Equipoise and the technology curve: Relevance in the design of Surgical trials

Explanatory and pragmatic trials in orthopaedics - Have we done the right studies?

Recent decades have seen marked advances in the quality of clinical orthopaedic trauma research, and with this has come a rise in the number of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) being conducted in orthopaedic trauma. These trials have been largely valuable in driving evidence-based management of injuries which previously had clinical equipoise. However, though RCTs are traditionally seen as the 'gold standard' of high-quality research, this research method is comprised primarily of two entities, explanatory and pragmatic designs, each with its own strengths and limitations. Most orthopaedic trials lie within a continuum between these designs, with varying degrees of both pragmatic and explanatory features. In this narrative review we provide a summary of the nuances within orthopaedic trial design, the advantages and limitations of such designs, and suggest tools which may aid clinicians in the appropriate selection and evaluation of trial designs.

Methodological Development of Combination Drug and Radiotherapy in Basic and Clinical Research

Newer technical improvements in radiation oncology have been rapidly implemented in recent decades, allowing an improved therapeutic ratio. The development of strategies using local and systemic treatments concurrently, mainly targeted therapies, has however plateaued. Targeted molecular compounds and immunotherapy are increasingly being incorporated as the new standard of care for a wide array of cancers. A better understanding of possible prior methodology issues is therefore required and should be integrated into upcoming early clinical trials including individualized radiotherapy-drug combinations. The outcome of clinical trials is influenced by the validity of the preclinical proofs of concept, the impact on normal tissue, the robustness of biomarkers and the quality of the delivery of radiation. Herein, key methodological aspects are discussed with the aim of optimizing the design and implementation of future precision drug-radiotherapy trials.

The treatment of segmental tibial fractures: does patient preference differ from surgeon choice?

INTRODUCTION

Segmental tibial fractures are complex injuries with a prolonged recovery time. Current definitive treatment options include intramedullary fixation or a circular external fixator. However, there is uncertainty as to which surgical option is preferable and there are no sufficiently rigorous multi-centre trials that have answered this question. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nailing to the application of a circular external fixator.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A convenience questionnaire survey of attending surgeons was conducted during the United Kingdom's Orthopaedic Trauma Society annual meeting 2017 to determine the treatment modalities used for a segmental tibial fracture (n=63). Patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients who had been treated for a segmental tibial fracture as part of a patient and public involvement focus group with questions covering the domains of surgical preference, treatment expectations, outcome, the consent process and follow-up regime (n=5).

RESULTS

Based on the surgeon survey, 39% routinely use circular frame fixation following segmental tibial fracture compared to 61% who use nail fixation. Nail fixation was reported as the treatment of choice for a closed injury in a healthy patient in 81% of surgeons, and by 86% for a patient with a closed fracture who was obese. Twenty-one percent reported that they would use a nail for an open segmental tibia fracture in diabetics who smoked, whilst 57% would opt for a nail for a closed injury with compartment syndrome, and only 27% would use a nail for an open segmental injury in a young fit sports person. The patient and public preference exercise identified that sleep, early functional outcomes and psychosocial measures of outcomes are important.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that a RCT comparing definitive fixation with an intramedullary nail and a circular external fixator is justified as there remains uncertainty on the optimal surgical management for segmental tibial fractures. Furthermore, psychosocial factors and early post-operative outcomes should be reported as core outcome measures as part of such a trial.