A Combined Randomised and Observational Study of Surgery for Fractures In the distal Radius in the Elderly (CROSSFIRE): a statistical analyses plan.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:We are performing a combined randomised and observational study comparing internal fixation to non-surgical management for common wrist fractures in older patients. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan. METHODS/DESIGN:A Combined Randomised and Observational Study of Surgery for Fractures In the distal Radius in the Elderly (CROSSFIRE) is a randomised controlled trial comparing two types of usual care for treating wrist fractures in older patients, surgical fixation using volar locking plates and non-surgical treatment using closed reduction and plaster immobilisation. The primary aim of this comparative-effectiveness study is to determine whether surgery is superior to non-surgical treatment with respect to patient-reported wrist function at 12 months post treatment. The secondary outcomes include radiographic outcomes, complication rates and patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, pain, treatment success and cosmesis. Primary analysis will use a two-sample t test and an intention-to-treat analysis using the randomised arm of the study. Statistical analyses will be two-tailed and significance will be determined by p
Project description:Fractures of the distal radius are common and occur in all age groups. The incidence is high in older populations due to osteoporosis and increased falls risk. Considerable practice variation exists in the management of distal radius fractures in older patients ranging from closed reduction with cast immobilisation to open reduction with plate fixation. Plating is currently the most common surgical treatment. While there is evidence showing no significant advantage for some forms of surgical fixation over conservative treatment, and no difference between different surgical techniques, there is a lack of evidence comparing two of the most common treatments used: closed reduction and casting versus plating. Surgical management involves significant costs and risks compared with conservative management. High-level evidence is required to address practice variation, justify costs and to provide the best clinical outcomes for patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This pragmatic, multicentre randomised comparative effectiveness trial aims to determine whether plating leads to better pain and function and is more cost-effective than closed reduction and casting of displaced distal radius fractures in adults aged 60 years and older. The trial will compare the two techniques but will also follow consenting patients who are unwilling to be randomised in a separate, observational cohort. Inclusion of non-randomised patients addresses selection bias, provides practice and outcome insights about standard care, and improves the generalisability of the results from the randomised trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:CROSSFIRE(Combined Randomised and Observational Study of Surgery for Fractures In the distal Radius in the Elderly) was reviewed and approved by The Hunter New England HREC (HNEHREC Reference No: 16/02/17/3.04). The results of the trial will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be disseminated via various forms of media. Results will be incorporated in clinical recommendations and practice guidelines produced by professional bodies. REGISTRATION:CROSSFIRE has been registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR: ACTRN12616000969460).
Project description:BACKGROUND:Isolated type B ankle fractures with no injury to the medial side are the most common type of ankle fracture. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to determine if surgery is superior to non-surgical management for the treatment of these fractures. METHODS:A pragmatic, multicentre, single-blinded, combined randomised controlled trial and observational study. Setting Participants between 18 and 65?years with a type B ankle fracture and minimal talar shift were recruited from 22 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Participants willing to be randomised were randomly allocated to undergo surgical fixation followed by mobilisation in a walking boot for 6?weeks. Those treated non-surgically were managed in a walking boot for 6?weeks. Participants not willing to be randomised formed the observational cohort. Randomisation stratified by site and using permuted variable blocks was administered centrally. Outcome assessors were blinded for the primary outcomes. Primary outcomes Patient-reported ankle function using the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle Outcomes Questionnaire (FAOQ) and the physical component score (PCS) of the SF-12v2 General Health Survey at 12?months postinjury. Primary analysis was intention to treat; the randomised and observational cohorts were analysed separately. RESULTS:From August 2010 to October 2013, 160 people were randomised (80 surgical and 80 non-surgical); 139 (71 surgical and 68 non-surgical) were analysed as intention to treat. 276 formed the observational cohort (19 surgical and 257 non-surgical); 220 (18 surgical and 202 non-surgical) were analysed. The randomised cohort demonstrated that surgery was not superior to non-surgery for the FAOQ (49.8 vs 53.0; mean difference 3.2 (95% CI 0.4 to 5.9), p=0.028), or the PCS (53.7 vs 53.2; mean difference 0.6 (-2.9 to 1.8), p=0.63). 23 (32%) and 10 (14%) participants had an adverse event in the surgical and non-surgical groups, respectively. Similar results were found in the observational cohort. CONCLUSIONS:Surgery is not superior to non-surgical management for 44-B1 ankle fractures in the short term, and is associated with increased adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01134094.
