The FAME trial study protocol: In younger adults with unstable ankle fractures treated with close contact casting, is ankle function not worse than those treated with surgical intervention?

Aims: Ankle fracture is one of the most common musculoskeletal injuries sustained in the UK. Many patients experience pain and physical impairment, with the consequences of the fracture and its management lasting for several months or even years. The broad aim of ankle fracture treatment is to maintain the alignment of the joint while the fracture heals, and to reduce the risks of problems, such as stiffness. More severe injuries to the ankle are routinely treated surgically. However, even with advances in surgery, there remains a risk of complications; for patients experiencing these, the associated loss of function and quality of life (Qol) is considerable. Non-surgical treatment is an alternative to surgery and involves applying a cast carefully shaped to the patient's ankle to correct and maintain alignment of the joint with the key benefit being a reduction in the frequency of common complications of surgery. The main potential risk of non-surgical treatment is a loss of alignment with a consequent reduction in ankle function. This study aims to determine whether ankle function, four months after treatment, in patients with unstable ankle fractures treated with close contact casting is not worse than in those treated with surgical intervention, which is the current standard of care. Methods: This trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial with an embedded pilot, and with 12 months clinical follow-up and parallel economic analysis. A surveillance study using routinely collected data will be performed annually to five years post-treatment. Adult patients, aged 60 years and younger, with unstable ankle fractures will be identified in daily trauma meetings and fracture clinics and approached for recruitment prior to their treatment. Treatments will be performed in trauma units across the UK by a wide range of surgeons. Details of the surgical treatment, including how the operation is done, implant choice, and the recovery programme afterwards, will be at the discretion of the treating surgeon. The non-surgical treatment will be close-contact casting performed under anaesthetic, a technique which has gained in popularity since the publication of the Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial. In all, 890 participants (445 per group) will be randomly allocated to surgical or non-surgical treatment. Data regarding ankle function, QoL, complications, and healthcare-related costs will be collected at eight weeks, four and 12 months, and then annually for five years following treatment. The primary outcome measure is patient-reported ankle function at four months from treatment. Anticipated impact: The 12-month results will be presented and published internationally. This is anticipated to be the only pragmatic trial reporting outcomes comparing surgical with non-surgical treatment in unstable ankle fractures in younger adults (aged 60 years and younger), and, as such, will inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 'non-complex fracture' recommendations at their scheduled update in 2024. A report of long-term outcomes at five years will be produced by January 2027.

Acute rehabilitation following traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (ARTISAN): pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of an additional programme of physiotherapy in adults with a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation compared with single session of advice, supporting materials, and option to self-refer to physiotherapy. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (ARTISAN). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Trauma research teams at 41 UK NHS Trust sites screened adults with a first time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation confirmed radiologically, being managed non-operatively. People were excluded if they presented with both shoulders dislocated, had a neurovascular complication, or were considered for surgical management. INTERVENTIONS: One session of advice, supporting materials, and option to self-refer to physiotherapy (n=240) was assessed against the same advice and supporting materials and an additional programme of physiotherapy (n=242). Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis with secondary per protocol analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Oxford shoulder instability score (a single composite measure of shoulder function), measured six months after treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes included the QuickDASH, EQ-5D-5L, and complications. RESULTS: 482 participants were recruited from 40 sites in the UK. 354 (73%) participants completed the primary outcome score (n=180 allocated to advice only, n=174 allocated to advice and physiotherapy). Participants were mostly male (66%), with a mean age of 45 years. No significant difference was noted between advice compared with advice and a programme of physiotherapy at six months for the primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis (between group difference favouring physiotherapy 1.5 (95% confidence interval -0.3 to 3.5)) or at earlier three month and six week timepoints. Complication profiles were similar across the two groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: An additional programme of current physiotherapy is not superior to advice, supporting materials, and the option to self-refer to physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN63184243.

