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 \u27Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score\u27 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 \u27Numeric Rating Scale\u27, 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. © 2014Bruinsma et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

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

HUMeral Shaft Fractures: MEasuring Recovery after Operative versus Non-operative Treatment (HUMMER): A multicenter comparative observational study

Background: Fractures of the humeral shaft are associated with a profound temporary (and in the elderly sometimes even permanent) impairment of independence and quality of life. These fractures can be treated operatively or non-operatively, but the optimal tailored treatment is an unresolved problem. As no high-quality comparative randomized or observational studies are available, a recent Cochrane review concluded there is no evidence of sufficient scientific quality available to inform the decision to operate or not. Since randomized controlled trials for this injury have shown feasibility issues, this study is designed to provide the best achievable evidence to answer this unresolved problem. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate functional recovery after operative versus non-operative treatment in adult patients who sustained a humeral shaft fracture. Secondary aims include the effect of treatment on pain, complications, generic health-related quality of life, time to resumption of activities of daily living and work, and cost-effectiveness. The main hypothesis is that operative treatment will result in faster recovery. Methods/design. The design of the study will be a multicenter prospective observational study of 400 patients who have sustained a humeral shaft fracture, AO type 12A or 12B. Treatment decision (i.e., operative or non-operative) will be left to the discretion of the treating surgeon. Critical elements of treatment will be registered and outcome will be monitored at regular intervals over the subsequent 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. Secondary outcome measures are the Constant score, pain level at both sides, range of motion of the elbow and shoulder joint at both sides, radiographic healing, rate of complications and (secondary) interventions, health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36 and EuroQol-5D), time to resumption of ADL/work, and cost-effectiveness. Data will be analyzed using univariate and multivariable analyses (including mixed effects regression analysis). The cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective. Discussion. Successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of operative versus non-operative treatment of patients with a humeral shaft fracture. Trial registration. The trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR3617)

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

Functional treatment versus plaster for simple elbow dislocations (FuncSiE): a randomized trial

Background. Elbow dislocations can be classified as simple or complex. Simple dislocations are characterized by the absence of fractures, while complex dislocations are associated with fractures. After reduction of a simple dislocation, treatment options include immobilization in a static plaster for different periods of time or so-called functional treatment. Functional treatment is characterized by early active motion within the limits of pain with or without the use of a sling or hinged brace. Theoretically, functional treatment should prevent stiffness without introducing increased joint instability. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial is to compare early functional treatment versus plaster immobilization following simple dislocations of the elbow. Methods/Design. The design of the study will be a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 100 patients who have sustained a simple elbow dislocation. After reduction of the dislocation, patients are randomized between a pressure bandage for 5-7 days and early functional treatment or a plaster in 90 degrees flexion, neutral position for pro-supination for a period of three weeks. In the functional group, treatment is started with early active motion within the limits of pain. Function, pain, and radiographic recovery will be evaluated at regular intervals over the subsequent 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. The secondary outcome measures are the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, Oxford elbow score, pain level at both sides, range of motion of the elbow joint at both sides, rate of secondary interventions and complication rates in both groups (secondary dislocation, instability, relaxation), health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36 and EuroQol-5D), radiographic appearance of the elbow joint (degenerative changes and heterotopic ossifications), costs, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion. The successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of a functional treatment for the management of simple elbow dislocations. Trial Registration. The trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR2025)

Reliability and Reproducibility of the OTA/AO Classification for Humeral Shaft Fractures

Objectives: This study aimed to determine interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the OTA/AO classification for humeral shaft fractures, and to evaluate differences between fracture types, fracture groups, and surgical specializations. Methods: Thirty observers (25 orthopaedic trauma surgeons and 5 general orthopaedic surgeons) independently classified 90 humeral shaft fractures according to the OTA/AO classification. Patients of 16 years and older were included. Periprosthetic, recurrent, and pathological fractures were excluded. Radiographs were provided in random order, and observers were blinded to clinical information. To determine intraobserver agreement, radiographs were reviewed again after 2 months in a different random order. Agreement was assessed using kappa statistics. Results: Interobserver agreement for the 3 fracture types was moderate (κ = 0.60; 0.59-0.61). It was substantial for type A (κ = 0.77; 0.70-0.84) and moderate for type B (κ = 0.52; 0.46-0.58) and type C fractures (κ = 0.46; 0.42-0.50). Interobserver agreement for the 9 fracture groups was moderate (κ = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.48-0.48). Orthopaedic trauma surgeons had better overall agreement for fracture types, and general orthopaedic surgeons had better overall agreement for fracture groups. Observers classified 64% of fractures identically in both rounds. Intraobserver agreement was substantial for the 3 types (κ = 0.80; 0.77-0.81) and 9 groups (κ = 0.80; 0.77-0.82). Intraobserver agreement showed no differences between surgical disciplines. Conclusions: The OTA/AO classification for humeral shaft fractures has a moderate interobserver and substantial intraobserver agreement for fracture types and groups

Factors Associated with Revision Surgery after Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

Background: Femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of revision surgery after management with internal fixation. Using data from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial evaluating methods of internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures, we investigated associations between baseline and surgical factors and the need for revision surgery to promote healing, relieve pain, treat infection or improve function over 24 months postsurgery. Additionally, we investigated factors associated with (1) hardware removal and (2) implant exchange from cancellous screws (CS) or sliding hip screw (SHS) to total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or another internal fixation device. Methods: We identified 15 potential factors a priori that may be associated with revision surgery, 7 with hardware removal, and 14 with implant exchange. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses in our investigation. Results: Factors associated with increased risk of revision surgery included: female sex, [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.50; P = 0.001], higher body mass index (fo

Predictors for losing reduction after reposition in conservatively treated both-bone forearm fractures in 38 children

Backgrounds: Alignment loss after reduction and cast immobilisation of angulated and/or complete displaced forearm fractures is challenging. Many authors have tried to describe risk factors and create indices (initial angulation, initial complete displacement, lack of anatomic reduction, cast and padding index) in order to identify those fractures that are prone to losing their alignment during treatment. Methods: This retrospective case-control study included children sustaining both-bone forearm fractures treated by closed reduction and cast immobilisation. Basic characteristics were recorded and radiographs evaluated to measure displacement and angulation before and after reduction, cast index and padding index. The primary outcome was loss of reduction during the immobilisation period. Results: Group A consisted of 22 patients in whom >5° reduction loss was seen during cast immobilisation. Group B consisted of 16 patients with <5° reduction loss. After multivariate analyses we found group A included more broken cortices, with a statistically significant higher number of initial displaced fractures (p < 0.001 and p = 0.010) and residual displacement (p = 0.022). The cast and padding index did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.77 and 0.15 respectively). Conclusions: Cast and padding index did not correlate well as predictor of alignment loss, although in this study cortical stability seemed more important towards predicting alignment loss