Dataset Information

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary arthrodesis versus open reduction and internal fixation in patients with Lisfranc fracture instability (The BFF Study) study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Lisfranc injury is a complex injury of the midfoot. It can result in persistent pain and functional impairment if treated inappropriately. In Lisfranc fracture dislocation, treatment options are primary arthrodesis of the midfoot joints or open reduction and internal fixation. The purpose of the proposed study is to define the optimal treatment for the Lisfranc fracture dislocation, either primary arthrodesis or open reduction and internal fixation, in regard to quality of life, complications, functional outcomes, and cost effectiveness.

Methods

Study design: A prospective multicenter RCT.

Study population

All patients of 18 years and older with an acute (< 6 weeks) traumatic fracture dislocation in the Lisfranc midfoot joints, displaced on static radiographic evaluation or unstable with dynamic evaluation, weight bearing radiographs or fluoroscopic stress testing under anesthesia, and eligible for either one of the surgical procedures. In total, this study will include n = 112 patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation.

Interventions

Patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation will be randomly allocated to treatment in "The Better to Fix or Fuse Study" (The BFF Study) with either PA or ORIF. Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome parameter: the quality of life.

Secondary outcomes

complications, functional outcomes, secondary surgical interventions and cost effectiveness. Nature and extent of the burden: PA is expected to have a better outcome, however both treatments are accepted for this injury with a similar low risk of complications. Follow up is standardized and therefore this study will not add extra burden to the patient.

Discussion

This study protocol provides a comprehensive overview of the aims and methods of the attached clinical study. Limitations of this study are the absence of patient blinding since it is impossible in surgical intervention, and the outcome measure (AOFAS) that has limited validity not for these injuries. This study will be the first with enough power to define optimal treatment for Lisfranc fracture dislocations. This is necessary since current literature is unclear on this topic. Trial registration Current controlled Trial: NCT04519242 with registration date: 08/13/2020. Retrospectively registered; Protocol date and version: Version 4 05/06/2020.

SUBMITTER: van den Boom NAC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8359057 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lisfranc injuries are known to be rare and often overlooked injuries that can cause long-term disability and pain when missed or treated incorrectly. The wide variety of Lisfranc injuries ranges from subtle ligament distensions to open fracture dislocations. The treatment of Lisfranc joint injuries is still controversial and very little is known about what types of injury can be treated nonoperatively. The current literature provides only two randomized studies on dislocated Lisfranc injuries. These studies have shown that primary arthrodesis (PA) leads to a similar or better outcome and results in fewer secondary operations when compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in ligamentous injuries. There have been no previous randomized studies of the nonoperative versus operative treatment of Lisfranc injuries. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the operative and nonoperative treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc injuries and to compare the ORIF and PA treatment of dislocated Lisfranc injuries. METHODS:This study is a prospective, randomized, national multi-center trial. The trial comprises two strata: Stratum I compares cast-immobilization versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc joint injuries. Stratum II compares PA versus ORIF in the treatment of dislocated injuries of the Lisfranc joint. The main hypothesis of stratum I is that the nonoperative treatment of non-dislocated Lisfranc injuries achieves a similar outcome compared with operative treatment (ORIF). The hypothesis of stratum II is that PA of dislocated Lisfranc injuries yields a similar functional outcome compared with ORIF, but that PA results in fewer secondary operations than ORIF. The main outcome measure is the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Midfoot score and the secondary outcome measures are Visual-Analogue-Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA), Visual-Analogue-Scale (VAS), rate of secondary operations and other treatment-related complications. The results will be analyzed after the 2-year follow-up period. DISCUSSION:This publication presents a prospective, randomized, national multi-center trial study protocol. It provides details of patient flow, randomization, aftercare and methods of analysis of the material and ways to present and publish the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02953067 24.10.2016.

Project description:PurposeDistal radius fracture open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) represents a considerable cost burden to the health care system. We aimed to elucidate demographic-, injury-, and treatment-specific factors influencing surgical encounter costs for distal radius ORIF.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed adult patients treated with isolated distal radius ORIF between November 2014 and October 2016 at a single tertiary academic medical center. Using our institution's information technology value tools-which allow for comprehensive payment and cost data collection and analysis on an item-level basis-we determined relative costs (RC) for each factor potentially influencing total direct costs (TDC) for distal radius ORIF using univariate and multivariable gamma regression analyses.ResultsOf the included 108 patients, implants and facility utilization costs were responsible for 48.3% and 37.9% of TDC, respectively. Factors associated with increased TDC include plate manufacturer (RC 1.52 for the most vs least expensive manufacturer), number of screws (RC 1.03 per screw) and distal radius plates used (RC 1.67 per additional plate), surgery setting (RC 1.32 for main hospital vs ambulatory surgery center), treating service (RC 1.40 for trauma vs hand surgeons), and surgical time (RC 1.04 for every 10 min of additional surgical time). Open fracture was associated with increased costs (RC 1.55 vs closed fracture), whereas other estimates of fracture severity were nonsignificant. In the multivariable model controlling for injury-specific factors, variables including implant manufacturer, and number of distal radius plates and screws used, remained as significant drivers of TDC.ConclusionsSubstantial variations in surgical direct costs for distal radius ORIF exist, and implant choice is the predominant driver. Cost reductions may be expected through judicious use of additional plates and screws, if hospital systems use bargaining power to reduce implant costs, and by efficiently completing surgeries.Clinical relevanceThis study identifies modifiable factors that may lead to cost reduction for distal radius ORIF.

Project description:BackgroundOpen reduction and plate fixation are the preferred treatment options for most distal humerus fractures in adults. However, it is often challenging for orthopedic surgeons because of the complex anatomy and the difficulty in achieving stable fixation. This multicenter study aimed to analyze the complication types and rates of patients with distal humerus fractures treated with open reduction and plate fixation, and compare the results with those found in the literature. In addition, we describe the clinical outcomes.MethodsThis retrospective multicenter study was conducted between September 2001 and March 2021 and included data from four hospitals. In total, 349 elbows underwent surgical treatment at these hospitals during the study period. Patients > 17 years of age who were treated by plate fixation were included, and patients who were treated by other fixation methods were excluded. A total of 170 patients were included in the study. The following types of complications were investigated: (1) nerve related; (2) fixation and instrument related; (3) osteosynthesis related; (4) infection; and (5) others.ResultsThe following complications were found: (1) 26 (15.3%) cases of postoperative ulnar nerve symptoms; 4 (2.4%) of postoperative radial nerve symptoms; (2) one (0.6%) case of screw joint penetration and screw loosening; and eight (4.7%) cases of hardware removal due to instrument skin irritation; (3) seven (4.1%) cases of nonunion; (4) two (1.2%) and four (2.2%) cases of superficial and deep infection, respectively, and seven (3.9%) cases of wound complication; and (5) 37 (21.8%) cases of heterotrophic ossification, 79 (46.5%) cases of elbow stiffness (did not achieve functional range of motion [ROM]), and 41 (24.1%) cases of osteoarthritis over Broberg and Morrey Grade I. Paradoxically, the postoperative ulnar nerve symptoms were more frequent in the prophylactic ulnar nerve anterior transposition group. However, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.086). The mean ROM was 123.5° flexion to 9.5° extension. The average Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score was 14.5 ± 15.6.ConclusionsOpen reduction and plate fixation for distal humeral fractures is a reasonable treatment option with acceptable complication rates and favorable clinical outcomes. Surgeons must be vigilant about ulnar nerve complications. Level of Evidence Therapeutic Level III.