Skin Antisepsis before Surgical Fixation of Extremity Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating surgical-site infection have had conflicting results with respect to the use of alcohol solutions containing iodine povacrylex or chlorhexidine gluconate as skin antisepsis before surgery to repair a fractured limb (i.e., an extremity fracture). METHODS: In a cluster-randomized, crossover trial at 25 hospitals in the United States and Canada, we randomly assigned hospitals to use a solution of 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol (iodine group) or 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine group) as preoperative antisepsis for surgical procedures to repair extremity fractures. Every 2 months, the hospitals alternated interventions. Separate populations of patients with either open or closed fractures were enrolled and included in the analysis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ-space infection within 90 days. The secondary outcome was unplanned reoperation for fracture-healing complications. RESULTS: A total of 6785 patients with a closed fracture and 1700 patients with an open fracture were included in the trial. In the closed-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 77 patients (2.4%) in the iodine group and in 108 patients (3.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.00; P = 0.049). In the open-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 54 patients (6.5%) in the iodine group and in 60 patients (7.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odd ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27; P = 0.45). The frequencies of unplanned reoperation, 1-year outcomes, and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with closed extremity fractures, skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex in alcohol resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol. In patients with open fractures, the results were similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03523962.).

Pragmatic design and inclusion of patient-partner representatives improves participant experience in clinical research.

Objectives: Patient engagement in the design and implementation of clinical trials is necessary to ensure that the research is relevant and responsive to patients. The PREP-IT trials, which include 2 pragmatic trials that evaluate different surgical preparation solutions in orthopaedic trauma patients, followed the patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) methodology throughout the design, implementation, and conduct. We conducted a substudy within the PREP-IT trials to explore participants' experiences with trial participation. Methods: At the final follow-up visit (12 months after their fracture), patients participating in the PREP-IT trials were invited to participate in the substudy. After providing informed consent, participants completed a questionnaire that asked about their experience and satisfaction with participating in the PREP-IT trials. Descriptive statistics are used to report the findings. Results: Four hundred two participants participated in the substudy. Most participants (394 [98%]) reported a positive experience, and 376 (94%) participants felt their contributions were appreciated. The primary reasons for participation were helping future patients with fracture (279 [69%]) and to contribute to science (223 [56%]). Two hundred seventeen (46%) participants indicated that their decision to participate was influenced by the minimal time commitment. Conclusions: Most participants reported a positive experience with participating in the PREP-IT trials. Altruism was the largest motivator for participating in this research. Approximately half of the participants indicated that the pragmatic, low-participant burden design of the trial influenced their decision to participate. Meaningful patient engagement, a pragmatic, and low-burden protocol led to high levels of participant satisfaction.