IMPORTANCEThe risk of developing a surgical site infection after extremity fracture repair is nearly 5 times greater than in most elective orthopedic surgical procedures. For all surgical procedures, it is standard practice to prepare the operative site with an antiseptic solution; however, there is limited evidence to guide the choice of solution used for orthopedic fracture repair.OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs chlorhexidine solutions to reduce surgical site infections and unplanned fracture-related reoperations for patients who underwent fracture repair. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe PREP-IT (Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Pre-operative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma) master protocol will be followed to conduct 2 multicenter pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trials, Aqueous-PREP (Pragmatic Randomized Trial Evaluating Pre-Operative Aqueous Antiseptic Skin Solution in Open Fractures) and PREPARE (Pragmatic Randomized Trial Evaluating Pre-Operative Alcohol Skin Solutions in Fractured Extremities). The Aqueous-PREP trial will compare 4% aqueous chlorhexidine vs 10% povidoneiodine for patients with open extremity fractures. The PREPARE trial will compare 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol vs 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol for patients with open extremity fractures and patients with closed lower extremity or pelvic fractures. Both trials will share key aspects of study design and trial infrastructure. The studies will follow a pragmatic cluster randomized crossover design with alternating treatment periods of approximately 2 months. The primary outcome will be surgical site infection and the secondary outcome will be unplanned fracture-related reoperations within 12 months. The Aqueous-PREP trial will enroll a minimum of 1540 patients with open extremity fractures from at least 12 hospitals; PREPARE will enroll a minimum of 1540 patients with open extremity fractures and 6280 patients with closed lower extremity and pelvic fractures from at least 18 hospitals. The primary analyses will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle and account for potential between-cluster and between-period variability. The patient-centered design, implementation, and dissemination of results are guided by a multidisciplinary team that includes 3 patients and other relevant stakeholders. DISCUSSION The PREP-IT master protocol increases efficiency through shared trial infrastructure and study design components. Because prophylactic skin antisepsis is used prior to all surgical procedures and the application, cost, and availability of all study solutions are similar, the results of the PREP-IT trials are poised to inform clinical guidelines and bring about an immediate change in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03385304 and NCT03523962

Background In cluster randomized crossover (CRXO) trials, groups of participants (i.e., clusters) are randomly allocated to receive a sequence of interventions over time (i.e., cluster periods). CRXO trials are becoming more comment when they are feasible, as they require fewer clusters than parallel group cluster randomized trials. However, CRXO trials have not been frequently used in orthopedic fracture trials and represent a novel methodological application within the field. To disseminate the early knowledge gained from our experience initiating two cluster randomized crossover trials, we describe our process for the identification and selection of the orthopedic practices (i.e., clusters) participating in the PREP-IT program and present data to describe their key characteristics. Methods The PREP-IT program comprises two ongoing pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trials (Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE) which compare the effect of iodophor versus chlorhexidine solutions on surgical site infection and unplanned fracture-related reoperations in patients undergoing operative fracture management. We describe the process we used to identify and select orthopedic practices (clusters) for the PREP-IT trials, along with their characteristics. Results We identified 58 potential orthopedic practices for inclusion in the PREP-IT trials. After screening each practice for eligibility, we selected 30 practices for participation and randomized each to a sequence of interventions (15 for Aqueous-PREP and 20 for PREPARE). The majority of orthopedic practices included in the Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE trials were situated in level I trauma centers (100% and 87%, respectively). Orthopedic practices in the Aqueous-PREP trial operatively treated a median of 149 open fracture patients per year, included a median of 11 orthopedic surgeons, and had access to a median of 5 infection preventionists. Orthopedic practices in the PREPARE trial treated a median of 142 open fracture and 1090 closed fracture patients per year, included a median of 7.5 orthopedic surgeons, and had access to a median of 6 infection preventionists. Conclusions The PREP-IT trials provide an example of how to follow the reporting standards for cluster randomized crossover trials by providing a clear definition of the cluster unit, a thorough description of the cluster identification and selection process, and sufficient description of key cluster characteristics. Trial registration Both trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (A-PREP: NCT03385304 December 28, 2017, and PREPARE: NCT03523962 May 14, 2018).

No abstract

No abstract

ImportanceRacial disparities in treatment benchmarks have been documented among older patients with hip fractures. However, these studies were limited to patient-level evaluations.ObjectiveTo assess whether disparities in meeting fracture care time-to-surgery benchmarks exist at the patient level or at the hospital or institutional level using high-quality multicenter prospectively collected data; the study hypothesis was that disparities at the hospital-level reflecting structural health systems issues would be detected.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study was a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data in the PREP-IT (Program of Randomized trials to Evaluate Preoperative antiseptic skin solutions in orthopaedic Trauma) program from 23 sites throughout North America. The PREP-IT trials enrolled patients from 2018 to 2021, and patients were followed for 1-year. All patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in the PREP-IT program were included in analysis. Data were analyzed April to September 2022.ExposuresPatient-level and hospital-level race, ethnicity, and insurance status.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary outcome measure was time to surgery based on 24-hour time-to-surgery benchmarks. Multilevel multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the association of race, ethnicity, and insurance status with time to surgery. The reported odds ratios (ORs) were per 10% change in insurance coverage or racial composition at the hospital level.ResultsA total of 2565 patients with a mean (SD) age of 64.5 (20.4) years (1129 [44.0%] men; mean [SD] body mass index, 27.3 [14.9]; 83 [3.2%] Asian, 343 [13.4%] Black, 2112 [82.3%] White, 28 [1.1%] other) were included in analysis. Of these patients, 834 (32.5%) were employed and 2367 (92.2%) had insurance; 1015 (39.6%) had sustained a femur fracture, with a mean (SD) injury severity score of 10.4 (5.8). Five hundred ninety-six patients (23.2%) did not meet the 24-hour time-to-operating-room benchmark. After controlling for patient-level characteristics, there was an independent association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and hospital population insurance coverage (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98; P = .005) and the interaction term between hospital population insurance coverage and racial composition (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; P = .03). There was no association between patient race and delay beyond 24-hour benchmarks (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.72-1.29; P = .79).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, patients who sought care from an institution with a greater proportion of patients with racial or ethnic minority status or who were uninsured were more likely to experience delays greater than the 24-hour benchmarks regardless of the individual patient race; institutions that treat a less diverse patient population appeared to be more resilient to the mix of insurance status in their patient population and were more likely to meet time-to-surgery benchmarks, regardless of patient insurance status or population-based insurance mix. While it is unsurprising that increased delays were associated with underfunded institutions, the association between institutional-level racial disparity and surgical delays implies structural health systems bias.