Use of cast immobilization versus removable brace in adults with an ankle fracture: two-year follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

The aim of this study was to compare the longer-term outcomes of operatively and nonoperatively managed patients treated with a removable brace (fixed-angle removable orthosis) or a plaster cast immobilization for an acute ankle fracture. This is a secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing adults with an acute ankle fracture, initially managed either by operative or nonoperative care. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either a cast immobilization or a fixed-angle removable orthosis (removable brace). Data were collected on baseline characteristics, ankle function, quality of life, and complications. The Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) was the primary outcome which was used to measure the participant's ankle function. The primary endpoint was at 16 weeks, with longer-term follow-up at 24 weeks and two years. Overall, 436 patients (65%) completed the final two-year follow-up. The mean difference in OMAS at two years was -0.3 points favouring the plaster cast (95% confidence interval -3.9 to 3.4), indicating no statistically significant difference between the interventions. There was no evidence of differences in patient quality of life (measured using the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire) or Disability Rating Index. This study demonstrated that patients treated with a removable brace had similar outcomes to those treated with a plaster cast in the first two years after injury. A removable brace is an effective alternative to traditional immobilization in a plaster cast for patients with an ankle fracture.

Cost-utility analysis of cast compared to removable brace in the management of adult patients with ankle fractures.

AIMS: To compare the cost-utility of removable brace compared with cast in the management of adult patients with ankle fracture. METHODS: A within-trial economic evaluation conducted from the UK NHS and personnel social services (PSS) perspective. Health resources and quality-of-life data were collected as part of the Ankle Injury Rehabilitation (AIR) multicentre, randomized controlled trial over a 12-month period using trial case report forms and patient-completed questionnaires. Cost-utility analysis was estimated in terms of the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Estimate uncertainty was explored by bootstrapping, visualized on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio plane. Net monetary benefit and probability of cost-effectiveness were evaluated at a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds and visualized graphically. RESULTS: The incremental cost and QALYs of using brace over a 12-month period were £46.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) £-9 to £147) and 0.0141 (95% CI -0.005 to 0.033), respectively. The cost per QALY gained was £3,318. The probability of brace being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold was 88%. The results remained robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: This within-trial economic evaluation found that it is probable that using a removable brace provides good value to the NHS when compared to cast, in the management of adults with ankle fracture. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):455-462.

Efficacy of high-volume injections with and without corticosteroid compared with sham for Achilles tendinopathy: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Achilles tendinopathy (AT) is a common and disabling musculoskeletal condition. First-line management involving Achilles tendon loading exercise with, or without, other modalities may not resolve the problem in up to 44% of cases. Many people receive injections. Yet there are no injection treatments with demonstrated long-term efficacy. The aim of the trial is to examine the 12-month efficacy of high-volume injection (HVI) with corticosteroid and HVI without corticosteroid versus sham injection among individuals with AT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial is a three-arm, parallel group, double-blind, superiority randomised controlled trial that will assess the efficacy of HVI with and without corticosteroid versus sham up to 12 months. We will block-randomise 192 participants to one of the three groups with a 1:1:1 ratio, and both participants and outcome assessors will be blinded to treatment allocation. All participants will receive an identical evidence-based education and exercise intervention. The primary outcome measure will be the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment - Achilles (VISA-A) at 12 months post-randomisation, a validated, reliable and disease-specific measure of pain and function. Choice of secondary outcomes was informed by core outcome domains for tendinopathy. Data will be analysed using the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained via the Monash University Human Ethics Committee (no: 13138). The study is expected to be completed in 2024 and disseminated via peer review publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australia and New Zealand Clinical trials registry (ACTRN12619001455156).

Development of a single-session physiotherapy and self-management intervention for the treatment of primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation for the 'Acute Rehabilitation following Traumatic anterior shoulder dISlocAtioN (ARTISAN)' multi centre RCT.

