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

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

Cost-utility analysis of surgical fixation with Kirschner wire versus casting after fracture of the distal radius

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the cost- effectiveness of surgical fixation with Kirschner (K-) wire ersus moulded casting after manipulation of a fracture of the distal radius in an operating theatre setting. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted based on data collected from the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial 2 (DRAFFT2) multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK. Resource use was collected at three, six, and 12 months post-randomization using trial case report forms and participant-completed questionnaires. Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from an NHS and personal social services perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates, and decision uncertainty was handled using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: In the base case analysis, surgical fixation with K-wire was more expensive (£29.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) -94.85 to 154.15)) and generated lower QALYs (0.007 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.016)) than moulded casting, but this difference was not statistically significant. The probability of K-wire being cost-effective at a £20,000 per QALY cost-effectiveness threshold was 24%. The cost-effectiveness results remained robust in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The findings suggest that surgical fixation with K-wire is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to a moulded cast in adults, following manipulation of a fracture of the distal radius in a theatre setting.</p