A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial. We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment.Aims
Methods
We report a systematic review and meta-analysis
of published randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the
efficacy of pre-operative skin antisepsis and cleansing techniques
in reducing foot and ankle skin flora. The post-preparation culture
number (Post-PCN) was the primary outcome. The data were evaluated
using a modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. We
identified eight trials (560 participants, 716 feet) that met the inclusion
criteria. There was a significant difference in the proportions
of Post-PCN between hallux nailfold (HNF) and toe web spaces (TWS)
sites: 0.47 Meta-analyses showed that alcoholic chlorhexidine had better
efficacy than alcoholic povidone-iodine (PI) at HNF sites (risk
difference 0.19 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.30); p = 0.0005); a two-step intervention
using PI scrub and paint (S&
P) followed by alcohol showed significantly
better efficacy over PI (S&
P) alone at TWS sites (risk difference
0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.24); p = 0.0169); and a two-step intervention
using chlorhexidine scrub followed by alcohol showed significantly
better efficacy over PI (S&
P) alone at the combined (HNF with
TWS) sites (risk difference 0.27 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.40); p <
0.0001).
No significant difference was found between cleansing techniques. Cite this article:
We carried out a prospective study over a period of 12 months to measure the exposure to radiation of the hands of a dedicated foot and ankle surgeon. A thermoluminescent dosimeter ring (TLD) was used to measure the cumulative dose of radiation. Fluoroscopy was used in operations on the foot and ankle. The total screening time was 3028 s, with a mean time per procedure of 37.4 s (0.6 to 197). This correlated positively with the number of procedures performed (r = 0.92, p <
0.001), and with the dose of radiation in both the left (r = 0.85, p = 0.0005) and right TLDs (r = 0.59, p = 0.419). There was no significant difference in the dose of radiation between the two hands ( This is a simple and convenient method for evaluating the exposure of a single surgeon to radiation. The radiation detected was well below the annual dose limit set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.