Patient experiences of an ankle fracture and the most important factors in their recovery : a qualitative interview study

Objective The objective of this qualitative research study is to explore patient experiences of ankle fracture and the factors most important to them in recovery. Design Semistructured interviews exploring patient experiences of ankle fracture recovery at 16–23 weeks following injury. Interviews followed a topic guide and were recorded with an encrypted audio recorder and then transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was used to identify themes in the data. Setting Individuals were recruited from a sample of participants of a UK-based clinical trial of immobilisation methods for ankle fracture (ISRCTN15537280 at the pre-results stage at time of writing). Interviews were conducted at the participants’ own homes or on a university campus setting. Participants A purposive sample was used to account for key variables of age, gender and fracture management. Participants recruited from the clinical trial sample were adults aged 18 years or over with a closed ankle fracture. Results Ten participants were interviewed, five of whom were female and six of whom needed an operation to fix their ankle fracture. The age range of participants was 21–75 years with a mean of 51.6 years. Eight themes emerged from the data during analysis; mobility, loss of independence, healthcare, psychological effects, social and family life, ankle symptoms, sleep disturbance and fatigue, and activities of daily living. Factors of importance to participants included regaining their independence, sleep quality and quantity, ability to drive, ability to walk without walking aids or weight-bearing restrictions, and radiological union. Conclusions The results of this research demonstrates the extensive impact of ankle fracture on individuals’ lives, including social and family life, sleep, their sense of independence and psychological well-being. The results of this study will enable an increased understanding of the factors of relevance to individuals with ankle fracture, allowing collection of appropriate outcomes in clinical studies for this condition. Ultimately these results will help formulate appropriate patient-centred rehabilitation plans for these patients

Primary outcome measures used in interventional trials for ankle fractures : a systematic review

Background Ankle fractures cause considerable pain, loss of function and healthcare resource use. High quality randomised controlled trials are required to evaluate the optimal management protocols for ankle fracture. However, there is debate regarding the most appropriate outcome measure to use when assessing patients with ankle fractures. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and summarise primary outcome measure use in clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions for adults with an ankle fracture. Methods We performed comprehensive searches of the Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and Cochrane CENTRAL databases, as well as ISRCTN and ClinicalTrials.gov online clinical trial registries on 19/06/2019 with no date limits applied. The titles and abstracts were initially screened to identify randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions for ankle fracture in adults. Two authors independently screened the full text of any articles which could potentially be eligible. Descriptive statistics we used to summarise the outcome measures collected in these articles including an assessment of trends over time. Secondary analysis included a descriptive summary of the multi-item patient reported outcome measures used in this study type. Results The searches returned a total of 3380 records. Following application of the eligibility criteria, 121 records were eligible for inclusion in this review. The most frequently collected primary outcome measures in this type of publication was the Olerud Molander Ankle Score, followed by radiographic and range of movement assessments. There was a total of 28 different outcome measures collected and five different multi-item, patient reported outcome measures collected as the primary outcome measure. There was a sequential increase in the number of this type of study published per decade since the 1980’s. Conclusion This review demonstrates the wide range of measurement methods used to assess outcome in adults with an ankle fracture. Future research should focus on establishing the validity and reliability of the outcome measures used in this patient population. Formulation of a consensus based core outcome set for adults with an ankle fracture would be advantageous for ensuring homogeneity across studies in order to meta-analyse trial results

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

A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures used for adults with an ankle fracture

Background Ankle fractures are painful and debilitating injuries that pose a significant burden to society and healthcare systems. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used outcome measures in clinical trials of interventions for ankle fracture but there is little evidence on their validity and reliability. This systematic review aims to identify and appraise evidence for the measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs used in adults with an ankle fracture using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) methodology. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL online databases for evidence of measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs. Articles were included if they assessed or described the development of the PROM in adults with ankle fracture. Articles were ineligible if they used the PROM to assess the measurement properties of another instrument. Abstracts without full articles and conference proceedings were ineligible, as were articles that adapted the PROM under evaluation without any formal justification of the changes as part of a cross-cultural validation or translation process. Two reviewers completed the screening. To assess methodological quality we used COSMIN risk of bias checklist and summarised evidence using COSMIN quality criteria and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data for a sample of articles. Results The searches returned a total of 377 articles. From these, six articles were included after application of eligibility criteria. These articles evaluated three PROMs: A-FORM, OMAS and AAOS. The A-FORM had evidence of a robust development process within the patient population, however lacks post-formulation testing. The OMAS showed sufficient levels of reliability, internal consistency and construct validity. The AAOS showed low quality evidence of sufficient construct validity. Conclusions There is insufficient evidence to support the recommendation of a particular PROM for use in adult ankle fracture research based on COSMIN methodology. Further validation of these outcome measures is required in order to ensure PROMs used in this area are sufficiently valid and reliable to assess treatment effects. This would enable high quality, evidenced-based management of adults with ankle fracture

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

An evaluation of the measurement properties of the Olerud Molander Ankle Score in adults with an ankle fracture

Objectives The aim of this study is to evaluate the measurement properties of the Olerud Molander Ankle Score in adults with an ankle fracture. Methods Patients completed outcome measure questionnaires at baseline, six, 10- and 16-weeks post-injury as part of an ongoing clinical trial on ankle fracture rehabilitation. The internal consistency, convergent validity, structural validity and interpretability of the Olerud Molander Ankle Score was assessed. This was achieved through using the respective analysis methods of Cronbach's alpha, correlation coefficients, principal component analysis, evaluation of floor and ceiling scores and estimation of the minimally important change using anchor-based methods. Results The Olerud Molander Ankle Score showed adequate convergent validity against hypotheses set in relation to scores of comparator instruments. Principal component analysis demonstrated that the measure has two subscales: ankle function and ankle symptoms. The internal consistency of the measure and the ankle function subscale was sufficient, but inconclusive for the ankle symptoms subscale. There were no floor and ceiling effects present within the scores and the estimated minimally important change was 9.7 points. Conclusion The Olerud Molander Ankle Score demonstrates sufficient measurement properties and is likely to be primarily measuring the construct of patient reported function following ankle fracture. Further research should evaluate the relevance of other domains to individuals recovering from and ankle fracture, such as social participation and psychological wellbeing. The development of a core outcome set would be advantageous to standardise outcome measurement collection in this area

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

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

START REACTS Clinical Trial : Physiotherapy Manual

In the START REACTS Trial, participants are referred to physiotherapy after having the surgical intervention. This manual provides information and background to the clinical trial to physiotherapists who will be treating trial participants. It has been written to ensure the post-operative physiotherapy is consistent across the trial population