The Achilles tendon total rupture score : a study of responsiveness, internal consistency and convergent validity on patients with acute Achilles tendon ruptures

Background The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score was developed by a research group in 2007 in response to the need for a patient reported outcome measure for this patient population. Beyond this original development paper, no further validation studies have been published. Consequently the purpose of this study was to evaluate internal consistency, convergent validity and responsiveness of this newly developed patient reported outcome measure within patients who have sustained an isolated acute Achilles tendon rupture. Methods Sixty-four eligible patients with an acute rupture of their Achilles tendon completed the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score alongside two further patient reported outcome measures (Disability Rating Index and EQ 5D). These were completed at baseline, six weeks, three months, six months and nine months post injury. The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score was evaluated for internal consistency, using Cronbach's alpha, convergent validity, through correlation analysis and responsiveness, by analysing floor and ceiling effects and calculating its relative efficiency in comparison to the Disability Rating Index and EQ 5D scores. Results The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha > 0.8) and correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with the Disability Rating Index at five time points (pre-injury, six weeks, three, six and nine months) with correlation coefficients between -0.5 and -0.9. However, the confidence intervals were wide. Furthermore, the ability of the new score to detect clinically important changes over time (responsiveness) was shown to be greater than the Disability Rating Index and EQ 5D. Conclusions A universally accepted outcome measure is imperative to allow comparisons to be made across practice. This is the first study to evaluate aspects of validity of this newly developed outcome measure, outside of the developing centre. The ATRS demonstrated high internal consistency and responsiveness, with limited convergent validity. This research provides further support for the use of this outcome measure, however further research is required to advocate its universal use in patients with acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Such areas include inter-rater reliability and research to determine the minimally clinically important difference between scores

Achilles tendon rupture rehabilitation : a mixed methods investigation of current practice among orthopaedic surgeons in the United Kingdom

Abstract OBJECTIVES: The evidence base to inform the management of Achilles tendon rupture is sparse. The objectives of this research were to establish what current practice is in the United Kingdom and explore clinicians' views on proposed further research in this area. This study was registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN68273773) as part of a larger programme of research. METHODS: We report an online survey of current practice in the United Kingdom, approved by the British Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and completed by 181 of its members. A total of ten of these respondents were invited for a subsequent one-to-one interview to explore clinician views on proposed further research in this area. RESULTS: The survey showed wide variations in practice, with patients being managed in plaster cast alone (13%), plaster cast followed by orthoses management (68%), and orthoses alone (19%). Within these categories, further variation existed regarding the individual rehabilitation facets, such as the length of time worn, the foot position within them and weight-bearing status. The subsequent interviews reflected this clinical uncertainty and the pressing need for definitive research. CONCLUSIONS: The gap in evidence in this area has resulted in practice in the United Kingdom becoming varied and based on individual opinion. Future high-quality randomised trials on this subject are supported by the clinical community. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2015;4:65-9. ©2015 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery. KEYWORDS: Achilles tendon; Orthotics; Plaster Cast; Rehabilitation; Ruptur

