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. 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. Objective
Method
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:
