Ankle Injury Management (AIM): design of a pragmatic multi-centre equivalence randomised controlled trial comparing Close Contact Casting (CCC) to Open surgical Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of unstable ankle fractures in patients over 60 years

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Sarah E Lamb⁴  Andrew Briggs⁵  Ranjit Lall⁴  Christopher Knox⁴  Elizabeth Tutton²  Ian Pallister⁶  Tim Chesser³  Robert Handley¹  Bridget Gray²  Lesley Morgan²  David J Keene²  Keith Willett² 

[1] Oxford Trauma Service, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK;Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Kadoorie Centre for Critical Care Research and Education, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK;Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Frenchay Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol BS16 1LE, UK;Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK;Faculty of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK;Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea SA6 6NL, UK

关键词: Adult;    Operative;    Conservative;    Surgery;    Cast;    Orthopaedics;    Trauma;    Fracture;    Ankle;   

Others  :  1128675
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-79

 received in 2014-01-07, accepted in 2014-01-29,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Ankle fractures account for 9% of all fractures with a quarter of these occurring in adults over 60 years. The short term disability and long-term consequences of this injury can be considerable. Current opinion favours open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) over non-operative treatment (fracture manipulation and the application of a standard moulded cast) for older people. Both techniques are associated with complications but the limited published research indicates higher complication rates of fracture malunion (poor position at healing) with casting. The aim of this study is to compare ORIF with a modification of existing casting techniques, Close Contact Casting (CCC). We propose that CCC may offer an equivalent functional outcome to ORIF and avoid the risks associated with surgery.

Methods/Design

This study is a pragmatic multi-centre equivalence randomised controlled trial. 620 participants will be randomised to receive ORIF or CCC after sustaining an isolated displaced unstable ankle fracture. Participants will be recruited from a minimum of 20 National Health Service (NHS) acute hospitals throughout England and Wales. Participants will be aged over 60 years and be ambulatory prior to injury. Follow-up will be at six weeks and six months after randomisation. The primary outcome is the Olerud & Molander Ankle Score, a functional patient reported outcome measure, at 6 months. Follow-up will also include assessments of mobility, ankle range of movement, health related quality of life and complications. The six-month follow-up will be conducted face-to-face by an assessor blinded to the allocated intervention. A parallel economic evaluation will consider both a health service and a broader societal perspective including the individual and their family. In order to explore patient experience of their treatment and recovery, a purposive sample of 40 patients will also be interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule between 6-10 weeks post treatment.

