Acta Ortopédica Mexicana

DeGroot H, Centeno-Arnuero E
Surgical randomized controlled trial of two procedures for hallux valgus: recruitment failure
Acta Ortop Mex 2015; 29 (2)

Language: Español
References: 27
Page: 103-109
PDF: 270.61 Kb.

[Fulltext - PDF]


Background: Randomized controlled surgical trials (RCST) are the optimal way to validate new surgical treatments, yet RCSTs comprise a very small fraction of published articles in the surgical literature. One of most frequent reasons for lack of success in RCSTs is the failure to recruit an adequate number of patients. Methods: We report the results of 14 months of recruitment for an RCST comparing two different surgical procedures for the treatment of painful hallux valgus. The study is an open-label non-inferiority parallel trial, with an accrual goal of 100 subjects in 24 months. Results: In the first 14 months of recruitment, 94 patients were assessed for eligibility, of which 54 were excluded and 40 were protocol-eligible. Of these 40 only 13 enrolled in the trial. Eleven patients were randomized and treated according to the protocol, the other two withdrew prior to randomization. Of the 27 eligible patients who did not enroll and the 2 eligible patients who withdrew prior to ramdomization, 22 declined to participate in the study and 7 elected to have surgical treatment but refused randomization. Conclusions: The data show that investigators planning RCST’s in surgery should be aware of the large amount of effort and significant financial resources needed to achieve patient recruitment goals.

Key words: randomized controlled surgical trials, hallux valgus, minimal invasive surgery, recruitment, failure.


  1. Coughlin MJ, Thompson FM: The high Price of high-fashion footwear. Instr Course Lect. 1995; 44: 371-7.

  2. Klosok JK, Pring DJ, Jessop JH, Maffulli N: Chevron or Wilson metatarsal osteotomy for hallux valgus a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993; 75 (5): 825-9.

  3. Ponnapula P, Wittock R. Application of an interosseous suture and button device for hallux valgus correction: a review of outcomes in a small series. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010; 49(2): 159.e21-6.

  4. Bauer T, de Lavigne C, De Prado M, Isham S, Laffenétreo O: Percutaneous hallux valgus surgery: a prospective multicenter study of 189 cases. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009; 40(4): 505-14.

  5. Magnan B, Samaila E, Viola G, Bartolazzi P: Minimally invasive retrocapital osteotomy of the first metatarsal in hallux valgus deformity. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2008; 20(1): 89-96.

  6. Fernández de Retana P, Ortega JP, Poggio D, Botello J: Scarf and Akin osteotomy in comparision with SERI technique in the treatment of hallux valgus. Presented at the American Orthopaedic foot and ankle society. 23 Annual Summer Meeting. Torondo. 2007; 13-15.

  7. Wente MN, Seiler CM, Uhl W, Büchler MW: Perspective of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg. 2003; 20: 263-269.

  8. Abraham NS, Young JM, Solomon MJ: A systematic review of reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials. Surgery. 2006; 139(4): 469-483. Doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.08.014

  9. Campbell MK, Snowdon C, Francis D, Elbourne D, McDonald AM, Knight R, et al: Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrollment and participation study. The STEPS study. Health Technol Assess. 2007; 11(48): iii, ix-105.

  10. Bösch P, Wanke S, Legenstein R: Hallux valgus correction by the method of Bösch: a new technique with a seven-to-ten-year follow-up. Foot Ankle Clin. 2000; 5(3): 485-98, v-vi.

  11. Giannini S, Faldini C, Nanni M, Di Martino A, Luciani D, Vannini F: A minimally invasive technique for surgical treatment of hallux valgus: simple, effective, rapid, inexpensive (SERI). Int Orthop. 2013; 37(9): 1805-13. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-1980-8. Epub 2013 Jul 3

  12. Giannini S, Ceccarelli F, Bevoni R, Vannini F: Hallux valgus surgery: the minimally invasive bunion correction (SERI). Techniques in Foot & Ankle Surgery. 2003; 2(1): 11-20. doi: 10.1097/00132587-200303000-00003

  13. Austin DW, Leventen EO: A new osteotomy for hallux valgus: a horizontally directed “v” displacement osteotomy of the metatarsal head for hallux valgus and primus varus. In: Symposium: the great toe. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981; 157: 25-30.

  14. Tognoni G, Alli C, Avanzini F, Bettelli G, Colombo F, Corso R, et al: Randomized clinical trials in general practice: lessons from a failure. BMJ. 1991; 303: 969-71.

  15. Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, et al: Methods to improve recruitment to randomized controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and metaanalysis. BMJ Open. 2013; 3: e002360. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002360

  16. Frobell RB, Lohmander LS, Roos EM: The challenge of recruiting patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury of the knee into a randomized clinical trial comparing surgical and non-surgical treatment. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007; 28(3): 295-302.

  17. Hare KB, Lohmander LS, Roos EM: The challenge of recruiting patients into a placebo-controlled surgical trial. Trials. 2014; 15: 167. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-167

  18. Csimma C, Swiontkowski MF: Large clinical trials in musculoskeletal trauma: are they possible? Lessons learned from the international study of the use of rhBMP-2 in open tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(1): 218-22.

  19. Fung EK, Loré JM Jr: Randomized controlled trials for evaluating surgical questions. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002; 128(6): 631-4. doi:10.1001/archotol.128.6.631.

  20. Mostafa A, N’Dow J, Abdel-Fattah M: Factors influencing women’s decision to participate or not in a surgical randomized controlled trial for surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Biomed Res Int. 2013; 8 doi:10.1155/2013/139813

  21. Freedman B: Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research [abstract]. N Engl J Med. 1987; 317(3): 141-5. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198707163170304

  22. Dixon PR, Grant RC, Urbach DR: The impact of marketing language on patient preference for robot-assisted surgery. Surg Innov. 2015; 22(1): 15-9. doi: 10.1177/1553350614537562

  23. Wilfond BS: Recruitment for clinical research: ensuring the rights and welfare of participants while encouraging research enrollment [located on web][accessed: January 01 2014] Disponible en:

  24. Draper H, Wilson S, Flanagan S, Ives J: Offering payments, reimbursement and incentives to patients and family doctors to encourage participation in research. Family Practice. 2009; 26(3): 231-8. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmp011.

  25. Donovan JL, de Salis I, Toerien M, Paramasivan S, Hamdy FC, Blazeby JM: The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(8): 912-20. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010

  26. Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M: Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2014; 15: 5. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-5

  27. Avery KN, Metcalfe C, Berrisford R, Barham CP, Donovan JL, Elliott J, et al: The feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophageal cancer - the ROMIO (randomized oesophagectomy: minimally invasive or open) study: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2014; 15(1): 200. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-200