Injection therapies for Achilles tendinopathy

Background: Achilles tendinopathy is a common condition, often with significant functional consequences. As a wide range of injection treatments are available, a review of randomised trials evaluating injection therapies to help inform treatment decisions is warranted. Objectives: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of injection therapies for people with Achilles tendinopathy. Search methods: We searched the following databases up to 20 April 2015: the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. We also searched trial registers (29 May 2014) and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies. Selection criteria: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating injection therapies in adults with an investigator-reported diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy. We accepted comparison arms of placebo (sham) or no injection control, or other active treatment (such as physiotherapy, pharmaceuticals or surgery). Our primary outcomes were function, using measures such as the VISA-A (Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire), and adverse events. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We assessed treatment effects using mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for dichotomous variables. For follow-up data, we defined short-term as up to six weeks, medium-term as up to three months and longer-term as data beyond three months. We performed meta-analysis where appropriate. Main results: We included 18 studies (732 participants). Seven trials exclusively studied athletic populations. The mean ages of the participants in the individual trials ranged from 20 years to 50 years. Fifteen trials compared an injection therapy with a placebo injection or no injection control, four trials compared an injection therapy with active treatment, and one compared two different concentrations of the same injection. Thus no trials compared different injection therapies. Two studies had three trial arms and we included them twice in two different categories. Within these categories, we further subdivided injection therapies by mode of action (injury-causing versus direct repair agents). The risk of bias was unclear (due to poor reporting) or high in six trials published between 1987 and 1994. Improved methodology and reporting for the subsequent trials published between 2004 and 2013 meant that these were at less risk of bias. Given the very low quality evidence available from each of four small trials comparing different combinations of injection therapy versus active treatment and the single trial comparing two doses of one injection therapy, only the results of the first comparison (injection therapy versus control) are presented. There is low quality evidence of a lack of significant or clinically important differences in VISA-A scores (0 to 100: best function) between injection therapy and control groups at six weeks (MD 0.79, 95% CI -4.56 to 6.14; 200 participants, five trials), three months (MD -0.94, 95% CI -6.34 to 4.46; 189 participants, five trials) or between six and 12 months (MD 0.14, 95% CI -6.54 to 6.82; 132 participants, three trials). Very low quality evidence from 13 trials showed little difference between the two groups in adverse events (14/243 versus 12/206; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.89), most of which were minor and short-lasting. The only major adverse event in the injection therapy group was an Achilles tendon rupture, which happened in a trial testing corticosteroid injections. There was very low quality evidence in favour of the injection therapy group in short-term (under three months) pain (219 participants, seven trials) and in the return to sports (335 participants, seven trials). There was very low quality evidence indicating little difference between groups in patient satisfaction with treatment (152 participants, four trials). There was insufficient evidence to conclude on subgroup differences based on mode of action given that only two trials tested injury-causing agents and the clear heterogeneity of the other 13 trials, which tested seven different therapies that act directly on the repair pathway. Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to draw conclusions on the use, or to support the routine use, of injection therapies for treating Achilles tendinopathy. This review has highlighted a need for definitive research in the area of injection therapies for Achilles tendinopathy, including in older non-athletic populations. This review has shown that there is a consensus in the literature that placebo-controlled trials are considered the most appropriate trial design

A protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial to assess the difference between functional bracing and plaster cast for the treatment of ankle fractures

Background: UK Hospital Episode Statistics 2013–2014 recorded 57,286 fractures of the lower limb including the ankle. This figure is expected to continue to increase due to a greater population of older adults. Following an ankle fracture, patients usually have their ankle immobilised with a plaster cast. This provides maximum support for the healing ankle but is associated with stiffness and muscle wasting. A Cochrane Review has concluded that functional bracing may reduce muscle wasting and speed recovery of ankle movement. The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of conducting a full randomised controlled trial in adults with an ankle fracture followed by functional bracing and exercises versus standard plaster cast care. Methods: This is a single-centre feasibility randomised controlled trial. All patients with a fractured ankle are potentially eligible. The trial will employ 1:1 random allocation, stratified by age and non-operative/operative management. Baseline demographic and pre-injury functional data, the Manchester-Oxford Foot and Ankle Questionnaire (MOXFQ) and Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) will be collected alongside the EuroQol EQ-5D-5 L health-related quality of life questionnaire. A research associate will perform a clinical assessment and obtain X-rays in 6 weeks and 6 months post randomisation to record complications. Functional outcome and health-related quality of life will be collected in 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months post randomisation. Discussion: This feasibility trial will provide authoritative high-quality evidence to inform the design of a definitive trial in this important area

Cast versus functional brace in the rehabilitation of patients treated non-operatively for a rupture of the Achilles tendon: protocol for the UK study of tendo achilles rehabilitation (UK STAR) multi-centre randomised trial

INTRODUCTION Achilles tendon rupture affects over 11 000 people yearly in the UK, and the incidence is increasing. Controversy remains with regard to the best rehabilitation strategy for these patients. In operatively treated patients, functional bracing provides better outcomes compared with plaster casts. However, the role of functional bracing in non-operatively managed patients is unclear. This is the protocol for a multicentre randomised trial of plaster cast immobilisation versus functional bracing for patients with a non-operatively managed Achilles tendon rupture. METHODS AND ANALYSIS All adults presenting with a primary rupture of the Achilles tendon will be screened. Non-operatively treated patients will be eligible to take part in the trial. Broad eligibility criteria will ensure that the results of the study can be generalised to the wider patient population. Randomisation will be on a 1:1 basis. Both rehabilitation strategies are widely used within the National Health Service. Standardised protocols will be followed, and details of plaster material and brace will be as per the site's usual practice.A minimum of 330 patients will be randomised to obtain 90% power to detect a difference of 8 points in Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score at 9 months. Quality of life and resource use will be collected at 3, 6 and 9 months. The differences between treatment groups will be assessed on an intention-to-treat basis. The results of the trial-based economic evaluation will be expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The National Research Ethic Committee approved this study on 18 March 2016 (16/SC/0109).The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment monograph and a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal will be submitted on completion of the trial (summer 2019). The results of this trial will substantially inform clinical practice on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the treatment of this injury. This study has been registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry with reference no ISRCTN62639639

