controlled trial. It will be embedded within the WHiTE Comprehensive Cohort Study (ISRCTN63982700). The main analysis is a two-way equivalence comparison between Hemi-Thompson and Hemi-Exeter polished taper with Unitrax head. Secondary outcomes will include radiological leg length discrepancy measured as per Bidwai and Willett, mortality, re-operation rate and indication for re-operation, length of index hospital stay and revision at four months. This study will be supplemented by the NHFD (National Hip Fracture Database) dataset. Discussion. Evidence on the optimum choice of prosthesis for hemiarthroplasty of the hip is lacking. National guidance is currently based on expert opinion rather than empirical evidence. The incidence of hip fracture is likely to continue to increase and providing high quality evidence on the optimum treatment will improve patient outcomes and have important health economic implications. Cite this article: A. L. Sims. The World Hip Trauma Evaluation Study 3: Hemiarthroplasty Evaluation by Multicentre Investigation – WH. I. TE 3: HEMI – An Abridged Protocol. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:18–25. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.51.2000473

Musculoskeletal diseases are having a growing impact worldwide. It is therefore crucial to have an evidence base to most effectively and efficiently implement future health services across different healthcare systems. International trials are an opportunity to address these challenges and have many potential benefits. They are, however, complex to set up and deliver, which may impact on the efficient and timely delivery of a project. There are a number of models of how international trials are currently being delivered across a range of orthopaedic patient populations, which are discussed here. The examples given highlight that the key to overcoming these challenges is the development of trusted and equal partnerships with collaborators in each country. International trials have the potential to address a global burden of disease, and in turn optimize the benefit to patients in the collaborating countries and those with similar health services and care systems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):719–722

Total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) are largely successful procedures; however, both have variable outcomes, resulting in some patients being dissatisfied with the outcome. Surgeons are turning to technologies such as robotic-assisted surgery in an attempt to improve outcomes. Robust studies are needed to find out if these innovations are really benefitting patients. The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and Cost Effectiveness Randomised Controlled Trials (RACER) trials are multicentre, patient-blinded randomized controlled trials. The patients have primary osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. The operation is Mako-assisted THA or TKA and the control groups have operations using conventional instruments. The primary clinical outcome is the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months, and there is a built-in analysis of cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes include early pain, the alignment of the components, and medium- to long-term outcomes. This annotation outlines the need to assess these technologies and discusses the design and challenges when conducting such trials, including surgical workflows, isolating the effect of the operation, blinding, and assessing the learning curve. Finally, the future of robotic surgery is discussed, including the need to contemporaneously introduce and evaluate such technologies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):114–120

Aims. Surgeon and patient reluctance to participate are potential significant barriers to conducting placebo-controlled trials of orthopaedic surgery. Understanding the preferences of orthopaedic surgeons and patients regarding the design of randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCT-Ps) of knee procedures can help to identify what RCT-P features will lead to the greatest participation. This information could inform future trial designs and feasibility assessments. Methods. This study used two discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to determine which features of RCT-Ps of knee procedures influence surgeon and patient participation. A mixed-methods approach informed the DCE development. The DCEs were analyzed with a baseline category multinomial logit model. Results. The proportion of respondents (surgeons n = 103; patients n = 140) who would not participate in any of the DCE choice sets (surgeons = 31%; patients = 40%), and the proportion who would participate in all (surgeons = 18%; patients = 30%), indicated strong views regarding the conduct of RCT-Ps. There were three main findings: for both surgeons and patients, studies which involved an arthroscopic procedure were more likely to result in participation than those with a total knee arthroplasty; as the age (for patients) and years of experience (for surgeons) increased, the overall likelihood of participation decreased; and, for surgeons, offering authorship and input into the RCT-P design was preferred for less experienced surgeons, while only completing the procedure was preferred by more experienced surgeons. Conclusion. Patients and surgeons have strong views regarding participation in RCT-Ps. However, understanding their preferences can inform future trial designs and feasibility assessments with regard to recruitment rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1408–1415

Aims. Is it feasible to conduct a definitive multicentre trial in community settings of corticosteroid injections (CSI) and hydrodilation (HD) compared to CSI for patients with frozen shoulder? An adequately powered definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) delivered in primary care will inform clinicians and the public whether hydrodilation is a clinically and cost-effective intervention. In this study, prior to a full RCT, we propose a feasibility trial to evaluate recruitment and retention by patient and clinician willingness of randomization; rates of withdrawal, crossover and attrition; and feasibility of outcome data collection from routine primary and secondary care data. Methods. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advises that prompt early management of frozen shoulder is initiated in primary care settings with analgesia, physiotherapy, and joint injections; most people can be managed without an operation. Currently, there is variation in the type of joint injection: 1) CSI, thought to reduce the inflammation of the capsule reducing pain; and 2) HD, where a small volume of fluid is injected into the shoulder joint along with the steroid, aiming to stretch the capsule of the shoulder to improve pain, but also allowing greater movement. The creation of musculoskeletal hubs nationwide provides infrastructure for the early and effective management of frozen shoulder. This potentially reduces costs to individuals and the wider NHS perhaps negating the need for a secondary care referral. Results. We will conduct a multicentre RCT comparing CSI and HD in combination with CSI alone. Patients aged 18 years and over with a clinical diagnosis of frozen shoulder will be randomized and blinded to receive either CSI and HD in combination, or CSI alone. Feasibility outcomes include the rate of randomization as a proportion of eligible patients and the ability to use routinely collected data for outcome evaluation. This study has involved patients and the public in the trial design, dissemination methods, and how to include groups who are underserved by research. Conclusion. We will disseminate findings among musculoskeletal clinicians via the British Orthopaedic Association, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, the Royal College of Radiologists, and the Royal College of General Practitioners. To ensure wide reach we will communicate findings through our established network of charities and organizations, in addition to preparing dissemination findings in Bangla and Urdu (commonly spoken languages in northeast London). If a full trial is shown to be feasible, we will seek additional National Institute for Health and Care Research funding for a definitive RCT. This definitive study will inform NICE guidelines for the management of frozen shoulder. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):162–173

Aims. Torus fractures of the distal radius are the most common fractures in children. The NICE non-complex fracture guidelines recently concluded that bandaging was probably the optimal treatment for these injuries. However, across the UK current treatment varies widely due to a lack of evidence underpinning the guidelines. The Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) trial evaluates the effect of a soft bandage and immediate discharge compared with rigid immobilization. Methods. FORCE is a multicentre, parallel group randomized controlled equivalence trial. The primary outcome is the Wong-Baker FACES pain score at three days after randomization and the primary analysis of this outcome will use a multivariate linear regression model to compare the two groups. Secondary outcomes are measured at one and seven days, and three and six-weeks post-randomization and include the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity limb score, EuroQoL EQ-5D-Y, analgesia use, school absence, complications, and healthcare resource use. The planned statistical and health economic analyses for this trial are described here. The FORCE trial protocol has been published separately. Conclusion. This paper provides details of the planned analyses for this trial, and will reduce the risks of outcome reporting bias and data driven results. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:205–213

Aims. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the highest level of evidence used to inform patient care. However, it has been suggested that the quality of randomization in RCTs in orthopaedic surgery may be low. This study aims to describe the quality of randomization in trials included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Systematic reviews of RCTs testing orthopaedic procedures published in 2022 were extracted from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A random sample of 100 systematic reviews was selected, and all included RCTs were retrieved. To be eligible for inclusion, systematic reviews must have tested an orthopaedic procedure as the primary intervention, included at least one study identified as a RCT, been published in 2022 in English, and included human clinical trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 Tool was used to assess random sequence generation as ‘adequate’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘no information’; we then calculated the proportion of trials in each category. We also collected data to test the association between these categories and characteristics of the RCTs and systematic reviews. Results. We included 917 unique RCTs. We found that 374 RCTs (40.8%) reported adequate sequence generation, 61 (6.7%) were inadequate, 410 (44.7%) lacked information, and 72 (7.9%) were observational studies incorrectly included as RCTs within the systematic review. Publication year, an author with statistical or epidemiological qualifications, and journal impact factor were each associated with adequate randomization. We found that 45 systematic reviews (45%) included at least one inadequately randomized RCT or an observational study incorrectly treated as a RCT. Conclusion. There is evidence of a lack of random allocation in RCTs included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. The conduct of RCTs and systematic reviews should be improved to minimize the risk of bias from inadequate randomization in RCTs and mislabelling of non-randomized studies as RCTs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1072–1080

