Redisplacement of reduced distal radius fractures in adults: does the type of casting play a role? The CAST study, a multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial.

Aims: It is not clear which type of casting provides the best initial treatment in adults with a distal radial fracture. Given that between 32% and 64% of adequately reduced fractures redisplace during immobilization in a cast, preventing redisplacement and a disabling malunion or secondary surgery is an aim of treatment. In this study, we investigated whether circumferential casting leads to fewer the redisplacement of fewer fractures and better one-year outcomes compared with plaster splinting. Methods: In a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, two-period cluster-randomized superiority trial, we compared these two types of casting. Recruitment took place in ten hospitals. Eligible patients aged ≥ 18 years with a displaced distal radial fracture, which was acceptably aligned after closed reduction, were included. The primary outcome measure was the rate of redisplacement within five weeks of immobilization. Secondary outcomes were the rate of complaints relating to the cast, clinical outcomes at three months, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (using the numerical rating scale (NRS), the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), and Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) scores), and adverse events such as the development of compartment syndrome during one year of follow-up. We used multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression for the analysis of the primary outcome measure. Results: The study included 420 patients. There was no significant difference between the rate of redisplacement of the fracture between the groups: 47% (n = 88) for those treated with a plaster splint and 49% (n = 90) for those treated with a circumferential cast (odds ratio 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.70); p = 0.854). Patients treated in a plaster splint reported significantly more pain than those treated with a circumferential cast, during the first week of treatment (estimated mean NRS 4.7 (95% CI 4.3 to 5.1) vs 4.1 (95% CI 3.7 to 4.4); p = 0.014). The rate of complaints relating to the cast, clinical outcomes and PROMs did not differ significantly between the groups (p > 0.05). Compartment syndrome did not occur. Conclusion: Circumferential casting did not result in a significantly different rate of redisplacement of the fracture compared with the use of a plaster splint. There were comparable outcomes in both groups.

Minor head injury: CT-based strategies for management--a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of using selective computed tomographic (CT) strategies with that of performing CT in all patients with minor head injury (MHI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The internal review board approved the study; written informed consent was obtained from all interviewed patients. Five strategies were evaluated, with CT performed in all patients with MHI; selectively according to the New Orleans criteria (NOC), Canadian CT head rule (CCHR), or CT in head injury patients (CHIP) rule; or in no patients. A decision tree was used to analyze short-term costs and effectiveness, and a Markov model was used to analyze long-term costs and effectiveness. n-Way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and value-of-information (VOI) analysis were performed. Data from the multicenter CHIP Study involving 3181 patients with MHI were used. Outcome measures were first-year and lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Study results showed that performing CT selectively according to the CCHR or the CHIP rule could lead to substantial U.S. cost savings ($120 million and $71 million, respectively), and the CCHR was the most cost-effective at reference-case analysis. When the prediction rule had lower than 97% sensitivity for the identification of patients who required neurosurgery, performing CT in all patients was cost-effective. The CHIP rule was most likely to be cost-effective. At VOI analysis, the expected value of perfect information was $7 billion, mainly because of uncertainty about long-term functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: Selecting patients with MHI for CT renders cost savings and may be cost-effective, provided the sensitivity for the identification of patients who require neurosurgery is extremely high. Uncertainty regarding long-term functional outcomes after MHI justifies the routine use of CT in all patients with these injuries.