How to evaluate the quality of fracture reduction and fixation of the wrist and ankle in clinical practice: a Delphi consensus

METHOD: A Delphi study was conducted to obtain consensus on the most important criteria for the radiological evaluation of the reduction and fixation of the wrist and ankle. The Delphi study consisted of a bipartite online questionnaire, focusing on the interpretation of radiographs and CT scans of the wrist and the ankle. Questions addressed imaging techniques, aspects of the anatomy and fracture reduction and fixation. Agreement was expressed as the percentage of respondents with similar answers. Consensus was defined as an agreement of at least 90%. RESULTS: In three Delphi rounds, respectively, 64, 74 and 62 specialists, consisting of radiologists, trauma and orthopaedic surgeons from the Netherlands responded. After three Delphi rounds, consensus was reached for three out of 14 (21%) imaging techniques proposed, 11 out of the 13 (85%) anatomical aspects and 13 of the 22 (59%) items for the fracture reduction and fixation. This Delphi consensus differs from existing scoring protocols in terms of the greater number of anatomical aspects and aspects of fracture fixation requiring evaluation and is more suitable in clinical practice due to a lower emphasis on measurements

A randomized controlled trial of nonoperative treatment versus open reduction and internal fixation for stable, displaced, partial articular fractures of the radial head: The RAMBO trial

Background: The choice between operative or nonoperative treatment is questioned for partial articular fractures of the radial head that have at least 2 millimeters of articular step-off on at least one radiograph (defined as displaced), but less than 2 millimeter of gap between the fragments (defined as stable) and that are not associated with an elbow dislocation, interosseous ligament injury, or other fractures. These kinds of fractures are often classified as Mason type-2 fractures. Retrospective comparative studies suggest that operative treatment might be better than nonoperative treatment, but the long-term results of nonoperative treatment are very good. Most experts agree that problems like reduced range of motion, painful crepitation, nonunion or bony ankylosis are infrequent with both nonoperative and operative treatment of an isolated displaced partial articular fracture of the radial head, but determining which patients will have problems is difficult. A prospective, randomized comparison would help minimize bias and determine the balance between operative and nonoperative risks and benefits. Methods/Design. The RAMBO trial (Radial Head - Amsterdam - Amphia - Boston - Others) is an international prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. The primary objective of this study is to compare patient related outcome defined by the 'Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score' twelve months after injury between operative and nonoperative treated patients. Adult patients with partial articular fractures of the radial head that comprise at least 1/3rd of the articular surface, have ≥ 2 millimeters of articular step-off but less than 2 millimeter of gap between the fragments will be enrolled. Secondary outcome measures will be the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), pain intensity through the 'Numeric Rating Scale', range of motion (flexion arc and rotational arc), radiographic appearance of the fracture (heterotopic ossification, radiocapitellar and ulnohumeral arthrosis, fracture healing, and signs of implant loosening or breakage) and adverse events (infection, nerve injury, secondary interventions) after one year. Discussion. The successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the best treatment for stable, displaced, partial articular fractures of the radial head. Trial registration. The trial is registered at the Dutch Trial Register: NTR3413

Early mobilisation versus plaster immobilisation of simple elbow dislocations: Results of the FuncSiE multicentre randomised clinical trial

Background/aim To compare outcome of early mobilisation and plaster immobilisation in patients with a simple elbow dislocation. We hypothesised that early mobilisation would result in earlier functional recovery. Methods From August 2009 to September 2012, 100 adult patients with a simple elbow dislocation were enrolled in this multicentre randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised to early mobilisation (n=48) or 3 weeks plaster immobilisation (n=52). Primary outcome measure was the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (Quick-DASH) score. Secondary outcomes were the Oxford Elbow Score, Mayo Elbow Performance Index, pain, range of motion, complications and activity resumption. Patients were followed for 1 year. Results Quick-DASH scores at 1 year were 4.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 7.1) points in the early mobilisation group versus 4.2 (95% CI 1.2 to 7.2) in the plaster immobilisation group. At 6 weeks, early mobilised patients reported less disability (Quick-DASH 12 (95% CI 9 to 15) points vs 19 (95% CI 16 to 22); p<0.05) and had a larger arc of flexion and extension (121° (95% CI 115° to 127°) vs 102° (95% CI 96° to 108°); p<0.05). Patients returned to work sooner after early mobilisation (10 vs 18 days; p=0.020). Complications occurred in 12 patients; this was unrelated to treatment. No recurrent dislocations occurred. Conclusions Early active mobilisation is a safe and effective treatment for simple elbow dislocations. Patients recovered faster and returned to work earlier without increasing the complication rate. No evidence was found supporting treatment benefit at 1 year

Central coordination as an alternative for local coordination in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the FAITH trial experience

Contains fulltext : 110505.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Surgeons in the Netherlands, Canada and the US participate in the FAITH trial (Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures). Dutch sites are managed and visited by a financed central trial coordinator, whereas most Canadian and US sites have local study coordinators and receive per patient payment. This study was aimed to assess how these different trial management strategies affected trial performance. METHODS: Details related to obtaining ethics approval, time to trial start-up, inclusion, and percentage completed follow-ups were collected for each trial site and compared. Pre-trial screening data were compared with actual inclusion rates. RESULTS: Median trial start-up ranged from 41 days (P25-P75 10-139) in the Netherlands to 232 days (P25-P75 98-423) in Canada (p = 0.027). The inclusion rate was highest in the Netherlands; median 1.03 patients (P25-P75 0.43-2.21) per site per month, representing 34.4% of the total eligible population. It was lowest in Canada; 0.14 inclusions (P25-P75 0.00-0.28), representing 3.9% of eligible patients (p < 0.001). The percentage completed follow-ups was 83% for Canadian and Dutch sites and 70% for US sites (p = 0.217). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, a central financed trial coordinator to manage all trial related tasks in participating sites resulted in better trial progression and a similar follow-up. It is therefore a suitable alternative for appointing these tasks to local research assistants. The central coordinator approach can enable smaller regional hospitals to participate in multicenter randomized controlled trials. Circumstances such as available budget, sample size, and geographical area should however be taken into account when choosing a management strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00761813