In-person cognitive behavioural therapy vs. usual care after surgical management of extremity fractures: an unsuccessful feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Extremity fractures are common, and most are managed operatively; however, despite successful reduction, up to half of patients report persistent post-surgical pain. Furthermore, psychological factors such as stress, distress, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, and fear-avoidance behaviors have been associated with the development of chronic pain. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to determine the effect of in-person cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) vs. usual care on persistent post-surgical pain among patients with a surgically managed extremity fracture. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to either in-person CBT or usual care. We used four criteria to judge the composite measure of feasibility: 1) successful implementation of CBT at each clinical site, 2) 40 patients recruited within 6 months, 3) treatment compliance in a minimum 36 of 40 participants (90%), and 4) 32 of 40 participants (80%) achieving follow-up at one year. The primary clinical outcome was persistent post-surgical pain at one year after surgery. RESULTS: Only two of the four participating sites were able to implement the CBT regimen due to difficulties with identifying certified therapists who had the capacity to accommodate additional patients into their schedule within the required timeframe (i.e., 8 weeks of their fracture). Given the challenges associated with CBT implementation, only one site was able to actively recruit patients. This site screened 86 patients and enrolled 3 patients (3.5%) over a period of three months. Participants were unable to comply with the in-person CBT, with no participants attending an in-person CBT session. Follow-up at one year could not be assessed as the pilot study was stopped early, three months into the study, due to failure to achieve the other three feasibility criteria. CONCLUSION: Our pilot trial failed to demonstrate the feasibility of a trial of in-person CBT versus usual care to prevent persistent pain after surgical repair of traumatic long-bone fractures and re-enforces the importance of establishing feasibility before embarking on definitive trials. Protocol modifications to address the identified barriers include the delivery of our intervention as a therapist-guided, remote CBT program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT03196258); Registered June 22, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03196258.

Risk Factors Associated With Infection in Open Fractures of the Upper and Lower Extremities.

INTRODUCTION: Open fractures are associated with a high risk of infection. The prevention of infection is the single most important goal, influencing perioperative care of patients with open fractures. Using data from 2,500 participants with open fracture wounds enrolled in the Fluid Lavage of Open Wounds trial, we conducted a multivariable analysis to determine the factors that are associated with infections 12 months postfracture. METHODS: Eighteen predictor variables were identified for infection a priori from baseline data, fracture characteristics, and surgical data from the Fluid Lavage of Open Wounds trial. Twelve predictor variables were identified for deep infection, which included both surgically and nonoperatively managed infections. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to identify the factors associated with infection. Irrigation solution and pressure were included as variables in the analysis. The results were reported as adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and associated P values. All tests were two tailed with alpha = 0.05. RESULTS: Factors associated with any infection were fracture location (tibia: HR 5.13 versus upper extremity, 95% CI 3.28 to 8.02; other lower extremity: HR 3.63 versus upper extremity, 95% CI 2.38 to 5.55; overall P < 0.001), low energy injury (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.46; P = 0.019), degree of wound contamination (severe: HR 2.12 versus mild, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.32; moderate: HR 1.08 versus mild, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.49; overall P = 0.004), and need for flap coverage (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.99; P = 0.017). DISCUSSION: The results of this study provide a better understanding of which factors are associated with a greater risk of infection in open fractures. In addition, it can allow for surgeons to better counsel patients regarding prognosis, helping patients to understand their individual risk of infection.

Effectiveness of Iodophor vs Chlorhexidine Solutions for Surgical Site Infections and Unplanned Reoperations for Patients Who Underwent Fracture Repair: The PREP-IT Master Protocol.

