A protocol for the conduct of a multicentre, prospective, randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures.

Aims: Fractures of the humeral shaft represent 3% to 5% of all fractures. The most common treatment for isolated humeral diaphysis fractures in the UK is non-operative using functional bracing, which carries a low risk of complications, but is associated with a longer healing time and a greater risk of nonunion than surgery. There is an increasing trend to surgical treatment, which may lead to quicker functional recovery and lower rates of fracture nonunion than functional bracing. However, surgery carries inherent risk, including infection, bleeding, and nerve damage. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of functional bracing compared to surgical fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Methods: The HUmeral SHaft (HUSH) fracture study is a multicentre, prospective randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures in adult patients. Participants will be randomized to receive either functional bracing or surgery. With 334 participants, the trial will have 90% power to detect a clinically important difference for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score, assuming 20% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include function, pain, quality of life, complications, cost-effectiveness, time off work, and ability to drive. Discussion: The results of this trial will provide evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness between surgical and non-surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Ethical approval has been obtained from East of England - Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee. Publication is anticipated to occur in 2024.

Experience of patients and physiotherapists within the AFTER pilot randomised trial of two rehabilitation interventions for people aged 50 years and over post ankle fracture: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patient and staff experience of best-practice rehabilitation advice (one session of face-to-face self-management advice with up to two additional optional sessions) compared with progressive functional exercise (up to six sessions of face-to-face physiotherapy) after ankle fracture. DESIGN: The study drew on phenomenology using interviews and a focus group. SETTING: Participants were from three NHS Trusts in England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of 20 patients with ankle (malleolar) fractures from the Ankle Fracture Treatment: Enhancing Rehabilitation-pilot trial (now completed) were interviewed (median 50 min) from May 2019 to January 2020. They were 6 months post injury, over 50 years of age, (median 66, 12 females) and had received surgical or non-surgical treatment (seven internal fixation surgery, seven close contact casting, six walking boot). A focus group of five physiotherapists who had provided the study interventions (2.5 hours) was undertaken. RESULTS: The findings show the acceptability of both interventions through the themes, 'being helped' (for patients) and 'developing expertise' (for staff) with subthemes of choosing and progressing. Progressive exercise added value with a perceived increase in strength, motion, ability to undertake activities and continued use of the workbook. Both staff and patients valued physiotherapy expertise demonstrated through interpersonal skills, advice, individualised exercise plans and active monitoring of progression. Best practice advice was particularly helpful in the early stages of recovery and with the use of mobility aids. CONCLUSION: Both interventions were acceptable but progressive exercise was highly valued by patients. Developing expertise through experiential learning enabled staff to facilitate progression. Adjustments to the workbook and the addition of exercises for continued recovery in the best practice advice would enhance a future study. Research during treatment provision may provide further insights into the challenges of facilitating progression of exercise. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16612336; AFTER-pilot trial).

'It Makes Me Feel Old': Understanding the Experience of Recovery From Ankle Fracture at 6 Months in People Aged 50 Years and Over.

Ankle fracture is a common injury, and depending on injury severity, treatment may be a support boot, cast or surgery. Older people, particularly those with severe injuries who are asked to restrict weight bearing, struggle with early recovery. To elicit older peoples' experience of recovery 6 months after injury, we drew on a phenomenological approach using interviews. Findings revealed that getting on with life was a way of accepting what it feels like to 'be vulnerable', needing to 'be safe' while determinedly working hard to 'be myself'. Being vulnerable identified endurance of inactivity, loneliness and dependency in the non-weight bearing period of recovery, followed by a struggle to weight bear while lacking confidence and being fearful of falling and causing further damage. Being safe conveyed fragility where sensations, pain and stiffness acted as bodily reminders of injury. Lack of function and awareness of danger led to carefulness where planning or curtailing of activities ensured their safety. Being myself showed a determination to push away from a disrupted self-identify of being older or disabled while being challenged by the continuous process of learning to be more mobile. A lack of readiness for old age created a drive to age well. Despite loss of ability, participants hoped to regain their pre-injury way of living. This study challenges practice that disregards the hard work required to recover from ankle fracture. As comorbidity increases with age, failure to consider this aspect may contribute to frailty in this group of older people.