Discussion

This multicentre study was open to recruitment July 2010 and recruitment is due to be completed in December 2013.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04180738.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Willett et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Court-Brown CM, Caesar B: Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury 2006, 37:691-697.
• [2]Bengnér U, Johnell O, Redlund-Johnell I: Epidemiology of ankle fracture 1950 and 1980: Increasing incidence in elderly women. Acta Orthop 1986, 57:35-37.
• [3]Court-Brown CM, McBirnie J, Wilson G: Adult ankle fractures—an increasing problem? Acta Orthop 1998, 69:43-47.
• [4]Kannus P, Palvanen M, Niemi S, Parkkari J, Jarvinen M: Increasing number and incidence of low-trauma ankle fractures in elderly people: Finnish statistics during 1970-2000 and projections for the future. Bone 2002, 31:430-433.
• [5]Shah NH, Sundaram RO, Velusamy A, Braithwaite IJ: Five-year functional outcome analysis of ankle fracture fixation. Injury 2007, 38:1308-1312.
• [6]Nilsson G, Ageberg E, Ekdahl C, Eneroth M: Balance in single-limb stance after surgically treated ankle fractures: a 14-month follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006, 7:35. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Nilsson GM, Jonsson K, Ekdahl C, Eneroth M: Outcome and quality of life after surgically treated ankle fractures in patients 65 years or older. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007, 8:127. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Egol KA, Tejwani NC, Walsh MG, Capla EL, Koval KJ: Predictors of short-term functional outcome following ankle fracture surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006, 88:974-979.
• [9]Keene D, James G, Lamb SE, Walton J, Gray B, Coleman D, Handley R, Handa A, Willett K: Factors associated with mobility outcomes in older people post-ankle fracture: An observational cohort study focussing on peripheral vessel function. Injury 2013, 44:987-993.
• [10]Litchfield JC: The treatment of unstable fractures of the ankle in the elderly. Injury 1987, 18:128-132.
• [11]Willett K, Hearn TC, Cuncins AV: Biomechanical testing of a new design for Schanz pedicle screws. J Orthop Trauma 1993, 7:375-380.
• [12]Salai M, Dudkiewicz I, Novikov I, Amit Y, Chechick A: The epidemic of ankle fractures in the elderly–is surgical treatment warranted? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2000, 120:511-513.
• [13]Hoiness P, Engebretsen L, Stromsoe K: The influence of perioperative soft tissue complications on the clinical outcome in surgically treated ankle fractures. Foot Ankle Int 2001, 22:642-648.
• [14]Anand N, Klenerman L: Ankle fractures in the elderly: MUA versus ORIF. Injury 1993, 24:116-120.
• [15]Pagliaro AJ, Michelson JD, Mizel MS: Results of operative fixation of unstable ankle fractures in geriatric patients. Foot Ankle Int 2001, 22:399-402.
• [16]Petrisor BA, Poolman R, Koval K, Tornetta P 3rd, Bhandari M: Management of displaced ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2006, 20:515-518.
• [17]Donken CC, Al-Khateeb H, Verhofstad MH, Van Laarhoven CJ: Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating ankle fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012., 8CD008470
• [18]Bauer M, Bergström B, Hemborg A, Sandegård J: Malleolar fractures: nonoperative versus operative treatment. A controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985, (199):17-27.
• [19]Makwana NK, Bhowal B, Harper WM, Hui AW: Conservative versus operative treatment for displaced ankle fractures in patients over 55 years of age. A prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001, 83:525-529.
• [20]Phillips WA, Schwartz HS, Keller CS, Woodward HR, Rudd WS, Spiegel PG, Laros GS: A prospective, randomized study of the management of severe ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985, 67(1):78.
• [21]Rowley DI, Norris SH, Duckworth T: A prospective trial comparing operative and manipulative treatment of ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1986, 68:610-613.
• [22]Armstrong DG, Nguyen HC, Lavery LA, Van Schie CH, Boulton AJ, Harkless LB: Off-loading the diabetic foot wound: a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2001, 24:1019-1022.
• [23]Wukich DK, Motko J: Safety of total contact casting in high-risk patients with neuropathic foot ulcers. Foot Ankle Int 2004, 25:556-560.
• [24]Nabuurs-Franssen MH, Sleegers R, Huijberts MS, Wijnen W, Sanders AP, Walenkamp G, Schaper NC: Total contact casting of the diabetic foot in daily practice: a prospective follow-up study. Diabetes Care 2005, 28:243-247.
• [25]Willett KM, Gray B, Lamb S, Handa A, Handley R: The presence and pattern of vascular insufficiency in the older patient suffering an unstable ankle fracture: The relationship to skin and wound complications. Injury Extra 2009, 40:191-191.
• [26]Willett KM, Gray B, Moran CG, Giannoudis PV, Pallister I: Orthopaedic trauma research priority-setting exercise and development of a research network. Injury 2010, 41:763-767.
• [27]Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975, 12:189-198.
• [28]Ruedi TP, Murphy WM: AO principles of fracture management. New York: Thieme: Stuttgart; 2000.
• [29]Lin CW, Donkers NA, Refshauge KM, Beckenkamp PR, Khera K, Moseley AM: Rehabilitation for ankle fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012., 11CD005595
• [30]Olerud C, Molander H: A scoring scale for symptom evaluation after ankle fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1984, 103:190-194.
• [31]Rabin R, De Charro F: EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001, 33:337-343.
• [32]Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Prieto L, Sullivan M: Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:1171-1178.
• [33]Mathias S, Nayak US, Isaacs B: Balance in elderly patients: the “get-up and go” test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1986, 67:387-389.
• [34]Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Simonsick EM, Salive ME, Wallace RB: Lower-extremity function in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability. N Engl J Med 1995, 332:556-561.
• [35]Mont MA, Sedlin ED, Weiner LS, Miller AR: Postoperative radiographs as predictors of clinical outcome in unstable ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1992, 6:352-357.
• [36]Machin D: Sample size tables for clinical studies. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1997.
• [37]Chow SC, Wang H: On sample size calculation in bioequivalence trials. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2001, 28:155-169.
• [38]Christensen E: Methodology of superiority vs. equivalence trials and non-inferiority trials. J Hepatol 2007, 46:947-954.
• [39]Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Group C: Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA 2006, 295:1152-1160.
• [40]Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35:1095-1108.
• [41]NICE: Guide to the methods of technology assessment. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2004.
• [42]Briggs AH, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ: Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
• [43]Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A: Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves–facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004, 13:405-415.
• [44]Miles MB, Huberman AM: Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd edn. London, Sage: Thousand Oaks, Calif; 1994.
• [45]MRC: Medical Research Council: Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials. London: Medical Research Council; 1998.
• [46]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C: CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010, 340:c332.
• [47]Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P, Group C: Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008, 148:295-309.
• [48]Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, Oxman AD, Moher D, group C: Pragmatic Trials in Healthcare g: Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008, 337:a2390.