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
The most concerning infection of allografts and operative procedures
is methicillin resistant An iontophoresis cell was set up with varying concentrations
of Vancomycin within the medulla of a section of sheep tibia, sealed
from an external saline solution. The cell was run for varying times,
Vancomycin concentrations and voltages, to gain information on optimisation
of conditions for impregnating the graft. Each graft was then sectioned
and dust ground from the exposed surface. The dust was serially
washed to extract the Vancomycin and concentrations measured and
plotted for all variables tested.Objectives
Methods
Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic bone
disease (MBD) have been available to the orthopaedic community for
more than a decade, with little improvement in service provision
to this increasingly large patient group. Improvements in adjuvant
and neo-adjuvant treatments have increased both the number and overall
survival of patients living with MBD. As a consequence the incidence
of complications of MBD presenting to surgeons has increased and
is set to increase further. The British Orthopaedic Oncology Society
(BOOS) are to publish more revised detailed guidelines on what represents
‘best practice’ in managing patients with MBD. This article is designed
to coincide with and publicise new BOOS guidelines and once again
champion the cause of patients with MBD. A series of short cases highlight common errors frequently being
made in managing patients with MBD despite the availability of guidelines.Objectives
Methods