Aims. To assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compares three treatments for acetabular fractures in older patients: surgical fixation, surgical fixation and hip arthroplasty (fix-and-replace), and non-surgical treatment. Methods. Patients were recruited from seven UK NHS centres and randomized to a three-arm pilot trial if aged older than 60 years and had a displaced acetabular fracture. Feasibility outcomes included patients’ willingness to participate, clinicians’ capability to recruit, and dropout rates. The primary clinical outcome measure was the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) at six months. Secondary outcomes were Oxford Hip Score, Disability Rating Index, blood loss, and radiological and mobility assessments. Results. Between December 2017 and December 2019, 60 patients were recruited (median age 77.4 years, range 63.3 to 88.5) (39/21 M/F ratio). At final nine-month follow-up, 4/60 (7%) had withdrawn, 4/60 (7%) had died, and one had been lost to follow-up; a 98% response rate (50/51) was achieved for the EQ-5D questionnaire. Four deaths were recorded during the three-year trial period: three in the non-surgical treatment group and one in the fix-and-replace group. Conclusion. This study has shown a full-scale RCT to be feasible, but will need international recruitment. The Acetabular Fractures in older patients Intervention Trial (AceFIT) has informed the design of a multinational RCT sample size of 1,474 or 1,974 patients for a minimal clinically important difference of 0.06 on EQ-5D, with a power of 0.8 or 0.9, and loss to follow-up of 20%. This observed patient cohort comprises a medically complex group requiring multidisciplinary care; surgeon, anaesthetist, and ortho-geriatrician input is needed to optimize recovery and rehabilitation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):401–411

Aims. Fractures of the humeral shaft represent 3% to 5% of all fractures. The most common treatment for isolated humeral diaphysis fractures in the UK is non-operative using functional bracing, which carries a low risk of complications, but is associated with a longer healing time and a greater risk of nonunion than surgery. There is an increasing trend to surgical treatment, which may lead to quicker functional recovery and lower rates of fracture nonunion than functional bracing. However, surgery carries inherent risk, including infection, bleeding, and nerve damage. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of functional bracing compared to surgical fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Methods. The HUmeral SHaft (HUSH) fracture study is a multicentre, prospective randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures in adult patients. Participants will be randomized to receive either functional bracing or surgery. With 334 participants, the trial will have 90% power to detect a clinically important difference for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score, assuming 20% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include function, pain, quality of life, complications, cost-effectiveness, time off work, and ability to drive. Discussion. The results of this trial will provide evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness between surgical and non-surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Ethical approval has been obtained from East of England – Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee. Publication is anticipated to occur in 2024. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):343–349

