24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement in Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Register-based Multicentre Randomised Controlled Non-inferiority Trial (ALBA trial)

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The current evidence on the efficacy of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after primary joint reconstruction is insufficient. In several European countries, the use of ALBC is routine practice unlike in the USA where ALBC use is not approved in low-risk patients. Therefore, we designed a double-blinded pragmatic multicentre register-based randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to investigate the effects of ALBC compared with plain bone cement in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

          Methods and analysis

          A minimum of 9,172 patients undergoing full-cemented primary TKA will be recruited and equally randomised into the ALBC group and the plain bone cement group. This trial will be conducted in Norwegian hospitals that routinely perform cemented primary TKA. The primary outcome will be risk of revision surgery due to PJI at 1-year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be: risk of revision due to any reason including aseptic loosening at 1, 6, 10 and 20 years of follow-up; patient-related outcome measures like function, pain, satisfaction and health-related quality of life at 1, 6 and 10 years of follow-up; risk of changes in the microbial pattern and resistance profiles of organisms cultured in subsequent revisions at 1, 6, 10 and 20 years of follow-up; cost-effectiveness of routine ALBC versus plain bone cement use in primary TKA. We will use 1:1 randomisation with random permuted blocks and stratify by participating hospitals to randomise patients to receive ALBC or plain bone cement. Inclusion, randomisation and follow-up will be through the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

          Ethics and dissemination

          The trial was approved by the Western Norway Regional Committees on Medical and Health Research Ethics (reference number: 2019/751/REK vest) on 21 June 2019. The findings of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

          Trial registration number

          NCT04135170.

          Related collections

          Most cited references77

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

          The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol.The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Understanding the Intention-to-treat Principle in Randomized Controlled Trials

            Clinicians, institutions, and policy makers use results from randomized controlled trials to make decisions regarding therapeutic interventions for their patients and populations. Knowing the effect the intervention has on patients in clinical trials is critical for making both individual patient as well as population-based decisions. However, patients in clinical trials do not always adhere to the protocol. Excluding patients from the analysis who violated the research protocol (did not get their intended treatment) can have significant implications that impact the results and analysis of a study. Intention-to-treat analysis is a method for analyzing results in a prospective randomized study where all participants who are randomized are included in the statistical analysis and analyzed according to the group they were originally assigned, regardless of what treatment (if any) they received. This method allows the investigator (or consumer of the medical literature) to draw accurate (unbiased) conclusions regarding the effectiveness of an intervention. This method preserves the benefits of randomization, which cannot be assumed when using other methods of analysis. The risk of bias is increased whenever treatment groups are not analyzed according to the group to which they were originally assigned. If an intervention is truly effective (truth), an intention-to-treat analysis will provide an unbiased estimate of the efficacy of the intervention at the level of adherence in the study. This article will review the “intention-to-treat” principle and its converse, “per-protocol” analysis, and illustrate how using the wrong method of analysis can lead to a significantly biased assessment of the effectiveness of an intervention.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Knee replacement.

              Knee-replacement surgery is frequently done and highly successful. It relieves pain and improves knee function in people with advanced arthritis of the joint. The most common indication for the procedure is osteoarthritis. We review the epidemiology of and risk factors for knee replacement. Because replacement is increasingly considered for patients younger than 55 years, improved decision making about whether a patient should undergo the procedure is needed. We discuss assessment of surgery outcomes based on data for revision surgery from national joint-replacement registries and on patient-reported outcome measures. Widespread surveillance of existing implants is urgently needed alongside the carefully monitored introduction of new implant designs. Developments for the future are improved delivery of care and training for surgeons and clinical teams. In an increasingly ageing society, the demand for knee-replacement surgery will probably rise further, and we predict future trends. We also emphasise the need for new strategies to treat early-stage osteoarthritis, which will ultimately reduce the demand for joint-replacement surgery. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2021
                28 January 2021
                : 11
                : 1
                : e041096
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentFaculty of Health Science , VID Specialized University , Bergen, Norway
                [2 ]departmentThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery , Haukeland University Hospital , Bergen, Norway
                [3 ]departmentDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine , University of Bergen , Bergen, Norway
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of Occupational Medicine , Haukeland University Hospital , Bergen, Norway
                [5 ]departmentDivision of Orthopedic Surgery , Oslo University Hospital , Oslo, Norway
                [6 ]departmentDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery , St. Olavs Hospital , Trondheim, Norway
                [7 ]departmentDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science , The Norwegian University of Science and Technology , Bergen, Norway
                [8 ]departmentDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics , University of Oslo , Oslo, Norway
                [9 ]departmentDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery , Akershus Universitetssykehus HF , Oslo, Norway
                [10 ]departmentDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery , Lovisenberg Diakonal Hospital , Oslo, Norway
                [11 ]departmentDepartment of Orthopaedic , Haugesund Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases , Haugesund, Norway
                [12 ]departmentDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery , Martina Hansens Hospital , Sandvika, Norway
                [13 ]departmentDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery , Stavanger University Hospital , Stavanger, Norway
                [14 ]departmentDepartment of Medicine , Haukeland University Hospital , Bergen, Norway
                [15 ]departmentDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery , University Hospital of North Norway , Tromsø, Norway
                [16 ]departmentDepartment of Clinical Medicine , UiT-The Arctic University of Norway , Tromsø, Norway
                [17 ]departmentDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery , Namsos Hospital , Namsos, Norway
                [18 ]departmentDepartment of Information and Communication Technology , Western Norway Regional Health Authority , Bergen, Norway
                [19 ]departmentDepartment of Information and Technology , Central Norway Regional Health Authority , Trondheim, Norway
                [20 ]departmentCoastal Hospital in Hagavik, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , Haukeland University Hospital , Bergen, Norway
                [21 ]departmentDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery , Betanien Hospital , Skien, Norway
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Tesfaye H Leta; tesfaye.hordofa.leta@ 123456helse-bergen.no
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9596-507X
                Article
                bmjopen-2020-041096
                10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041096
                7845702
                33509845
                4a4513fb-ac22-432a-bdd6-fc81bdcf8428
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 29 May 2020
                : 16 December 2020
                : 28 December 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Western Norway regional health authority;
                Award ID: HV-prosjektnr.F-10438 (912310)
                Categories
                Surgery
                1506
                1737
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                knee,orthopaedic & trauma surgery,adult orthopaedics
                Medicine
                knee, orthopaedic & trauma surgery, adult orthopaedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article