RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Extremity fractures are common, and most are managed operatively; however, despite successful reduction, up to half of patients report persistent post-surgical pain. Furthermore, psychological factors such as stress, distress, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, and fear-avoidance behaviors have been associated with the development of chronic pain. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to determine the effect of in-person cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) vs. usual care on persistent post-surgical pain among patients with a surgically managed extremity fracture. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to either in-person CBT or usual care. We used four criteria to judge the composite measure of feasibility: 1) successful implementation of CBT at each clinical site, 2) 40 patients recruited within 6 months, 3) treatment compliance in a minimum 36 of 40 participants (90%), and 4) 32 of 40 participants (80%) achieving follow-up at one year. The primary clinical outcome was persistent post-surgical pain at one year after surgery. RESULTS: Only two of the four participating sites were able to implement the CBT regimen due to difficulties with identifying certified therapists who had the capacity to accommodate additional patients into their schedule within the required timeframe (i.e., 8 weeks of their fracture). Given the challenges associated with CBT implementation, only one site was able to actively recruit patients. This site screened 86 patients and enrolled 3 patients (3.5%) over a period of three months. Participants were unable to comply with the in-person CBT, with no participants attending an in-person CBT session. Follow-up at one year could not be assessed as the pilot study was stopped early, three months into the study, due to failure to achieve the other three feasibility criteria. CONCLUSION: Our pilot trial failed to demonstrate the feasibility of a trial of in-person CBT versus usual care to prevent persistent pain after surgical repair of traumatic long-bone fractures and re-enforces the importance of establishing feasibility before embarking on definitive trials. Protocol modifications to address the identified barriers include the delivery of our intervention as a therapist-guided, remote CBT program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT03196258); Registered June 22, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03196258.
RESUMEN
Objectives: Patient engagement in the design and implementation of clinical trials is necessary to ensure that the research is relevant and responsive to patients. The PREP-IT trials, which include 2 pragmatic trials that evaluate different surgical preparation solutions in orthopaedic trauma patients, followed the patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) methodology throughout the design, implementation, and conduct. We conducted a substudy within the PREP-IT trials to explore participants' experiences with trial participation. Methods: At the final follow-up visit (12 months after their fracture), patients participating in the PREP-IT trials were invited to participate in the substudy. After providing informed consent, participants completed a questionnaire that asked about their experience and satisfaction with participating in the PREP-IT trials. Descriptive statistics are used to report the findings. Results: Four hundred two participants participated in the substudy. Most participants (394 [98%]) reported a positive experience, and 376 (94%) participants felt their contributions were appreciated. The primary reasons for participation were helping future patients with fracture (279 [69%]) and to contribute to science (223 [56%]). Two hundred seventeen (46%) participants indicated that their decision to participate was influenced by the minimal time commitment. Conclusions: Most participants reported a positive experience with participating in the PREP-IT trials. Altruism was the largest motivator for participating in this research. Approximately half of the participants indicated that the pragmatic, low-participant burden design of the trial influenced their decision to participate. Meaningful patient engagement, a pragmatic, and low-burden protocol led to high levels of participant satisfaction.
RESUMEN
The etiology of running-related injuries remains unknown; however, an implicit theory underlies much of the conventional research and practice in the prevention of these injuries. This theory posits that the cause of running-related injuries lies in the high-impact forces experienced when the foot contacts the ground and the subsequent abnormal movement of the subtalar joint. The application of this theory is seen in the design of the modern running shoe, with cushioning, support, and motion control. However, a new theory is emerging that suggests that it is the use of these modern running shoes that has caused a maladaptive running style, which contributes to a high incidence of injury among runners. The suggested application of this theory is to cease use of the modern running shoe and transition to barefoot or minimalist running. This new running paradigm, which is at present inadequately defined, is proposed to avoid the adverse biomechanical effects of the modern running shoe. Future research should rigorously define and then test both theories regarding their ability to discover the etiology of running-related injury. Once discovered, the putative cause of running-related injury will then provide an evidence-based rationale for clinical prevention and treatment.