OBJECTIVE: Optimum physiotherapy management for people with a conservatively managed primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation is not known. The purpose of the ARTISAN trial is to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a course of usual care physiotherapy with a single session of physiotherapy and self-management, the ARTISAN intervention. ARTISAN is a UK multi-centre, two-arm, parallel group, randomised controlled trial with 1:1 treatment allocation. DESIGN: The intervention was developed following the Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions and will be reported in line with the template for intervention description and replication checklist (TIDieR) and the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). It was informed by published research, national clinical guidelines, current clinical practice and patient and public involvement. RESULTS: The ARTISAN intervention comprises education (Phase 1), progressive exercise (Phase 2 and Phase 3) and an optional return to sport component (Phase 4). Behaviour change strategies are embedded throughout intervention. The single session of physiotherapy is delivered by a chartered physiotherapist, within the first six weeks of injury, in an NHS outpatient setting. At the end of the initial session, paper-based booklets and/or a patient website with the same content are provided to participants to aid self-management and progression though the four phases of the trial intervention. CONCLUSION: The ARTISAN intervention was successfully implemented throughout the internal pilot and is suitable for testing in the subsequent definitive RCT ARTISAN trial. Trial Registration Number ISRCTN63184243.

Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection vs Sham Injection on Tendon Dysfunction in Patients With Chronic Midportion Achilles Tendinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Platelet-rich plasma injections are used as a treatment for chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy, but evidence for this treatment is limited. Objective: In adults with midportion Achilles tendinopathy, to assess the effects of a single platelet-rich plasma injection, compared with sham injection, on the outcome of the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles (VISA-A) score (a single composite measure of Achilles tendinopathy severity). Design, Setting, and Participants: A participant-blinded, multicenter randomized clinical trial that included 240 people from 24 sites assigned to either a platelet-rich plasma injection or a sham injection between April 2016 and February 2020. Final follow-up was July 2020. Participants were older than 18 years with midportion Achilles tendon pain for more than 3 months as confirmed by ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, or both. Interventions: A single intratendinous platelet-rich plasma injection (n = 121) or a single sham injection (insertion of a subcutaneous dry needle not entering the tendon) (n = 119). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the VISA-A score, measured 6 months after treatment allocation. The VISA-A score contains 8 questions that cover 3 domains of pain, function, and activity, analyzed as a composite score (range, 0 [worst symptoms] to 100 [no symptoms]; minimal clinically important difference in score, 12 points). The primary analysis was adjusted for laterality, age, sex, and baseline VISA-A score. Results: Among 240 patients assigned to a platelet-rich plasma or sham injection (mean age, 52 years; 138 [58%] women), 221 (92%) completed the trial. At 6-month follow-up, mean VISA-A score values in the plasma-rich plasma group vs the sham injection group were 54.4 vs 53.4 (adjusted mean difference, -2.7 [95% CI, -8.8 to 3.3]). The most common adverse events compared between patients in the platelet-rich plasma group vs the sham group were injection site discomfort (97 vs 73 patients), swelling (56 vs 52 patients) and bruising (48 vs 49 patients). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy, treatment with a single injection of intratendinous platelet-rich plasma, compared with insertion of a subcutaneous dry needle, did not reduce Achilles tendon dysfunction at 6 months. These findings do not support the use of this treatment for chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN13254422.

