High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical therapies are fundamental to the delivery of evidence-based orthopaedics. Orthopaedic clinical trials have unique challenges; however, when these challenges are overcome, evidence from trials can be definitive in its impact on surgical practice. In this review, we highlight several issues that pose potential challenges to orthopaedic investigators aiming to perform surgical randomised controlled trials. We begin with a discussion on trial design issues, including the ethics of sham surgery, the importance of sample size, the need for patient-important outcomes, and overcoming expertise bias. We then explore features surrounding the execution of surgical randomised trials, including ethics review boards, the importance of organisational frameworks, and obtaining adequate funding.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:161–8.

Purpose

The optimal treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in patients over 60 years is controversial. While much research has focused on the impact of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) on surgical outcomes, little is known about patient preferences for either alternative. The purpose of this study was to elicit surgical preferences of patients at risk of sustaining hip fracture using a novel Decision board.

Background: The nature and frequency of complications during or after orthopaedic interventions represent critical clinical information for safety evaluations, which are required in the development or improvement of medical procedures and devices. However, neither uniform definitions nor established classifications about the reporting of complications exist. So complication reporting, even in orthopaedic trials is still up to the surgeons perception and understanding. The goal of this systematic review was to check whether essential data are consistently provided by the authors in the assessment of incidence, severity and characteristics of complications related to orthopaedic interventions in randomized controlled trials.

Methods: Five major, peer-reviewed orthopaedic journals were screened for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between January 2006 and July 2007. All relevant papers were obtained, anonymized and evaluated by two external reviewers. A checklist consisting of three main parts: definition, evaluation and reporting was developed and applied for the assessment of complication reporting in RCTs. The results were stratified for the main area of the trial.

Results: One hundred and twelve RCTs meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. The majority of RCTs (n = 73) reported on surgical treatment methods, with most of the trials focussing on arthroplasty (38%); surgical fracture treatment and other surgical interventions accounted for 13% each. Although complications were included as trial outcomes in two thirds of the studies, clear definitions of anticipated complications were provided at least partly in only two trials of fracture treatment and six other trials. It remained unclear whether authors considered the specific events “death”, “mal-union”, “impaired function” and “re-operation” as complications; “impaired function” was not considered as a complication in 93% of the trials and “re-operation” events were considered in only 50% of the trials dealing with surgical fracture treatments. In 83% of RCTs, the identity of the person or group assessing the complications was unknown and in a further 8%, this process was implemented by the treating surgeon. This review did not identify any trial involving a Data Safety Review Board for assessment and classification of complications.

Conclusions: Due to the lack of homogeneity among the published trials, improvement in the reporting of complications is necessary. A standardized protocol for assessing and reporting complications should be developed and endorsed by professional organizations and most importantly, clinical investigators.