Project description:BACKGROUND:In the past several years, an increase in open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for intra-articular distal radius fractures has been observed. This technique leads to a quicker recovery of function compared to non-operative treatment. However, some patients continue to have a painful and stiff wrist postoperatively. Arthroscopically assisted removal of intra-articular fracture haematoma and debris may improve the functional outcomes following operative treatment of intra-articular distal radius fractures. The purpose of this randomised controlled trial is to determine the difference in functional outcome, assessed with the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) score, after ORIF with and without an additional wrist arthroscopy in adult patients with displaced complete articular distal radius fractures. METHODS:In this multicentre trial, adult patients with a displaced complete articular distal radius fracture are randomised between ORIF with an additional wrist arthroscopy to remove fracture haematoma and debris (intervention group) and conventional fluoroscopic-assisted ORIF (control group). The primary outcome is functional outcome assessed with the PRWE score after three months. Secondary outcomes are wrist function assessed with the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, postoperative pain, range of motion, grip strength, complications and cost-effectiveness. Additionally, in the intervention group, the quality of reduction, associated ligamentous injuries and cartilage damage will be assessed. A total of 50 patients will be included in this study. DISCUSSION:Although ORIF of intra-articular distal radius fractures leads to a quicker resume of function compared to non-operative treatment, some patients continue to have a painful and stiff wrist postoperatively. We hypothesise that, due to the removal of fracture haematoma and debris by an additional arthroscopy, functional outcomes will be better compared to the non-arthroscopically treated group. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02660515 . Registered on 13 January 2016.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Annually, millions of adults suffer hip fractures. The mortality rate post a hip fracture is 7%-10%?at 30 days and 10%-20% at 90 days. Observational data suggest that early surgery can improve these outcomes in hip fracture patients. We designed a clinical trial-HIP fracture Accelerated surgical TreaTment And Care tracK (HIP ATTACK) to determine the effect of accelerated surgery compared with standard care on the 90-day risk of all-cause mortality and major perioperative complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:HIP ATTACK is a multicentre, international, parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) that will include patients ?45 years of age and diagnosed with a hip fracture from a low-energy mechanism requiring surgery. Patients are randomised to accelerated medical assessment and surgical repair (goal within 6?h) or standard care. The co-primary outcomes are (1) all-cause mortality and (2) a composite of major perioperative complications (ie, mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, sepsis, stroke, and life-threatening and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. All patients will be followed up for a period of 1?year. We will enrol 3000 patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:All centres had ethics approval before randomising patients. Written informed consent is required for all patients before randomisation. HIP ATTACK is the first large international trial designed to examine whether accelerated surgery can improve outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The dissemination plan includes publishing the results in a policy-influencing journal, conference presentations, engagement of influential medical organisations, and providing public awareness through multimedia resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02027896; Pre-results.
Project description:AIM:To compare the outcomes of displaced distal radius fractures treated with volar locking plates and with immediate postoperative mobilisation with the outcomes of these fractures treated with modalities that necessitate 6 wk wrist immobilisation. METHODS:A prospective, randomised controlled single-centre trial was conducted with 56 patients who had a displaced radius fracture were randomised to treatment either with a volar locking plate (n = 29), or another treatment modality (n = 27; cast immobilisation with or without wires or external fixator). Outcomes were measured at 12 wk. Functional outcome scores measured were the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) Score; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and activities of daily living (ADLs). Clinical outcomes were wrist range of motion and grip strength. Radiographic parameters were volar inclination and ulnar variance. RESULTS:Patients in the volar locking plate group had significantly better PRWE scores, ADL scores, grip strength and range of extension at three months compared with the control group. All radiological parameters were significantly better in the volar locking plate group at 3 mo. CONCLUSION:The present study suggests that volar locking plates produced significantly better functional and clinical outcomes at 3 mo compared with other treatment modalities. Anatomical reduction was significantly more likely to be preserved in the plating group. Level of evidence: II.
Project description:Wrist fractures are common in postmenopausal women and are associated with functional decline. Fracture patterns after wrist fracture are unclear. The goal of this study was to determine the frequency and types of fractures that occur after a wrist fracture among postmenopausal women. We carried out a post hoc analysis of data from the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study and Clinical Trials (1993-2010) carried out at 40 US clinical centers. Participants were postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years at baseline. Mean follow-up duration was 11.8 years. Main measures included incident wrist, clinical spine, humerus, upper extremity, lower extremity, hip, and total non-wrist fractures and bone mineral density (BMD) in a subset. Among women who experienced wrist fracture, 15.5% subsequently experienced non-wrist fracture. The hazard for non-wrist fractures was higher among women who had experienced previous wrist fracture than among women who had not experienced wrist fracture: non-wrist fracture overall (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33-1.48), spine (HR?=?1.48, 95% CI 1.32-1.66), humerus (HR?=?1.78, 95% CI 1.57-2.02), upper extremity (non-wrist) (HR?=?1.88, 95% CI 1.70-2.07), lower extremity (non-hip) (HR?=?1.36, 95% CI 1.26-1.48), and hip (HR?=?1.50, 95% CI 1.32-1.71) fracture. Associations persisted after adjustment for BMD, physical activity, and other risk factors. Risk of non-wrist fracture was higher in women who were younger when they experienced wrist fracture (interaction p value 0.02). Associations between incident wrist fracture and subsequent non-wrist fracture did not vary by baseline BMD category (normal, low bone density, osteoporosis). A wrist fracture is associated with increased risk of subsequent hip, vertebral, upper extremity, and lower extremity fractures. There may be substantial missed opportunity for intervention in the large number of women who present with wrist fractures.
Project description:<b>Objective: </b>Wrist deformity in older people is common following treatment for a wrist fracture, particularly after non-surgical treatment. A cohort of older wrist fracture patients were surveyed by telephone regarding perceived deformity, bother with deformity and patient-reported wrist function. The objectives were to: (1) determine whether older patients with wrist fractures perceived a deformity of their wrist and if they were bothered by it; (2) test if there were associations between deformity and treatment-type and between deformity and function; (3) test for associations between bother and treatment-type and between bother and function; (4) measure the test-retest reliability of the 'bother' question.<br><br><b>Results: </b>Of 98 eligible patients who were invited to participate, 41 responded. Out of 41, 14 (34%) believed they had a deformity and 4 (10%) reported that they were bothered by the appearance of their wrist. Deformity was associated with non-surgical treatment (RR?=?3.85, p?=?0.006) but was not significantly associated with functional outcomes (p?=?0.15). All those who were bothered belonged to the non-surgical treatment group. Bother was significantly associated with poorer functional outcomes (p?=?0.006) and this association was clinically significant (MD?=?35 points). The deformity and bother questions were found to have excellent test-retest reliability; ??=?1.00 and ??=?0.92, respectively.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical and non-surgical management of fractures of the proximal humerus, and to determine whether further analyses based on complexity of fracture, or the type of surgical intervention, produced disparate findings on patient outcomes. METHODS:A systematic review of the literature was performed identifying all RCTs that compared surgical and non-surgical management of fractures of the proximal humerus. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes was performed where possible. Subgroup analysis based on the type of fracture, and a sensitivity analysis based on the type of surgical intervention, were also performed. RESULTS:Seven studies including 528 patients were included. The overall meta-analysis found that there was no difference in clinical outcomes. However, subgroup and sensitivity analyses found improved patient outcomes for more complex fractures managed surgically. Four-part fractures that underwent surgery had improved long-term health utility scores (mean difference, MD 95% CI 0.04 to 0.28; p = 0.007). They were also less likely to result in osteoarthritis, osteonecrosis and non/malunion (OR 7.38, 95% CI 1.97 to 27.60; p = 0.003). Another significant subgroup finding was that secondary surgery was more common for patients that underwent internal fixation compared with conservative management within the studies with predominantly three-part fractures (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.63; p = 0.009). CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis has demonstrated that differences in the type of fracture and surgical treatment result in outcomes that are distinct from those generated from analysis of all types of fracture and surgical treatments grouped together. This has important implications for clinical decision making and should highlight the need for future trials to adopt more specific inclusion criteria.Cite this article: S. Sabharwal, N. K. Patel, D. Griffiths, T. Athanasiou, C. M. Gupte, P. Reilly. Trials based on specific fracture configuration and surgical procedures likely to be more relevant for decision making in the management of fractures of the proximal humerus: Findings of a meta-analysisBone Joint Res 2016;5:470-480. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.510.2000638.
