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
We conducted a prospective randomised trial to compare the results of anatomical reduction and medial displacement osteotomy in 127 consecutive patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures, of whom 109 completed the study. After an average follow-up of 11 months, we found no significant differences in walking ability, social status or failure of fixation in the two groups. Postoperative complication rates and the early mortality rate were not significantly different, but operating time and blood loss were significantly higher in the osteotomy group. With the use of modern sliding hip screws, medial displacement osteotomy is rarely indicated for unstable intertrochanteric fractures.
