The diagnosis of surgical site infection following endoprosthetic reconstruction for bone tumours is frequently a subjective diagnosis. Large clinical trials use blinded Central Adjudication Committees (CACs) to minimise the variability and bias associated with assessing a clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to determine the level of inter-rater and intra-rater agreement in the diagnosis of surgical site infection in the context of a clinical trial. The Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial CAC adjudicated 29 non-PARITY cases of lower extremity endoprosthetic reconstruction. The CAC members classified each case according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) criteria for surgical site infection (superficial, deep, or organ space). Combinatorial analysis was used to calculate the smallest CAC panel size required to maximise agreement. A final meeting was held to establish a consensus.Objectives
Materials and Methods
Clinical studies of patients with bone sarcomas have been challenged
by insufficient numbers at individual centres to draw valid conclusions.
Our objective was to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive
multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether
a five-day regimen of post-operative antibiotics, in comparison
to a
24-hour regimen, decreases surgical site infections in patients
undergoing endoprosthetic reconstruction for lower extremity primary
bone tumours. We performed a pilot international multi-centre RCT. We used
central randomisation to conceal treatment allocation and sham antibiotics
to blind participants, surgeons, and data collectors. We determined
feasibility by measuring patient enrolment, completeness of follow-up,
and protocol deviations for the antibiotic regimens. Objective
Methods