Project description:Of all distal radius fractures, 25 % are complete articular fractures (AO/OTA type C fractures). Two thirds of those fractures are displaced and require reduction. According to several International Guidelines, adequately reduced intra-articular distal radius fractures are best treated non-operatively with plaster immobilisation, while surgical fixation is suggested only when the articular step exceeds 2 mm after reduction. However, these recommendations are based on studies that did not differentiate between intra- and extra-articular distal radius fractures. Thus, no clear consensus about the best treatment for patients with displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures can be reached. Despite the lack of evidence, an increase in internal fixation of intra-articular distal radius fractures has been observed over the last decade. The aim of this study is to determine the difference in functional outcome following open reduction and plate fixation compared with non-operative treatment with closed reduction and plaster immobilisation in patients with a displaced intra articular distal radius fracture.This multicentre randomised controlled trial will randomise between open reduction and internal plate fixation (intervention group) and closed reduction and plaster immobilisation (control group). All consecutive adult patients from 18 to 65 years with a displaced intra-articular distal radius fracture (AO/OTA type C), which has been adequately reduced at the Emergency Department according to the Dutch National Guidelines, are eligible for inclusion in this study. The primary outcome is function and pain of the wrist assessed with the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE). Secondary outcomes are the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (DASH), pain, quality of life (SF-36), range of motion, grip strength, radiological parameters, complications, crossovers and cost-effectiveness of both treatments. A total of 90 patients will be included in this study.Although displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures are common, there is still no evidence on the optimal treatment for these fractures in patients aged 18 to 65 years. Therefore we aim to determine the difference in functional outcome between open reduction and plate fixation and closed reduction and plaster immobilisation.This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02651779 ) on January 4(th) 2016.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The research objectives of the Femoroacetabular Impingement Randomised controlled Trial (FIRST) are to assess whether surgical correction of the hip impingement morphology (arthroscopic osteochondroplasty) with or without labral repair, in adults aged 18-50 years diagnosed with non-arthritic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), provides decreased pain and improved health-related quality of life at 12 months compared to arthroscopic lavage of the hip joint. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for the FIRST trial. METHODS/DESIGN:FIRST is an ongoing multi-centre, blinded randomised controlled trial of 220 patients who have been diagnosed with FAI and are optimized for surgical intervention. This article describes the overall analysis principles, including how participants will be included in each analysis, the presentation of the results, adjustments for covariates, the primary and secondary outcomes and their respective analyses. In addition, we will present the planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses. DISCUSSION:Our rationale for FIRST is based upon (1) an epidemic of FAI surgery with resultant increased healthcare costs over that last decade, (2) worldwide disparity in perceptions about its utility, and (3) consensus that definitive evidence for or against surgical approaches is lacking. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01623843 . Registered on 20 June 2012.