Early versus delayed weight-bearing following operatively treated ankle fracture (WAX): a non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: After surgery for a broken ankle, patients are usually instructed to avoid walking for 6 weeks (delayed weight-bearing). Walking 2 weeks after surgery (early weight-bearing) might be a safe and preferable rehabilitation strategy. This study aimed to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of an early weight-bearing strategy compared with a delayed weight-bearing strategy. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial including 561 participants (aged ≥18 years) who received acute surgery for an unstable ankle fracture in 23 UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals who were assigned to either a delayed weight-bearing (n=280) or an early weight-bearing rehabilitation strategy (n=281). Patients treated with a hindfoot nail, those who did not have protective ankle sensation (eg, peripheral neuropathy), did not have the capacity to consent, or did not have the ability to adhere to trial procedures were excluded. Neither participants nor clinicians were masked to the treatment. The primary outcome was ankle function measured using the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) at 4 months after randomisation, in the per-protocol population. The pre-specified non-inferiority OMAS margin was -6 points and superiority testing was included in the intention-to-treat population in the event of non-inferiority. The trial was prospectively registered with ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN12883981, and the trial is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Primary outcome data were collected from 480 (86%) of 561 participants. Recruitment was conducted between Jan 13, 2020, and Oct 29, 2021. At 4 months after randomisation, the mean OMAS score was 65·9 in the early weight-bearing and 61·2 in the delayed weight-bearing group and adjusted mean difference was 4·47 (95% CI 0·58 to 8·37, p=0·024; superiority testing adjusted difference 4·42, 95% CI 0·53 to 8·32, p=0·026) in favour of early weight-bearing. 46 (16%) participants in the early weight-bearing group and 39 (14%) in the delayed weight-bearing group had one or more complications (adjusted odds ratio 1·18, 95% CI 0·80 to 1·75, p=0·40). The mean costs from the perspective of the NHS and personal social services in the early and delayed weight-bearing groups were £725 and £785, respectively (mean difference -£60 [95% CI -342 to 232]). The probability that early weight-bearing is cost-effective exceeded 80%. INTERPRETATION: An early weight-bearing strategy was found to be clinically non-inferior and highly likely to be cost-effective compared with the current standard of care (delayed weight-bearing). FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre, and NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley.

Research priorities for the management of major trauma: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine research priorities for the management of major trauma, representing the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals. DESIGN/SETTING: An international research priority-setting partnership. PARTICIPANTS: People who have experienced major trauma, their carers and relatives, and healthcare professionals involved in treating patients after major trauma. The scope included chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries as well as major bleeding, multiple injuries and those that threaten life or limb. METHODS: A multiphase priority-setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 24 months (November 2021-October 2023). An international survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second international survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 19 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities. RESULTS: A total of 1572 uncertainties, submitted by 417 respondents (including 132 patients and carers), were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 53 unique indicative questions, of which all 53 were judged to be true uncertainties after reviewing the existing evidence. 373 people (including 115 patients and carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 19 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10 research priorities for major trauma include patient-centred questions regarding pain relief and prehospital management, multidisciplinary working, novel technologies, rehabilitation and holistic support. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research major trauma around the globe.

Research priorities for the management of complex fractures: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: To determine research priorities for the management of complex fractures, which represent the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals. DESIGN/SETTING: A national (UK) research priority setting partnership. PARTICIPANTS: People who have experienced a complex fracture, their carers and relatives, and relevant healthcare professionals and clinical academics involved in treating patients with complex fractures. The scope includes open fractures, fractures to joints broken into multiple pieces, multiple concomitant fractures and fractures involving the pelvis and acetabulum. METHODS: A multiphase priority setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 21 months (October 2019 to June 2021). A national survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second national survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 18 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where a consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities. RESULTS: A total of 532 uncertainties, submitted by 158 respondents (including 33 patients/carers) were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 58 unique indicative questions, of which all 58 were judged to be true uncertainties after review of the existing evidence. 136 people (including 56 patients/carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 18 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10 research priorities for complex fracture include questions regarding rehabilitation, complications, psychological support and return to life-roles. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research complex fractures over the coming decade.