Dataset Information

Protocol for surgical and non-surgical treatment for metacarpal shaft fractures in adults: an observational feasibility study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Metacarpal shaft fractures (MSF) are common traumatic hand injuries that usually affect young people of working age. They place a significant burden on healthcare resources and society; however, there is a lack of evidence to guide their treatment. Identifying the most beneficial and cost-efficient treatment will ensure optimisation of care and provide economic value for the National Health Service. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial comparing surgical and non-surgical treatment for MSF in adults.

Methods and analysis

This is a multicentre prospective cohort study, with a nested qualitative study consisting of patient interviews and focus groups, and an embedded factorial randomised substudy evaluating the use of text messages to maximise data collection and participant retention. The outcomes of interest include eligibility, recruitment and retention rates, completion of follow-up, evaluation of primary outcome measures, calculation of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for selected outcome measures and establishing the feasibility of data collection methods and appropriate time-points for use in a future trial. Data will be captured using a secure online data management system. Data analyses will be descriptive and a thematic inductive analysis will be used for qualitative data. Minimum clinically important effects for each patient-reported outcome measure will be estimated using anchor-based responsiveness statistics and distribution-based methods.

Ethics and dissemination

This study has received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee and the Health Research Authority (REC reference 20/EE/0124). Results will be made available to patients, clinicians, researchers and the funder via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Social media platforms, local media and feedback from the Patient Advisory Group will be used to maximise circulation of findings to patients and the public.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN13922779.

SUBMITTER: Taha R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8245430 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOpen tibial shaft fractures are one of the most devastating orthopaedic injuries. Surgical treatment options include reamed or unreamed nailing, plating, Ender nails, Ilizarov fixation, and external fixation. Using a network meta-analysis allows comparison and facilitates pooling of a diverse population of randomized trials across these approaches in ways that a traditional meta-analysis does not.Questions/purposesOur aim was to perform a network meta-analysis using evidence from randomized trials on the relative effect of alternative approaches on the risk of unplanned reoperation after open fractures of the tibial diaphysis. Our secondary study endpoints included malunion, deep infection, and superficial infection.MethodsA network meta-analysis allows for simultaneous consideration of the relative effectiveness of multiple treatment alternatives. To do this on the subject of surgical treatments for open tibial fractures, we began with systematic searches of databases (including EMBASE and MEDLINE) and performed hand searches of orthopaedic journals, bibliographies, abstracts from orthopaedic conferences, and orthopaedic textbooks, for all relevant material published between 1980 and 2013. Two authors independently screened abstracts and manuscripts and extracted the data, three evaluated the risk of bias in individual studies, and two applied Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to bodies of evidence. We included all randomized and quasirandomized trials comparing two (or more) surgical treatment options for open tibial shaft fractures in predominantly (ie, > 80%) adult patients. We calculated pooled estimates for all direct comparisons and conducted a network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence for all 15 comparisons between six stabilization strategies. Fourteen trials published between 1989 and November 2011 met our inclusion criteria; the trials comprised a total of 1279 patients surgically treated for open tibial shaft fractures.ResultsModerate confidence evidence showed that unreamed nailing may reduce the likelihood of reoperation compared with external fixation (network odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.62; p < 0.05), although not necessarily compared with reamed nailing (direct OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.45-1.24; p = 0.25). Only low- or very low-quality evidence informed the primary outcome for other treatment comparisons, such as those involving internal plate fixation, Ilizarov external fixation, and Ender nailing. Method ranking based on reoperation data showed that unreamed nailing had the highest probability of being the best treatment, followed by reamed nailing, external fixation, and plate fixation. CIs around pooled estimates of malunion and infection risk were very wide, and therefore no conclusive results could be made based on these data.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that intramedullary nailing may be superior to other fixation strategies for open tibial shaft fractures. Use of unreamed nails over reamed nails also may be advantageous in the setting of open fractures, but this remains to be confirmed. Unfortunately, these conclusions are based on trials that have had high risk of bias and poor precision. Larger and higher-quality head-to-head randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these conclusions and better inform clinical decision-making.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Lateral compression type 1 (LC1) pelvic fractures are the most common type of pelvic fracture. The majority of LC1 fractures are considered stable. Fractures where a complete sacral fracture is present increases the degree of potential instability and have the potential to displace over time. Non-operative management of these unstable fractures may involve restricted weight bearing and significant rehabilitation. Frequent monitoring with X-rays is also necessary for displacement of the fracture. Operative stabilisation of these fractures may be appropriate to prevent displacement of the fracture. This may allow patients to mobilise pain-free, quicker. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The study is a feasibility study to inform the design of a full definitive randomised controlled trial to guide the most appropriate management of these injuries. Participants will be recruited from major trauma centres and randomly allocated to either operative or non-operative management of their injuries. A variety of outcome instruments, measuring health-related quality of life, functional outcome and pain, will be completed at several time points up to 12?months post injury. Qualitative interviews will be undertaken with participants to explore their views of the treatments under investigation and trial processes.Eligibility and recruitment to the study will be analysed to inform the feasibility of a definitive trial. Completion rates of the measurement instruments will be assessed, as well as their sensitivity to change and the presence of floor or ceiling effects in this population, to inform the choice of the primary outcome for a definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval for the study was given by the South West-Central Bristol NHS Research Ethics Committee on 2nd July 2018 (Ref; 18/SW/0135). The study will be reported in relevant specialist journals and through presentation at specialist conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN10649958.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A comprehensive overview of treatments of common fractures is missing, although it would be important for shared decision-making in clinical practice. The aim was to determine benefits and harms of surgical compared to non-surgical treatments for traumatic skeletal fractures. METHODS:We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL until November 2018, for randomized trials of surgical treatment in comparison with or in addition to non-surgical treatment of fractures in adults. For harms, only trials with patient enrollment in 2000 or later were included, while no time restriction was applied to benefits. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data from full-text trials, and performed risk of bias assessment. Outcomes were self-reported pain, function, and quality of life, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Random effects model (Hedges' g) was used. RESULTS:Out of 28375 records screened, we included 61 trials and performed meta-analysis on 12 fracture types in 11 sites: calcaneus, clavicula, femur, humerus, malleolus, metacarpus, metatarsus, radius, rib, scaphoideum, and thoraco-lumbar spine. Seven other fracture types only had one trial available. For distal radius fractures, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was 0.31 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.53, n = 378 participants) for function, favoring surgery, however, with greater risk of SAEs (RR = 3.10 (1.42 to 6.77), n = 436). For displaced intra-articular calcaneus fractures, SMD was 0.64 (0.13 to 1.16) for function (n = 244) and 0.19 (0.01 to 0.36) for quality of life (n = 506) favoring surgery. Surgery was associated with a smaller risk of SAE than non-surgical treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures (RR = 0.62 (0.42 to 0.92), n = 1394). None of the other comparisons showed statistical significance differences and insufficient data existed for most of the common fracture types. CONCLUSIONS:Of 12 fracture types with more than one trial, only two demonstrated a difference in favor of surgery (distal radius fractures and displaced intra-articular calcaneus fractures), one of which demonstrated a greater risk of harms in the surgical group (distal radius fractures). Our results highlight the current paucity of high-quality randomized trials for common fracture types and a considerable heterogeneity and risk of bias in several of the available trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42015020805.