The comprehensive cohort model in a pilot trial in orthopaedic trauma

Background: The primary aim of this study was to provide an estimate of effect size for the functional outcome of operative versus non-operative treatment for patients with an acute rupture of the Achilles tendon using accelerated rehabilitation for both groups of patients. The secondary aim was to assess the use of a comprehensive cohort research design (i.e. a parallel patient-preference group alongside a randomised group) in improving the accuracy of this estimate within an orthopaedic trauma setting. Methods: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial and comprehensive cohort study within a level 1 trauma centre. Twenty randomised participants (10 operative and 10 non-operative) and 29 preference participants (3 operative and 26 non-operative). The ge range was 22-72 years and 37 of the 52 patients were men. All participants had an acute rupture of their Achilles tendon and no other injuries. All of the patients in the operative group had a simple end-to-end repair of the tendon with no augmentation. Both groups then followed the same eight-week immediate weight-bearing rehabilitation programme using an off-the-shelf orthotic. The disability rating index (DRI; primary outcome), EQ-5D, Achilles Total Rupture Score and complications were assessed ed at two weeks, six weeks, three months, six months and nine months after initial injury. Results: At nine months, there was no significant difference in DRI between patients randomised to operative or non-operative management. There was no difference in DRI between the randomised group and the parallel patient preference group. The use of a comprehensive cohort of patients did not provide useful additional information as to the treatment effect size because the majority of patients chose non-operative management. Conclusions: Recruitment to clinical trials that compare operative and non-operative interventions is notoriously difficult; especially within the trauma setting. Including a parallel patient preference group to create a comprehensive cohort of patients has been suggested as a way of increasing the power of such trials. In our study, the comprehensive cohort model doubled the number of patients involved in the study. However, a strong preference for non-operative treatment meant that the increased number of patients did not significantly increase the ability of the trial to detect a difference between the two interventions

Plaster cast versus functional brace for non-surgical treatment of Achilles tendon rupture (UKSTAR) : a multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

Background Patients with Achilles tendon rupture who have non-operative treatment have traditionally been treated with immobilisation of the tendon in plaster casts for several weeks. Functional bracing is an alternative non-operative treatment that allows earlier mobilisation, but evidence on its effectiveness and safety is scarce. The aim of the UKSTAR trial was to compare functional and quality-of-life outcomes and resource use in patients treated non-operatively with plaster cast versus functional brace. Methods UKSTAR was a pragmatic, superiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at 39 hospitals in the UK. Patients (aged ≥16 years) who were being treated non-operatively for a primary Achilles tendon rupture at the participating centres were potentially eligible. The exclusion criteria were presenting more than 14 days after injury, previous rupture of the same Achilles tendon, or being unable to complete the questionnaires. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a plaster cast or functional brace using a centralised web-based system. Because the interventions were clearly visible, neither patients nor clinicians could be masked. Participants wore the intervention for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was patient-reported Achilles tendon rupture score (ATRS) at 9 months, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients in the groups to which they were allocated, excluding participants who withdrew or died before providing any outcome data). The main safety outcome was the incidence of tendon re-rupture. Resource use was recorded from a health and personal social care perspective. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN62639639. Findings Between Aug 15, 2016, and May 31, 2018, 1451 patients were screened, of whom 540 participants (mean age 48·7 years, 79% male) were randomly allocated to receive plaster cast (n=266) or functional brace (n=274). 527 (98%) of 540 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, and 13 (2%) were excluded because they withdrew or died before providing any outcome data. There was no difference in ATRS at 9 months post injury (cast group n=244, mean ATRS 74∙4 [SD 19∙8]; functional brace group n=259, ATRS 72∙8 [20∙4]; adjusted mean difference –1∙38 [95% CI –4∙9 to 2∙1], p=0·44). There was no difference in the rate of re-rupture of the tendon (17 [6%] of 266 in the plaster cast group vs 13 [5%] of 274 in the functional brace group, p=0·40). The mean total health and personal social care cost was £1181 for the plaster cast group and £1078 for the functional bract group (mean between-group difference –£103 [95% CI –289 to 84]). Interpretation Traditional plaster casting was not found to be superior to early weight-bearing in a functional brace, as measured by ATRS, in the management of patients treated non-surgically for Achilles tendon rupture. Clinicians may consider the use of early weight-bearing in a functional brace as a safe and cost-effective alternative to plaster casting