Importance: The risk of developing a surgical site infection after extremity fracture repair is nearly 5 times greater than in most elective orthopedic surgical procedures. For all surgical procedures, it is standard practice to prepare the operative site with an antiseptic solution; however, there is limited evidence to guide the choice of solution used for orthopedic fracture repair. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs chlorhexidine solutions to reduce surgical site infections and unplanned fracture-related reoperations for patients who underwent fracture repair. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PREP-IT (Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Pre-operative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma) master protocol will be followed to conduct 2 multicenter pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trials, Aqueous-PREP (Pragmatic Randomized Trial Evaluating Pre-Operative Aqueous Antiseptic Skin Solution in Open Fractures) and PREPARE (Pragmatic Randomized Trial Evaluating Pre-Operative Alcohol Skin Solutions in Fractured Extremities). The Aqueous-PREP trial will compare 4% aqueous chlorhexidine vs 10% povidone-iodine for patients with open extremity fractures. The PREPARE trial will compare 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol vs 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol for patients with open extremity fractures and patients with closed lower extremity or pelvic fractures. Both trials will share key aspects of study design and trial infrastructure. The studies will follow a pragmatic cluster randomized crossover design with alternating treatment periods of approximately 2 months. The primary outcome will be surgical site infection and the secondary outcome will be unplanned fracture-related reoperations within 12 months. The Aqueous-PREP trial will enroll a minimum of 1540 patients with open extremity fractures from at least 12 hospitals; PREPARE will enroll a minimum of 1540 patients with open extremity fractures and 6280 patients with closed lower extremity and pelvic fractures from at least 18 hospitals. The primary analyses will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle and account for potential between-cluster and between-period variability. The patient-centered design, implementation, and dissemination of results are guided by a multidisciplinary team that includes 3 patients and other relevant stakeholders. Discussion: The PREP-IT master protocol increases efficiency through shared trial infrastructure and study design components. Because prophylactic skin antisepsis is used prior to all surgical procedures and the application, cost, and availability of all study solutions are similar, the results of the PREP-IT trials are poised to inform clinical guidelines and bring about an immediate change in clinical practice. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03385304 and NCT03523962.

Injury in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Training.

BACKGROUND: Brazilian jiu-jitsu (BJJ) is a grappling-based martial art that can lead to injuries both in training and in competition. There is a paucity of data regarding injuries sustained while training in BJJ, in both competitive and noncompetitive jiu-jitsu athletes. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that most BJJ practitioners sustain injuries to various body locations while in training and in competition. Our primary objective was to describe injuries sustained while training for BJJ, both in practice and in competition. Our secondary objectives were to classify injury type and to explore participant and injury characteristics associated with wanting to quit jiu-jitsu after injury. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. METHODS: We conducted a survey of all BJJ participants at a single club in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. We developed a questionnaire including questions on demographics, injuries in competition and/or training, treatment received, and whether the participant considered discontinuing BJJ after injury. RESULTS: A total of 70 BJJ athletes participated in this study (response rate, 85%). Ninety-one percent of participants were injured in training and 60% of competitive athletes were injured in competitions. Significantly more injuries were sustained overall for each body region in training in comparison with competition (P < 0.001). Two-thirds of injured participants required medical attention, with 15% requiring surgery. Participants requiring surgical treatment were 6.5 times more likely to consider quitting compared with those requiring other treatments, including no treatment (odds ratio [OR], 6.50; 95% CI, 1.53-27.60). Participants required to take more than 4 months off training were 5.5 times more likely to consider quitting compared with those who took less time off (OR, 5.48; 95% CI, 2.25-13.38). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of injury is very high among BJJ practitioners, with 9 of 10 practitioners sustaining at least 1 injury, commonly during training. Injuries were primarily sprains and strains to fingers, the upper extremity, and neck. Potential participants in BJJ should be informed regarding significant risk of injury and instructed regarding appropriate precautions and safety protocols. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should be aware of the substantial risk of injury among BJJ practitioners and the epidemiology of the injuries as outlined in this article.

Intra-articular Injections in the Treatment of Symptoms from Ankle Arthritis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Intra-articular (IA) injections are commonly used to treat knee arthritis pain; however, whether their efficacy generalizes to ankle arthritis remains debatable. We aimed to evaluate the evidence for IA therapies in the management of this patient population. METHODS: We performed a literature search for observational and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Treatments included corticosteroids (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and mesenchymal stem cells (MSC). We extracted study details, patient demographics, treatment characteristics, efficacy outcomes, and safety. When feasible, data from RCTs were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A P value <.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We identified 27 studies (1085 patients). Ankle OA, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and hemophilic arthropathy populations were examined. The majority of studies were observational (20 studies); the only RCTs were those evaluating HA. Case series demonstrated favorable results in terms of symptomatic relief with CS, HA, PRP, and MSC injections; however, the effects of CS may only be short term and the evidence on MSCs was limited to 1 study with 6 ankle OA patients. Pooled results (3 RCTs, 109 patients) suggested significantly improved Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale scores with HA over saline at 6 months, with a mean difference of 12.47 points (95% CI 1.18-23.77, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Evidence from small trials favors HA and PRP injections for the treatment of pain associated with ankle osteoarthritis. However, the relative efficacy of all injectable therapies is far from definitive and warrants further high-quality comparative trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review.