An evaluation of the measurement properties of the Olerud Molander Ankle Score in adults with an ankle fracture.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the measurement properties of the Olerud Molander Ankle Score in adults with an ankle fracture. METHODS: Patients completed outcome measure questionnaires at baseline, six, 10- and 16-weeks postinjury as part of an ongoing clinical trial on ankle fracture rehabilitation. The internal consistency, convergent validity, structural validity and interpretability of the Olerud Molander Ankle Score was assessed. This was achieved through using the respective analysis methods of Cronbach's alpha, correlation coefficients, principal component analysis, evaluation of floor and ceiling scores and estimation of the minimally important change using anchor-based methods. RESULTS: The Olerud Molander Ankle Score showed adequate convergent validity against hypotheses set in relation to scores of comparator instruments. Principal component analysis demonstrated that the measure has two subscales: ankle function and ankle symptoms. The internal consistency of the measure and the ankle function subscale was sufficient, but inconclusive for the ankle symptoms subscale. There were no floor and ceiling effects present within the scores and the estimated minimally important change was 9.7 points. CONCLUSION: The Olerud Molander Ankle Score demonstrates sufficient measurement properties and is likely to be primarily measuring the construct of patient reported function following ankle fracture. Further research should evaluate the relevance of other domains to individuals recovering from and ankle fracture, such as social participation and psychological wellbeing. The development of a core outcome set would be advantageous to standardise outcome measurement collection in this area.

Plaster cast versus functional bracing for Achilles tendon rupture: the UKSTAR RCT.

BACKGROUND: Achilles tendon rupture affects > 11,000 people each year in the UK, leading to prolonged periods away from work, sports and social activities. Traditionally, the ruptured tendon is held still in a plaster cast for ≥ 8 weeks. Functional bracing is an alternative treatment that allows patients to mobilise earlier, but there is little evidence about how bracing affects patients' recovery. OBJECTIVES: To measure the Achilles Tendon Rupture Score, quality of life, complications and resource use of patients receiving non-operative treatment for an Achilles tendon rupture treated with plaster cast compared with those treated with functional bracing. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, two-group superiority trial. SETTING: The setting was 39 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 540 adult patients treated non-operatively for Achilles tendon rupture were randomised from July 2016 to May 2018. Exclusion criteria included presenting after 14 days, having had previous rupture and being unable to complete questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 266 participants had a plaster cast applied, with their toes initially pointing to the floor. The cast was changed over 8 weeks to bring the foot into a walking position. A total of 274 patients had a functional brace that facilitated immediate weight-bearing. The foot position was adjusted within the brace over the same 8-week period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Achilles Tendon Rupture Score is patient reported and assesses symptoms and physical activity related to the Achilles tendon (score 0-100, with 100 being the best possible outcome). The secondary outcomes were quality of life, complications and resource use at 8 weeks and at 3, 6 and 9 months. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 48.7 years, were predominantly male (79%) and had ruptured their tendon during sports (70%). Over 93% of participants completed follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in Achilles Tendon Rupture Score at 9 months post injury (-1.38, 95% confidence interval -4.9 to 2.1). There was a statistically significant difference in Achilles Tendon Rupture Score at 8 weeks post injury in favour of the functional brace group (5.53, 95% confidence interval 2.0 to 9.1), but not at 3 or 6 months post injury. Quality of life showed the same pattern, with a statistically significant difference at 8 weeks post injury but not at later time points. Complication profiles were similar in both groups. Re-rupture of the tendon occurred 17 times in the plaster cast group and 13 times in the functional brace group. There was no difference in resource use. CONCLUSIONS: This trial provides strong evidence that early weight-bearing in a functional brace provides similar outcomes to traditional plaster casting and is safe for patients receiving non-operative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. The probability that functional bracing is cost-effective exceeds 95% for the base-case imputed analysis, assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. On average, functional brace is associated with lower costs (-£103, 95% confidence interval -£290 to £84) and more quality-adjusted life-years (0.015, 95% confidence interval -0.0013 to 0.030) than plaster cast. LIMITATIONS: Some patients declined to participate in the trial, but only a small proportion of these declined because they had a preference for one treatment or another. Overall, 58% of eligible patients agreed to participate, so the participants are broadly representative of the population under investigation. FUTURE WORK: Although the UK Study of Tendo Achilles Rehabilitation provides guidance with regard to early management, rehabilitation following Achilles tendon rupture is prolonged and further research is required to define the optimal mode of rehabilitation after the initial cast/brace has been removed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62639639. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: Patients recovered steadily after their injury but were still not back to normal at 9 months. The average Achilles Tendon Rupture Score rose from 38 out of 100 at 8 weeks to 73 out of 100 at 9 months. Patents who had the functional brace reported that their recovery was a little better at 8 weeks than did the patients having the plaster cast, but there was no evidence of a difference after that. There were 17 cases of re-rupture of the Achilles tendon in the plaster cast group and 13 cases in the functional brace group. There was no evidence of a difference in costs. In conclusion, this study provides strong evidence that early weight-bearing in a functional brace provides similar outcomes to traditional plaster casting and is safe for patients having treatment for Achilles tendon rupture.