Cast versus functional brace in the rehabilitation of patients treated for an ankle fracture: Protocol for the UK study of ankle injury rehabilitation (AIR) multicentre randomised trial

Introduction: Each year in the UK over 120 000 people fracture their ankle. It is not known what the best rehabilitation strategy is for these people. Traditionally standard care has involved immobilisation in a plaster cast but an alternative is a functional brace, which can be removed to allow early movement. This paper details the protocol for a multicentre randomised trial of plaster cast immobilisation versus functional bracing for patients with an ankle fracture. Methods and analysis: We will recruit adults with a fractured ankle, for which the treating clinician would consider plaster cast to be a reasonable management option. Randomisation will be on a 1:1 basis, stratified by centre, operative or non-operative management and age. Participants will be allocated to either plaster cast or a functional brace, both treatments are widely used. To have 90% power to detect a difference of 10 points on the primary outcome (Olerud and Molander Ankle Score) at the primary outcome time point (16 weeks), we need to randomise a minimum of 478 people. Quality of life and resource use will be collected at 6, 10, 16, 24 weeks and 12, 18, 24 months. The differences between treatment groups will be assessed on an intention-to-treat basis. The economic evaluation will adhere to the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. Ethics, registration and dissemination: National Research Ethic Committee approved this study on 4 July 2017 (17/WM/0239). The first site opened to recruitment 9 October 2017. The results of this trial will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will inform clinical practice. Trial registration number: ISRCTN15537280; Pre-results

Rehabilitation strategy after non-surgical treatment of Achilles tendon rupture : UKSTAR, a multicentre RCT

Background Achilles tendon rupture affects > 11,000 people each year in the UK, leading to prolonged periods away from work, sports and social activities. Traditionally, the ruptured tendon is held still in a plaster cast for ≥ 8 weeks. Functional bracing is an alternative treatment that allows patients to mobilise earlier, but there is little evidence about how bracing affects patients’ recovery. Objectives To measure the Achilles Tendon Rupture Score, quality of life, complications and resource use of patients receiving non-operative treatment for an Achilles tendon rupture treated with plaster cast compared with those treated with functional bracing. Design This was a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, two-group superiority trial. Setting The setting was 39 NHS hospitals. Participants A total of 540 adult patients treated non-operatively for Achilles tendon rupture were randomised from July 2016 to May 2018. Exclusion criteria included presenting after 14 days, having had previous rupture and being unable to complete questionnaires. Interventions A total of 266 participants had a plaster cast applied, with their toes initially pointing to the floor. The cast was changed over 8 weeks to bring the foot into a walking position. A total of 274 patients had a functional brace that facilitated immediate weight-bearing. The foot position was adjusted within the brace over the same 8-week period. Main outcome measures Achilles Tendon Rupture Score is patient reported and assesses symptoms and physical activity related to the Achilles tendon (score 0–100, with 100 being the best possible outcome). The secondary outcomes were quality of life, complications and resource use at 8 weeks and at 3, 6 and 9 months. Results Participants had a mean age of 48.7 years, were predominantly male (79%) and had ruptured their tendon during sports (70%). Over 93% of participants completed follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in Achilles Tendon Rupture Score at 9 months post injury (–1.38, 95% confidence interval –4.9 to 2.1). There was a statistically significant difference in Achilles Tendon Rupture Score at 8 weeks post injury in favour of the functional brace group (5.53, 95% confidence interval 2.0 to 9.1), but not at 3 or 6 months post injury. Quality of life showed the same pattern, with a statistically significant difference at 8 weeks post injury but not at later time points. Complication profiles were similar in both groups. Re-rupture of the tendon occurred 17 times in the plaster cast group and 13 times in the functional brace group. There was no difference in resource use. Conclusions This trial provides strong evidence that early weight-bearing in a functional brace provides similar outcomes to traditional plaster casting and is safe for patients receiving non-operative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. The probability that functional bracing is cost-effective exceeds 95% for the base-case imputed analysis, assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. On average, functional brace is associated with lower costs (–£103, 95% confidence interval –£290 to £84) and more quality-adjusted life-years (0.015, 95% confidence interval –0.0013 to 0.030) than plaster cast