Aims. To explore key stakeholder views around feasibility and acceptability of trials seeking to prevent post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) following knee injury, and provide guidance for next steps in PTOA trial design. Methods. Healthcare professionals, clinicians, and/or researchers (HCP/Rs) were surveyed, and the data were presented at a congress workshop. A second and related survey was then developed for people with joint damage caused by knee injury and/or osteoarthritis (PJDs), who were approached by a UK Charity newsletter or Oxford involvement registry. Anonymized data were collected and analyzed in Qualtrics. Results. Survey responses (n = 19 HCP/Rs, 39 PJDs) supported studies testing pharmacological agents preventing PTOA. All HCP/Rs and 30/31 (97%) PJDs supported the development of new treatments that improved or delayed knee symptoms and damage to knee structure. PJDs thought that improving structural knee damage was more important than knee symptoms. Both groups found studies more acceptable as expected future benefit and risk of PTOA increased. All drug delivery routes were acceptable. Workshop participants (around n = 60) reflected survey views. Discussions suggested that stratifying using molecular testing for likely drug response appeared to be more acceptable than using characteristics such as sex, age, and BMI. Conclusion. Our findings supported PTOA drug intervention studies, including situations where there is low risk of disease, no expected benefit of treatment, and frequent treatment administration. PJDs appeared less risk-averse than HCP/Rs. This work reinforces the benefits of consensus and involvement work in the co-creation of PTOA drug trial design. Involvement of key stakeholders, such as PJDs with different risks of OA and regulatory representatives, are critical for trial design success. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(9):513–524

Aims. Isolated fractures of the ulnar diaphysis are uncommon, occurring at a rate of 0.02 to 0.04 per 1,000 cases. Despite their infrequency, these fractures commonly give rise to complications, such as nonunion, limited forearm pronation and supination, restricted elbow range of motion, radioulnar synostosis, and prolonged pain. Treatment options for this injury remain a topic of debate, with limited research available and no consensus on the optimal approach. Therefore, this trial aims to compare clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes of two treatment methods: open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus nonoperative treatment in patients with isolated ulnar diaphyseal fractures. Methods. This will be a multicentre, open-label, parallel randomized clinical trial (under National Clinical Trial number NCT01123447), accompanied by a parallel prospective cohort group for patients who meet the inclusion criteria, but decline randomization. Eligible patients will be randomized to one of the two treatment groups: 1) nonoperative treatment with closed reduction and below-elbow casting; or 2) surgical treatment with ORIF utilizing a limited contact dynamic compression plate and screw construct. The primary outcome measured will be the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score at 12 months post-injury. Additionally, functional outcomes will be assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and pain visual analogue scale, allowing for a comparison of outcomes between groups. Secondary outcome measures will encompass clinical outcomes such as range of motion and grip strength, radiological parameters including time to union, as well as economic outcomes assessed from enrolment to 12 months post-injury. Ethics and dissemination. This trial has been approved by the lead site Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (CHREB; REB14-2004) and local ethics boards at each participating site. Findings from the trial will be disseminated through presentations at regional, national, and international scientific conferences and public forums. The primary results and secondary findings will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):411–418

Aims. Steroid injections are used for subacromial pain syndrome and can be administered via the anterolateral or posterior approach to the subacromial space. It is not currently known which approach is superior in terms of improving clinical symptoms and function. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the clinical effectiveness of a steroid injection given via the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Methods. The Subacromial Approach Injection Trial (SAInT) study is a single-centre, parallel, two-arm RCT. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to a subacromial steroid injection via either the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Participants in both trial arms will then receive physiotherapy as standard of care for subacromial pain syndrome. The primary analysis will compare the change in Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at three months after injection. Secondary outcomes include the change in OSS at six and 12 months, as well as the Pain Numeric Rating Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain), Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (RAND) at three months, six months, and one year after injection. Assessment of pain experienced during the injection will also be determined. A minimum of 86 patients will be recruited to obtain an 80% power to detect a minimally important difference of six points on the OSS change between the groups at three months after injection. Conclusion. The results of this trial will demonstrate if there is a difference in shoulder pain and function after a subacromial space steroid injection between the anterolateral versus posterior approach in patients with subacromial pain syndrome. This will help to guide treatment for patients with subacromial pain syndrome. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):729–735

