Phelps Emma Elizabeth, Tutton Elizabeth, Costa Matthew, Hing Caroline
Kadoorie, Oxford Trauma and Emergency Care, Nuffield Department Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Trauma and MTC, Oxford University NHS Foundation Hospital Trust, John Radcliffe, Oxford, UK.
Bone Jt Open. 2021 Jul;2(7):486-492. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.27.BJO-2021-0055.R1.
To explore staff experiences of a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nails and circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures.
A purposeful sample of 19 staff (nine surgeons) involved in the study participated in an interview. Interviews explored participants' experience and views of the study and the treatments. The interviews drew on phenomenology, were face-to-face or by telephone, and were analyzed using thematic analysis.
The findings identify that for the treatment of segmental tibial fractures equipoise was a theoretical ideal that was most likely unattainable in clinical practice. This was conveyed through three themes: the ambiguity of equipoise, where multiple definitions of equipoise and a belief in community equipoise were evident; an illusion of equipoise, created by strong treatment preferences and variation in collective surgical skills; and treating the whole patient, where the complexity and severity of the injury required a patient-centred approach and doing the best for the individual patient took priority over trial recruitment.
Equipoise can be unattainable for rare injuries such as segmental tibial fractures, where there are substantially different surgical treatments requiring specific expertise, high levels of complexity, and a concern for poor outcomes. Surgeons are familiar with community equipoise. However, a shared understanding of factors that limit the feasibility of RCTs may identify instances where community equipoise is unlikely to translate into practice. Cite this article: 2021;2(7):486-492.
探讨多中心试点随机对照试验(RCT)中工作人员对髓内钉与环形外固定架治疗胫骨节段性骨折的体验。
从参与该研究的19名工作人员(9名外科医生)中选取有目的的样本进行访谈。访谈探讨了参与者对该研究及治疗方法的体验和看法。访谈采用现象学方法,通过面对面或电话进行,并运用主题分析法进行分析。
研究结果表明,对于胫骨节段性骨折的治疗,均衡是一种理论上的理想状态,但在临床实践中很可能无法实现。这通过三个主题得以体现:均衡的模糊性,即均衡存在多种定义且存在群体均衡的观念;均衡的错觉,由强烈的治疗偏好和集体手术技能的差异造成;治疗整个患者,即损伤的复杂性和严重性需要以患者为中心的方法,为个体患者做到最好优先于试验招募。
对于胫骨节段性骨折这类罕见损伤,由于存在需要特定专业知识、高度复杂性且担心预后不良的显著不同的手术治疗方法,均衡可能无法实现。外科医生熟悉群体均衡。然而,对限制随机对照试验可行性的因素达成共同理解,可能会识别出群体均衡不太可能转化为实际操作的情况。引用本文:2021;2(7):486 - 492。