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 carried out a prospective study in order to establish to what extent the intra-articular evaluation undertaken during arthroscopy of the knee differed between surgeons. Two senior specialist registrars and a consultant orthopaedic surgeon with a special interest in knee surgery were involved. A total of 78 knee arthroscopies (78 patients) was studied. Arthroscopy was first carried out by the trainee and then by the senior author (ACWH). The intra-articular evaluation during the arthroscopy was recorded independently by a third person in the operating theatre. Data were collected to record variations in examination under anaesthesia, the morphology and pathology of the menisci and anterior cruciate ligament and the state of the articular surfaces. The overall interobserver variation was 20% in all categories. We question the published results of intra-articular evaluation during knee arthroscopy when surgeons of different levels of experience are involved in a single study.
