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. 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.Aims
Methods
As tumours of bone and soft tissue are rare, multicentre prospective collaboration is essential for meaningful research and evidence-based advances in patient care. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators encountered in large-scale collaborative research by orthopaedic oncological surgeons involved or interested in prospective multicentre collaboration. All surgeons who were involved, or had expressed an interest, in the ongoing Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial were invited to participate in a focus group to discuss their experiences with collaborative research in this area. The discussion was digitally recorded, transcribed and anonymised. The transcript was analysed qualitatively, using an analytic approach which aims to organise the data in the language of the participants with little theoretical interpretation.Objectives
Methods
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
