Which Surgical Treatment for Open Tibial Shaft Fractures Results in the Fewest Reoperations? A Network Meta-analysis

A Trial of Wound Irrigation in the Initial Management of Open Fracture Wounds

BACKGROUND

The management of open fractures requires wound irrigation and débridement to remove contaminants, but the effectiveness of various pressures and solutions for irrigation remains controversial. We investigated the effects of castile soap versus normal saline irrigation delivered by means of high, low, or very low irrigation pressure.

METHODS

In this study with a 2-by-3 factorial design, conducted at 41 clinical centers, we randomly assigned patients who had an open fracture of an extremity to undergo irrigation with one of three irrigation pressures (high pressure [>20 psi], low pressure [5 to 10 psi], or very low pressure [1 to 2 psi]) and one of two irrigation solutions (castile soap or normal saline). The primary end point was reoperation within 12 months after the index surgery for promotion of wound or bone healing or treatment of a wound infection.

RESULTS

A total of 2551 patients underwent randomization, of whom 2447 were deemed eligible and included in the final analyses. Reoperation occurred in 109 of 826 patients (13.2%) in the high-pressure group, 103 of 809 (12.7%) in the low-pressure group, and 111 of 812 (13.7%) in the very-low-pressure group. Hazard ratios for the three pairwise comparisons were as follows: for low versus high pressure, 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.20; P=0.53), for high versus very low pressure, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.33; P=0.89), and for low versus very low pressure, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.23; P=0.62). Reoperation occurred in 182 of 1229 patients (14.8%) in the soap group and in 141 of 1218 (11.6%) in the saline group (hazard ratio, 1.32, 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.66; P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of reoperation were similar regardless of irrigation pressure, a finding that indicates that very low pressure is an acceptable, low-cost alternative for the irrigation of open fractures. The reoperation rate was higher in the soap group than in the saline group. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; FLOW ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00788398.).

Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons: Part II - Certainty

In the previous article (Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons-Part I, Credibility), we presented an approach to evaluating the credibility or methodologic rigor of network meta-analyses (NMA), an innovative approach to simultaneously addressing the relative effectiveness of three or more treatment options for a given medical condition or disease state. In the second part of the Users' Guide for Surgeons, we discuss and demonstrate the application of criteria for determining the certainty in effect sizes and directions associated with a given treatment option through an example pertinent to clinical orthopaedics.

Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons: Part I - Credibility

Conventional meta-analyses quantify the relative effectiveness of two interventions based on direct (that is, head-to-head) evidence typically derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For many medical conditions, however, multiple treatment options exist and not all have been compared directly. This issue limits the utility of traditional synthetic techniques such as meta-analyses, since these approaches can only pool and compare evidence across interventions that have been compared directly by source studies. Network meta-analyses (NMA) use direct and indirect comparisons to quantify the relative effectiveness of three or more treatment options. Interpreting the methodologic quality and results of NMAs may be challenging, as they use complex methods that may be unfamiliar to surgeons; yet for these surgeons to use these studies in their practices, they need to be able to determine whether they can trust the results of NMAs. The first judgment of trust requires an assessment of the credibility of the NMA methodology; the second judgment of trust requires a determination of certainty in effect sizes and directions. In this Users' Guide for Surgeons, Part I, we show the application of evaluation criteria for determining the credibility of a NMA through an example pertinent to clinical orthopaedics. In the subsequent article (Part II), we help readers evaluate the level of certainty NMAs can provide in terms of treatment effect sizes and directions.