Aims. During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. Methods. The PAtellar Resurfacing Trial (PART) is a patient- and assessor-blinded multicentre, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary TKR for primary osteoarthritis at NHS hospitals in England, with an embedded internal pilot phase (ISRCTN 33276681). Participants will be randomly allocated intraoperatively on a 1:1 basis (stratified by centre and implant type (cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-sacrificing)) to always resurface or selectively resurface the patella, once the surgeon has confirmed sufficient patellar thickness for resurfacing and that constrained implants are not required. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures at three months, six months, and one year (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, OKS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and costs). Cost-effectiveness will be measured for the lifetime of the patient. Overall, 530 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a four-point difference in OKS between the groups one year after surgery, assuming up to 40% resurfacing in the selective group. Conclusion. The trial findings will provide evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. This will inform future NICE guidelines on primary TKR and the role of selective patellar resurfacing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):464–478

Aims. To analyze outcomes reported in trials of childhood fractures. Methods. OVID MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched on the eighth August 2019. A manual search of trial registries, bibliographic review and internet search was used to identify additional studies. 11,476 studies were screened following PRISMA guidelines. 100 trials were included in the analysis. Data extraction was completed by two researchers for each trial. Study quality was not evaluated. Outcomes reported by trials were mapped onto domains in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Function framework. Results. In all, 525 outcomes were identified representing 52 WHO domains. Four domains were reported in more than 50% of trials: structure of upper/lower limb, sensation of pain, mobility of joint function, and health services, systems and policies. The Activities Scale for Kids performance (ASK-p) score was the most common outcome score reported in 6/72 upper limb and 4/28 lower limb trials. Conclusion. There is a diverse range of outcomes reported in trials of childhood fractures covering all areas in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. There were three common upper limb and three common lower limb outcomes. In the absence of a core outcome set, we recommend that upper limb trials report pain, range of movement and radiograph appearance of the arm and lower limb trials report pain, radiograph appearance of the leg and healthcare costs to improve consistency of reporting in future trials. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-5:167–174

Aims. Using data from the Hip Fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip Arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) trial, we sought to determine if a difference in functional outcomes exists between monopolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty (HA). Methods. This study is a secondary analysis of patients aged 50 years or older with a displaced femoral neck fracture who were enrolled in the HEALTH trial and underwent monopolar and bipolar HA. Scores from the Western Ontario and McMaster University Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Summary (PCS) and (MCS) were compared between the two HA groups using a propensity score-weighted analysis. Results. Of 746 HAs performed in the HEALTH trial, 404 were bipolar prostheses and 342 were unipolar. After propensity score weighting, adequate balance between the bipolar and unipolar groups was obtained as shown by standardized mean differences less than 0.1 for each covariable. A total of 24 months after HA, the total WOMAC score and its subcomponents showed no statistically significant difference between the unipolar and bipolar groups. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was found in the PCS and MCS scores of the SF-12 questionnaire. In participants aged 70 years and younger, no difference was found in any of the functional outcomes. Conclusion. From the results of this study, the use of bipolar HA over unipolar design does not provide superior functional outcomes at 24 months postoperatively. The theoretical advantage of reduced acetabular wear with bipolar designs does not appear to influence functional outcomes in the first two years postoperatively. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):370–377

Aims. A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial. Methods. We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment. Results. Recruiters faced four common obstacles when recruiting to a surgical orthopaedic trial: patient preferences for an intervention; a complex recruitment pathway; various logistical issues; and conflicting views on equipoise. Clinicians expressed concerns that the trial may not show significant differences in the treatments, validating their equipoise. However, they experienced role conflicts due to their own preference and perceived patient preference for an intervention arm. Conclusion. This study provided initial information about barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial. We shared these findings in an all-site investigators’ meeting and encouraged researchers to find solutions to identified barriers; this led to the successful completion of recruitment. Complex trials may benefit for using of a mixed-methods approach to mitigate against recruitment failure, and to improve patient participation and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):631–637

