Comparison of rehabilitation interventions in nonoperatively treated distal radius fractures: a randomized controlled trial of effectiveness.

AIMS: Following cast removal for nonoperatively treated distal radius fractures, rehabilitation facilitated by advice leaflet and advice video were compared to a course of face-to-face therapy. METHODS: Adults with an isolated, nonoperatively treated distal radius fracture were included at six weeks post-cast removal. Participants were randomized to delivery of rehabilitation interventions in one of three ways: an advice leaflet; an advice video; or face-to-face therapy session(s). The primary outcome measure was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at six weeks post intervention and secondary outcome measures included DASH at one year, DASH work subscale, grip strength, and range of motion at six weeks and one year. RESULTS: A total of 116 (97%) of 120 enrolled participants commenced treatment. Of those, 21 were lost to follow-up, resulting in 30 participants in the advice leaflet, 32 in the advice video, and 33 face-to-face therapy arms, respectively at six weeks of follow-up. There was no significant difference between the treatment groups in the DASH at six weeks (advice leaflet vs face-to-face therapy, p = 0.69; advice video vs face-to-face therapy, p = 0.56; advice leaflet vs advice video, p = 0.37; advice leaflet vs advice video vs face-to-face therapy, p = 0.63). At six weeks, there were no differences in any secondary outcome measures except for the DASH work subscale, where face-to-face therapy conferred benefit over advice leaflet (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Following cast removal for nonoperatively treated distal radius fractures, offering an advice leaflet or advice video for rehabilitation gives equivalent patient-reported outcomes to a course of face-to-face therapy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1033-1039.

Early motion and directed exercise (EMADE) versus usual care post ankle fracture fixation: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Following surgical fixation of ankle fractures, the traditional management has included immobilisation for 6 weeks in a below-knee cast. However, this can lead to disuse atrophy of the affected leg and joint stiffness. While early rehabilitation from 2 weeks post surgery is viewed as safe, controversy remains regarding its benefits. We will compare the effectiveness of early motion and directed exercise (EMADE) ankle rehabilitation, against usual care, i.e. 6 weeks' immobilisation in a below-knee cast. METHOD/DESIGN: We have designed a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (p-RCT) to compare the EMADE intervention against usual care. We will recruit 144 independently living adult participants, absent of tissue-healing comorbidities, who have undergone surgical stabilisation of isolated Weber B ankle fractures. The EMADE intervention consists of a non-weight-bearing progressive home exercise programme, complemented with manual therapy and education. Usual care consists of immobilisation in a non-weight-bearing below-knee cast. The intervention period is between week 2 and week 6 post surgery. The primary outcome is the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at 12 weeks post surgery. Secondary PROMs include the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire, return to work and return to driving, with objective outcomes including ankle range of motion. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. An economic evaluation will be included. DISCUSSION: The EMADE intervention is a package of care designed to address the detrimental effects of disuse atrophy and joint stiffness. An advantage of the OMAS is the potential of meta-analysis with other designs. Within the economic evaluation, the cost-utility analysis, may be used by commissioners, while the use of patient-relevant outcomes, such as return to work and driving, will ensure that the study remains pertinent to patients and their families. As it is being conducted in the clinical environment, this p-RCT has high external validity. Accordingly, if significant clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness are demonstrated, EMADE should become a worthwhile treatment option. A larger-scale, multicentre trial may be required to influence national guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN11212729 . Registered retrospectively on 20 March 2017.