Objective . A clinical investigation into a new bone void filler is giving first data on systemic and local exposure to the anti-infective substance after implantation. Method . A total of 20 patients with post-traumatic/post-operative bone infections were enrolled in this open-label, prospective study. After radical surgical debridement, the bone cavity was filled with this material. The 21-day hospitalisation phase included determination of gentamicin concentrations in plasma, urine and wound exudate, assessment of wound healing, infection parameters, implant resorption, laboratory parameters, and adverse event monitoring. The follow-up period was six months. . Results . Systemic exposure to gentamicin after implantation was very low as local gentamicin concentrations were measured in wound exudate after six to ten hours. There were no signs of infectious complication throughout the clinical phase. Four patients had recurrent infections several weeks to months after implantation. The outcome was deemed successful by remission of infection in 16 (80%) of these problematic long-term treated patients. Safety laboratory measurements did not indicate nephrotoxic or hepatotoxic effects. . Conclusions . Local application of calcium sulphate/carbonate bone void filler comprising gentamicin revealed sufficient active local levels of the antibiotic by simultaneous significant low systemic exposure in patients with mostly chronic osteomyelitis/osteitis. The material was safe and well tolerated. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:223–9

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.