Cost-utility analysis of cemented hemiarthroplasty versus hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures : the World Hip Trauma Evaluation 5 (WHiTE 5) trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) versus hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented HA for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. METHODS: A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted based on data collected from the World Hip Trauma Evaluation 5 (WHiTE 5) multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK. Resource use was measured over 12 months post-randomization using trial case report forms and participant-completed questionnaires. Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the NHS and personal social service perspective. Methodological uncertainty was addressed using sensitivity analysis, while decision uncertainty was represented graphically using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that cemented implants were cost-saving (mean cost difference -£961 (95% confidence interval (CI) -£2,292 to £370)) and increased QALYs (mean QALY difference 0.010 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.017)) when compared to uncemented implants. The probability of the cemented implant being cost-effective approximated between 95% and 97% at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds held by decision-makers, and its net monetary benefit was positive. The findings remained robust against all the pre-planned sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: This study shows that cemented HA is cost-effective compared with hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented HA in older adults with displaced intracapsular hip fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):922-928.

Flexibility and resistance exercises versus usual care for improving pain and function after distal radius fracture in adults aged 50 years or over: protocol for the WISE randomised multicentre feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Distal radius fractures represent about 1 in 5 of all fractures treated in UK hospitals. Most distal radius fractures occur in women aged 50 years or over after a fall. Distal radius fractures are managed using splints or casting, some are also treated with surgical fixation. Patients often experience long-term muscle weakness of the hand and arm that may impact their ability to do daily activities such as personal hygiene, routine household chores and food preparation. We propose a structured and tailored flexibility and resistance exercise programme for the hand and arm supplemented with behaviour change strategies to help perform daily exercise. The main aim of our study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial. METHODS: This study is a multicentre, parallel-group individually randomised feasibility trial. We will recruit a minimum of 72 adults aged 50 years or over with distal radius fracture treated surgically or non-surgically from at least three UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. They will be randomised 1:1:1 to receive usual care, usual care and independent exercise with a single therapy session or usual care and supervised exercise with three therapy sessions over 12 weeks. Our primary feasibility objectives are (1) patient engagement assessed by recruitment, (2) acceptability of the interventions assessed by adherence and patient and clinician experience and (3) retention of participants in the trial. Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline, 3 months and at 6 months after randomisation. A qualitative sub-study will explore the experiences of the trial participants and therapists delivering the exercises. DISCUSSION: A definitive trial will be considered feasible without major modifications if our progression criteria are met. If successful, the findings will inform the design of a future definitive RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the WISE exercise programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12290145 .

Cemented or Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty for Intracapsular Hip Fracture.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists over the use of bone cement in hip fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty. Only limited data on quality of life after cemented as compared with modern uncemented hemiarthroplasties are available. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing cemented with uncemented hemiarthroplasty in patients 60 years of age or older with an intracapsular hip fracture. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured with the use of utility scores on the EuroQol Group 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire at 4 months after randomization (range of scores, -0.594 to 1, with higher scores indicating better quality of life; range for minimal clinically important difference, 0.050 to 0.075). RESULTS: A total of 610 patients were assigned to undergo cemented hemiarthroplasty and 615 to undergo modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty; follow-up data were available for 71.6% of the patients at 4 months. The mean EQ-5D utility score was 0.371 in patients assigned to the cemented group and 0.315 in those assigned to the uncemented group (adjusted difference, 0.055; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.009 to 0.101; P = 0.02). The between-group difference at 1 month was similar to that at 4 months, but the difference at 12 months was smaller than that at 4 months. Mortality at 12 months was 23.9% in the cemented group and 27.8% in the uncemented group (odds ratio for death, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.05). Periprosthetic fractures occurred in 0.5% and 2.1% of the patients in the respective groups (odds ratio [uncemented vs. cemented], 4.37; 95% CI, 1.19 to 24.00). The incidences of other complications were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients 60 years of age or older with an intracapsular hip fracture, cemented hemiarthroplasty resulted in a modestly but significantly better quality of life and a lower risk of periprosthetic fracture than uncemented hemiarthroplasty. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; WHiTE 5 ISRCTN number, ISRCTN18393176.).

Economic evaluation plan of a RCT of hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty versus cemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures: the WHiTE5 trial.

AIM: This paper describes the methods applied to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty among hip fracture patients in the World Hip Trauma Evaluation Five (WHiTE5) trial. METHODS: A within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) will be conducted at four months postinjury from a health system (National Health Service and personal social services) perspective. Resource use pertaining to healthcare utilization (i.e. inpatient care, physiotherapy, social care, and home adaptations), and utility measures (quality-adjusted life years) will be collected at one and four months (primary outcome endpoint) postinjury; only treatment of complications will be captured at 12 months. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to assess the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: The planned analysis strategy described here records our intent to conduct a within-trial CUA alongside the WHiTE5 trial.

