Lateral compression type 1 fracture fixation in the elderly (L1FE): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (with internal pilot) comparing the effects of INFIX surgery and non-surgical management for treating patients with lateral compression type 1 (LC-1) fragility fractures.

BACKGROUND: Lateral compression type1 (LC-1) fragility fractures are a common, painful injury in older adults resulting in reduced mobility. The incidence of these fractures is increasing with the growing older adult population. The current standard of care is non-surgical management; however, patients with this injury are at risk of long-term immobility and related complications. INFIX is a pelvic fixation device used in younger patients with high-energy fractures. The device is fitted via a percutaneous technique with no external pin sites and has good purchase even in osteoporotic bone. It therefore has the potential to be well tolerated in patients with LC-1 fragility fractures. INFIX could improve patients' ability to mobilise and reduce the risk of immobility-related complications. However, there is a risk of complications related to surgery, and robust evidence is required on patient outcomes. This study will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical fixation with INFIX compared to non-surgical management of LC-1 fragility fractures in older adults. METHODS: A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of 600 patients allocated 1:1 to non-surgical management or INFIX surgery. The study will have a 12-month internal pilot to assess recruitment and trial feasibility. The primary outcome will be the patient quality of life over 6 months, measured by the patient-reported EQ-5D-5L. The secondary outcomes will include physical function, mental health, pain, delirium, imaging assessment, resource use, and complications. DISCUSSION: The L1FE study aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical management of people aged 60 years and older with LC-1 fragility fractures. The trial is sufficiently powered and rigorously designed to inform future clinical and patient decision-making and allocation of NHS resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN16478561. Registered on 8 April 2019.

Provision of foot and ankle care services for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease across Europe.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to explore the variation in the provision of care for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), and foot and ankle problems between European healthcare systems. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was developed and piloted in seven countries prior to being distributed to the presidents of all 22 national health professionals in rheumatology associations within the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). Summary data were obtained using SPSS V22. Ethical approval was sought from the Medical Research Ethics Committee of University of Malaga (CEUMA-91-2015-H). RESULTS: Sixteen questionnaires (73% response rate) were completed (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK). All 16 respondents indicated that foot and ankle healthcare services were provided in their country, but only three countries had services specializing in RMD-related foot and ankle problems (the Netherlands, the UK and Malta). The professions providing care varied, depending on the pathology and the country. Foot and ankle pain was mostly treated by rheumatologists and physiotherapists; foot and ankle deformities by orthopaedic surgeons and orthotist/prosthetists; and foot and ankle ulcers by nurses. Services were predominantly delivered through the public sector, and in secondary care (hospital) settings. CONCLUSIONS: Only three countries reported having specialist foot and ankle services addressing the needs of people with RMDs. Variation was seen in the professions which provided care between countries, and also between the foot and ankle pathologies cared for. There is a lack of clinical pathways and guidelines for the management of patients with RMD-related foot and ankle problems.

CODIFI (Concordance in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Infection): a cross-sectional study of wound swab versus tissue sampling in infected diabetic foot ulcers in England.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of agreement and patterns of disagreement between wound swab and tissue samples in patients with an infected diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Primary and secondary care foot ulcer/diabetic outpatient clinics and hospital wards across England. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria: consenting patients aged ≥18 years; diabetes mellitus; suspected infected DFU. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: clinically inappropriate to take either sample. INTERVENTIONS: Wound swab obtained using Levine's technique; tissue samples collected using a sterile dermal curette or scalpel. OUTCOME MEASURES: Coprimary: reported presence, and number, of pathogens per sample; prevalence of resistance to antimicrobials among likely pathogens. Secondary: recommended change in antibiotic therapy based on blinded clinical review; adverse events; sampling costs. RESULTS: 400 consenting patients (79% male) from 25 centres.Most prevalent reported pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (43.8%), Streptococcus (16.7%) and other aerobic Gram-positive cocci (70.6%). At least one potential pathogen was reported from 70.1% of wound swab and 86.1% of tissue samples. Pathogen results differed between sampling methods in 58% of patients, with more pathogens and fewer contaminants reported from tissue specimens.The majority of pathogens were reported significantly more frequently in tissue than wound swab samples (P<0.01), with equal disagreement for S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Blinded clinicians more often recommended a change in antibiotic regimen based on tissue compared with wound swab results (increase of 8.9%, 95% CI 2.65% to 15.3%). Ulcer pain and bleeding occurred more often after tissue collection versus wound swabs (pain: 9.3%, 1.3%; bleeding: 6.8%, 1.5%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Reports of tissue samples more frequently identified pathogens, and less frequently identified non-pathogens compared with wound swab samples. Blinded clinicians more often recommended changes in antibiotic therapy based on tissue compared with wound swab specimens. Further research is needed to determine the effect of the additional information provided by tissue samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN52608451.

Concordance in diabetic foot ulcer infection.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate identification of pathogens, rather than colonising bacteria, is a prerequisite for targeted antibiotic therapy to ensure optimal patient outcome in wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers. Wound swabs are the easiest and most commonly used sampling technique but most published guidelines recommend instead removal of a tissue sample from the wound bed, which is a more complex process. The aim of this study was to assess the concordance between culture results from wound swabs and tissue samples in patients with suspected diabetic foot infection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients with a diabetic foot ulcer that is thought to be infected are being recruited from 25 sites across England in a cross-sectional study. The coprimary endpoints for the study are agreement between the two sampling techniques for three microbiological parameters: reported presence of likely isolates identified by the UK Health Protection Agency; resistance of isolates to usual antibiotic agents; and, the number of isolates reported per specimen. Secondary endpoints include appropriateness of the empiric antibiotic therapy prescribed and adverse events. Enrolling 400 patients will provide 80% power to detect a difference of 3% in the reported presence of an organism, assuming organism prevalence of 10%, discordance of 5% and a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance. Assumed overall prevalence is based on relatively uncommon organisms such as Pseudomonas. We will define acceptable agreement as κ>0.6. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Concordance in diabetic foot ulcer infection (CODIFI) will produce robust data to evaluate the two most commonly used sampling techniques employed for patients with a diabetic foot infection. This will help determine whether or not it is important that clinicians take tissue samples rather than swabs in infected ulcers. This study has been approved by the Sheffield NRES Committee (Ref: 11/YH/0078) and all sites have obtained local approvals prior starting recruitment. STUDY REGISTRATION: NRES Ref: 11/YH/0078, UKCRN ID: 10440, ISRCTN: 52608451.