Dual mobility versus conventional total hip arthroplasty in femoral neck fractures (DISTINCT): protocol for a registry-nested, open-label, cluster-randomised crossover trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures treated with total hip arthroplasty (THA) are at high risk of prosthesis instability, and dislocation is the most common indication for revision surgery. This study aims to determine whether dual mobility THA implants reduce the risk of dislocation compared with conventional THA in patients with hip fracture suitable to be treated with THA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cluster-randomised, crossover, open-label trial nested within the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). The clusters will comprise hospitals that perform at least 12 THAs for hip fracture per annum. All adults age ≥50 years who meet the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry guidelines for THA will be included. The intervention will be dual mobility THA and the comparator will be conventional THA. Each hospital will be allocated to two consecutive periods, one of dual mobility THA and the other of conventional THA in random order, aiming for an average of 16 patients eligible for the primary analysis per group (32 total per site), allowing different recruitment totals between sites. Data will be collected through the AOANJRR and linked with patient-level discharge data acquired through government agencies. The primary outcome is dislocation within 1 year. Secondary outcomes include revision surgery for dislocation and all-cause, complications and mortality at 1, 2 and 5 years. If dual mobility THA is found to be superior, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. The study will aim to recruit 1536 patients from at least 48 hospitals over 3 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted (Sydney Local Health District - Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Zone (approval X20-0162 and 2020/ETH00680) and site-specific approvals). Participant recruitment is via an opt-out consent process as both treatments are considered accepted, standard practice. The trial is endorsed by the Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000069853.

Does patient preference for online or telephone follow-up impact on response rates and data completeness following injury?

BACKGROUND: Routine collection of patient-reported outcomes is needed to better understand recovery, benchmark between trauma centers and systems, and monitor outcomes over time. A key component of follow-up methodology is the mode of administration of outcome measures with multiple options available. We aimed to quantify patient preference and compare the response rates and data completeness for telephone and online completion in trauma patients. METHODS: A registry-based cohort study of adult (16 years and older) patients registered to the Victorian State Trauma Registry and Victorian Orthopedic Trauma Outcomes Registry from April 2020 to December 2020 was undertaken. Survivors to discharge were contacted by telephone and offered the option of telephone or online completion of 6-month follow-up using the five-level EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS). The online and telephone groups were compared for differences in characteristics, follow-up rates, and data completeness. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of choosing online completion. RESULTS: Of the 3,886 patients, 51% (n = 1,994) chose online follow-up, and the follow-up rates were lower for online (77%), compared with telephone (89%), follow-up. Younger age, higher socioeconomic status, and preferred language other than English were associated with higher adjusted odds of choosing online completion. Admission to intensive care was associated with lower adjusted odds of choosing online completion. Completion rate for the EQ-5D-5L utility score was 97% for both groups. A valid total 12-WHODAS score could be calculated for 63% of online respondents compared with 86% for the telephone group. CONCLUSION: More than half of trauma patients opted for online completion. Completion rates did differ depending on the questionnaire and telephone follow-up rates were higher. Nevertheless, given the wide diversity of the trauma population, the high rate of online uptake, and potential resource constraints, the study findings largely support the use of dual methods for follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/Epidemiological, Level III.

Discharge destination and patient-reported outcomes after inpatient treatment for isolated lower limb fractures.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between discharge destination (home or inpatient rehabilitation) for adult patients treated in hospital for isolated lower limb fractures and patient-reported outcomes. DESIGN: Review of prospectively collected Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR) data. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Adults (18-64 years old) treated for isolated lower limb fractures at four Melbourne trauma hospitals that contribute data to the VOTOR, 1 March 2007 - 31 March 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Return to work and functional recovery (assessed with the extended Glasgow Outcomes Scale, GOS-E); propensity score analysis of association between discharge destination and outcome. RESULTS: Of 7961 eligible patients, 1432 (18%) were discharged to inpatient rehabilitation, and 6775 (85%) were followed up 12 months after their injuries. After propensity score adjustment, the odds of better functional recovery were 56% lower for patients discharged to inpatient rehabilitation than for those discharged directly home (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.37-0.51); for the 5057 people working before their accident, the odds of return to work were reduced by 66% (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.26-0.46). Propensity score analysis improved matching of the discharge destination groups, but imbalances in funding source remained for both outcome analyses, and for also for site and cause of injury in the GOS-E analysis (standardised differences, 10-16%). CONCLUSIONS: Discharge to inpatient rehabilitation after treatment for isolated lower limb fractures was associated with poorer outcomes than discharge home. Factors that remained unbalanced after propensity score analysis could be assessed in controlled trials.