Aims. Symptomatic spinal stenosis is a very common problem, and decompression surgery has been shown to be superior to nonoperative treatment in selected patient groups. However, performing an instrumented fusion in addition to decompression may avoid revision and improve outcomes. The aim of the SpInOuT feasibility study was to establish whether a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) that accounted for the spectrum of pathology contributing to spinal stenosis, including pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and mobile spondylolisthesis, could be conducted. Methods. As part of the SpInOuT-F study, a pilot randomized trial was carried out across five NHS hospitals. Patients were randomized to either spinal decompression alone or spinal decompression plus instrumented fusion. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline and three months. The intended sample size was 60 patients. Results. Of the 90 patients screened, 77 passed the initial screening criteria. A total of 27 patients had a PI-LL mismatch and 23 had a dynamic spondylolisthesis. Following secondary inclusion and exclusion criteria, 31 patients were eligible for the study. Six patients were randomized and one underwent surgery during the study period. Given the low number of patients recruited and randomized, it was not possible to assess completion rates, quality of life, imaging, or health economic outcomes as intended. Conclusion. This study provides a unique insight into the prevalence of dynamic spondylolisthesis and PI-LL mismatch in patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis, and demonstrates that there is a need for a definitive RCT which stratifies for these groups in order to inform surgical decision-making. Nonetheless a definitive study would need further refinement in design and implementation in order to be feasible. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):573–579

Aims. To develop prediction models using machine-learning (ML) algorithms for 90-day and one-year mortality prediction in femoral neck fracture (FNF) patients aged 50 years or older based on the Hip fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) and Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trials. Methods. This study included 2,388 patients from the HEALTH and FAITH trials, with 90-day and one-year mortality proportions of 3.0% (71/2,388) and 6.4% (153/2,388), respectively. The mean age was 75.9 years (SD 10.8) and 65.9% of patients (1,574/2,388) were female. The algorithms included patient and injury characteristics. Six algorithms were developed, internally validated and evaluated across discrimination (c-statistic; discriminative ability between those with risk of mortality and those without), calibration (observed outcome compared to the predicted probability), and the Brier score (composite of discrimination and calibration). Results. The developed algorithms distinguished between patients at high and low risk for 90-day and one-year mortality. The penalized logistic regression algorithm had the best performance metrics for both 90-day (c-statistic 0.80, calibration slope 0.95, calibration intercept -0.06, and Brier score 0.039) and one-year (c-statistic 0.76, calibration slope 0.86, calibration intercept -0.20, and Brier score 0.074) mortality prediction in the hold-out set. Conclusion. Using high-quality data, the ML-based prediction models accurately predicted 90-day and one-year mortality in patients aged 50 years or older with a FNF. The final models must be externally validated to assess generalizability to other populations, and prospectively evaluated in the process of shared decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):168–181

Aims. The aims of this study were to report the outcomes of patients with a complex fracture of the lower limb in the five years after they took part in the Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHIST) trial. Methods. The WHIST trial compared negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) dressings with standard dressings applied at the end of the first operation for patients undergoing internal fixation of a complex fracture of the lower limb. Complex fractures included periarticular fractures and open fractures when the wound could be closed primarily at the end of the first debridement. A total of 1,548 patients aged ≥ 16 years completed the initial follow-up, six months after injury. In this study we report the pre-planned analysis of outcome data up to five years. Patients reported their Disability Rating Index (DRI) (0 to 100, in which 100 = total disability), and health-related quality of life, chronic pain scores and neuropathic pain scores annually, using a self-reported questionnaire. Complications, including further surgery related to the fracture, were also recorded. Results. A total of 1,015 of the original patients (66%) provided at least one set of outcome data during the five years of follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference in patient-reported disability between the two groups at five years (NPWT group mean DRI 30.0 (SD 26.5), standard dressing group mean DRI 31.5 (SD 28.8), adjusted difference -0.86 (95% CI -4.14 to 2.40; p = 0.609). There was also no evidence of a difference in the complication rates at this time. Conclusion. We found no evidence of a difference in disability ratings between NPWT compared with standard wound dressings in the five years following the surgical treatment of a complex fracture of the lower limb. Patients in both groups reported high levels of persistent disability and reduced quality of life, with little evidence of improvement during this time. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):858–864