Research priorities for the management of broken bones of the upper limb in people over 50: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: To determine research priorities for the management of broken bones of the upper limb in people over 50, which represent the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals. DESIGN/SETTING: A national (UK) research priority setting partnership. PARTICIPANTS: People aged 50 and over who have experienced a fracture of the upper limb, carers involved in their care, family and friends of patients, healthcare professionals involved in the treatment of these patients. METHODS: Using a multiphase methodology in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 15 months (September 2017 to December 2018), a national scoping survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties. These were amalgamated into a smaller number of research questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been answered. A second national survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 25 questions was taken to a multi-stakeholder workshop where a consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities. RESULTS: There were 1898 original uncertainties submitted by 328 respondents to the first survey. These original uncertainties were refined into 51 research questions of which 50 were judged to be true uncertainties following a review of the research evidence. There were 209 respondents to the second (interim prioritisation) survey. The top 10 priorities encompass a broad range of uncertainties in management and rehabilitation of upper limb fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10 UK research priorities highlight uncertainties in how we assess outcomes, provide information, achieve pain control, rationalise surgical intervention, optimise rehabilitation and provide psychological support. The breadth of these research areas highlights the value of this methodology. This work should help to steer research in this area for the next 5-10 years and the challenge for researchers now is to refine and deliver answers to these research priorities.

Randomised controlled trial comparing hydroxyapatite coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty with cemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures: a protocol for the WHITE 5 study.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fracture is a serious injury in adults, especially those aged over 60 years. The most common type of hip fracture (displaced intracapsular) is treated for the majority of patients with a partial hip replacement (hemiarthroplasty). The hemiarthroplasty implant can be fixed to the bone with or without bone cement. Cement is the current recommended technique but recently some risks have been identified, which could potentially be avoided by using uncemented implants. Controversy, therefore, remains about which type of hemiarthroplasty offers patients the best outcomes.This is the protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing cemented hemiarthroplasty versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for patients 60 years and over with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Multicentre (a minimum of seven UK hospitals), multisurgeon, parallel group, two-arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Patients aged 60 years and older with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty surgery are eligible. Participants will be randomly allocated on a 1:1 basis to either a cemented hemiarthroplasty or a modern hydroxyapatite coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Otherwise all care will be in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. A minimum of 1128 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a 0.075-point difference in the primary endpoint: health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 levels) at 4 months postinjury. The treatment effect will be estimated using a two-sided t-test adjusted for age, gender and cognitive impairment based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications including revision surgery and cause, mobility status, residential status, health-related quality of life at 1 and 12 months and health resource use. A within-trial economic analysis will be conducted. ETHICS, DISSEMINATION AND FUNDING: Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 approved the feasibility phase on 2 December 2016 (16/WA/0351) and the definitive trial on 22 November 2017 (17/WA/0383). This study is sponsored by the University of Oxford and funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit (PB-PG-0215-36043 and PB-PG-1216-20021). A manuscript for a peer-reviewed journal will be prepared and the results shared with patients via local mechanisms at participating centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18393176.

Research priorities in fragility fractures of the lower limb and pelvis: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: To determine research priorities in fragility fractures of the lower limb and pelvis which represent the shared priorities of patients, their friends and families, carers and healthcare professionals. DESIGN/SETTING: A national (UK) research priority setting partnership. PARTICIPANTS: Patients over 60 years of age who have experienced a fragility fracture of the lower limb or pelvis; carers involved in their care (both in and out of hospital); family and friends of patients; healthcare professionals involved in the treatment of these patients including but not limited to surgeons, anaesthetists, paramedics, nurses, general practitioners, physicians, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. METHODS: Using a multiphase methodology in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 18 months (August 2016-January 2018), a national scoping survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties. These were amalgamated into a smaller number of research questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not been answered. A second national survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 25 questions was taken to a multistakeholder workshop where a consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities. RESULTS: There were 963 original uncertainties submitted by 365 respondents to the first survey. These original uncertainties were refined into 88 research questions of which 76 were judged to be true uncertainties following a review of the research evidence. Healthcare professionals and other stakeholders (patients, carers, friends and families) were represented equally in the responses. The top 10 represent uncertainties in rehabilitation, pain management, anaesthesia and surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We report the top 10 UK research priorities in patients with fragility fractures of the lower limb and pelvis. The priorities highlight uncertainties in rehabilitation, postoperative physiotherapy, pain, weight-bearing, infection and thromboprophylaxis. The challenge now is to refine and deliver answers to these research priorities.