Multicentre randomised double-blind placebo controlled trial of combination vancomycin and cefazolin surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: the Australian surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (ASAP) trial.

INTRODUCTION: Resistant Gram-positive organisms, such as methicillin-resistant staphylococci, account for a significant proportion of infections following joint replacement surgery. Current surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines recommend the use of first-generation or second-generation cephalosporin antibiotics, such as cefazolin. Cefazolin, however, does not prevent infections due to these resistant organisms; therefore, new prevention strategies need to be examined. One proposed strategy is to combine a glycopeptide antibiotic with cefazolin for prophylaxis. The clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy compared with usual therapy, however, have not been established. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This randomised, double-blind, parallel, superiority, placebo-controlled, phase 4 trial will compare the incidence of all surgical site infections (SSIs) including superficial, deep and organ/space (prosthetic joint) infections, safety and cost-effectiveness of surgical prophylaxis with cefazolin plus vancomycin to that with cefazolin plus placebo. The study will be performed in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. In the microbiological sub-studies, we will examine the incidence of SSIs in participants with preoperative staphylococci colonisation (Sub-Study 1) and incidence of VRE acquisition (Sub-Study 2). The trial will recruit 4450 participants over a 4-year period across 13 orthopaedic centres in Australia. The primary outcome is the incidence of SSI at 90 days post index surgery. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of SSI according to joint and microorganism and other healthcare associated infections. Safety endpoints include the incidence of acute kidney injury, hypersensitivity reactions and all-cause mortality. The primary and secondary analysis will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis consisting of all randomised participants who undergo eligible surgery. We will also perform a per-protocol analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by The Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/Alfred/102) on 9 July 2018. Study findings will be disseminated in the printed media, and learnt forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618000642280.

CRISTAL: protocol for a cluster randomised, crossover, non-inferiority trial of aspirin compared to low molecular weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hip or knee arthroplasty, a registry nested study.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication following hip arthroplasty (HA) and knee arthroplasty (KA). This study aims to determine whether aspirin is non-inferior to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in preventing symptomatic VTE following HA and KA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cluster randomised, crossover, non-inferiority, trial nested within the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). The clusters will consist of Australian hospitals performing at least 250 HA and/or KA procedures per annum. All adult patients undergoing HA or KA will be included. The intervention will be aspirin, orally, 85-150 mg daily. The comparator will be LMWH (enoxaparin) 40 mg, subcutaneously, daily. Both drugs will commence within 24 hours postoperatively and continue for 35 days after HA and 14 days after KA. Each hospital will be randomised to commence with aspirin or LMWH and then crossover to the alternative treatment after meeting the recruitment target. Data will be collected through the AOANJRR via patient-reported surveys. The primary outcome is symptomatic VTE within 90 days post surgery, verified by AOANJRR staff. The primary analysis will include only patients undergoing elective primary total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. Secondary outcomes will include symptomatic VTE for all HA and KA (including partial and revision) within 90 days, readmission, reoperation, major bleeding and death within 90 days and reoperation, death and patient-reported pain, function and health status at 6 months. If aspirin is found to be inferior, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. The study will aim to recruit 15 562 patients from 31 hospitals. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted. Trial results will be submitted for publication. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001879257, pre-results) and is endorsed by the Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network.