Achilles tendon rupture affects > 11,000 people each year in the UK, leading to prolonged periods away from work, sports and social activities. Traditionally, after a ruptured tendon, the foot and ankle are held still in a plaster cast for ≥ 8 weeks. Functional bracing is an alternative treatment that allows patients to mobilise earlier, but there is little evidence about how it affects later recovery. This study aimed to compare traditional plaster casting with functional bracing for adult patients with Achilles tendon rupture. The participants reported their own recovery using the Achilles Tendon Rupture Score, which consists of 10 questions about symptoms and physical activity (in which a score of 100 is the best possible outcome). We also recorded quality of life, complications, including re-rupture of the tendon, and costs from both the NHS and the patients' perspective. A total of 540 patients, treated at 39 hospitals, agreed to take part and were assigned by chance to either plaster cast or functional brace. Patients reported their recovery at 8 weeks and at 3, 6 and 9 months.

Plaster cast versus functional brace for non-surgical treatment of Achilles tendon rupture (UKSTAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Achilles tendon rupture who have non-operative treatment have traditionally been treated with immobilisation of the tendon in plaster casts for several weeks. Functional bracing is an alternative non-operative treatment that allows earlier mobilisation, but evidence on its effectiveness and safety is scarce. The aim of the UKSTAR trial was to compare functional and quality-of-life outcomes and resource use in patients treated non-operatively with plaster cast versus functional brace. METHODS: UKSTAR was a pragmatic, superiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at 39 hospitals in the UK. Patients (aged ≥16 years) who were being treated non-operatively for a primary Achilles tendon rupture at the participating centres were potentially eligible. The exclusion criteria were presenting more than 14 days after injury, previous rupture of the same Achilles tendon, or being unable to complete the questionnaires. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a plaster cast or functional brace using a centralised web-based system. Because the interventions were clearly visible, neither patients nor clinicians could be masked. Participants wore the intervention for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was patient-reported Achilles tendon rupture score (ATRS) at 9 months, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients in the groups to which they were allocated, excluding participants who withdrew or died before providing any outcome data). The main safety outcome was the incidence of tendon re-rupture. Resource use was recorded from a health and personal social care perspective. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN62639639. FINDINGS: Between Aug 15, 2016, and May 31, 2018, 1451 patients were screened, of whom 540 participants (mean age 48·7 years, 79% male) were randomly allocated to receive plaster cast (n=266) or functional brace (n=274). 527 (98%) of 540 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, and 13 (2%) were excluded because they withdrew or died before providing any outcome data. There was no difference in ATRS at 9 months post injury (cast group n=244, mean ATRS 74∙4 [SD 19∙8]; functional brace group n=259, ATRS 72∙8 [20∙4]; adjusted mean difference -1∙38 [95% CI -4∙9 to 2∙1], p=0·44). There was no difference in the rate of re-rupture of the tendon (17 [6%] of 266 in the plaster cast group vs 13 [5%] of 274 in the functional brace group, p=0·40). The mean total health and personal social care cost was £1181 for the plaster cast group and £1078 for the functional bract group (mean between-group difference -£103 [95% CI -289 to 84]). INTERPRETATION: Traditional plaster casting was not found to be superior to early weight-bearing in a functional brace, as measured by ATRS, in the management of patients treated non-surgically for Achilles tendon rupture. Clinicians may consider the use of early weight-bearing in a functional brace as a safe and cost-effective alternative to plaster casting. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures used for adults with an ankle fracture.

BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures are painful and debilitating injuries that pose a significant burden to society and healthcare systems. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used outcome measures in clinical trials of interventions for ankle fracture but there is little evidence on their validity and reliability. This systematic review aims to identify and appraise evidence for the measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs used in adults with an ankle fracture using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) methodology. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL online databases for evidence of measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs. Articles were included if they assessed or described the development of the PROM in adults with ankle fracture. Articles were ineligible if they used the PROM to assess the measurement properties of another instrument. Abstracts without full articles and conference proceedings were ineligible, as were articles that adapted the PROM under evaluation without any formal justification of the changes as part of a cross-cultural validation or translation process. Two reviewers completed the screening. To assess methodological quality we used COSMIN risk of bias checklist and summarised evidence using COSMIN quality criteria and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data for a sample of articles. RESULTS: The searches returned a total of 377 articles. From these, six articles were included after application of eligibility criteria. These articles evaluated three PROMs: A-FORM, OMAS and AAOS. The A-FORM had evidence of a robust development process within the patient population, however lacks post-formulation testing. The OMAS showed sufficient levels of reliability, internal consistency and construct validity. The AAOS showed low quality evidence of sufficient construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the recommendation of a particular PROM for use in adult ankle fracture research based on COSMIN methodology. Further validation of these outcome measures is required in order to ensure PROMs used in this area are sufficiently valid and reliable to assess treatment effects. This would enable high quality, evidenced-based management of adults with ankle fracture.

Primary outcome measures used in interventional trials for ankle fractures: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures cause considerable pain, loss of function and healthcare resource use. High quality randomised controlled trials are required to evaluate the optimal management protocols for ankle fracture. However, there is debate regarding the most appropriate outcome measure to use when assessing patients with ankle fractures. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and summarise primary outcome measure use in clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions for adults with an ankle fracture. METHODS: We performed comprehensive searches of the Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and Cochrane CENTRAL databases, as well as ISRCTN and ClinicalTrials.gov online clinical trial registries on 19/06/2019 with no date limits applied. The titles and abstracts were initially screened to identify randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions for ankle fracture in adults. Two authors independently screened the full text of any articles which could potentially be eligible. Descriptive statistics we used to summarise the outcome measures collected in these articles including an assessment of trends over time. Secondary analysis included a descriptive summary of the multi-item patient reported outcome measures used in this study type. RESULTS: The searches returned a total of 3380 records. Following application of the eligibility criteria, 121 records were eligible for inclusion in this review. The most frequently collected primary outcome measures in this type of publication was the Olerud Molander Ankle Score, followed by radiographic and range of movement assessments. There was a total of 28 different outcome measures collected and five different multi-item, patient reported outcome measures collected as the primary outcome measure. There was a sequential increase in the number of this type of study published per decade since the 1980's. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates the wide range of measurement methods used to assess outcome in adults with an ankle fracture. Future research should focus on establishing the validity and reliability of the outcome measures used in this patient population. Formulation of a consensus based core outcome set for adults with an ankle fracture would be advantageous for ensuring homogeneity across studies in order to meta-analyse trial results.

Ankle injury rehabilitation (AIR): a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing functional bracing to plaster cast in the treatment of adult ankle fractures.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 9% of a trauma surgeon's workload in the UK is managing ankle fractures. Following an ankle fracture immobilisation with a plaster cast or removable orthotic is usual. The aim of this research was to assess the feasibility of a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the difference between plaster cast and a removable orthotic for the management of adults with an ankle fracture. METHODS: A feasibility randomised controlled trial was undertaken in a UK trauma hospital in adults with an ankle fracture for which the treating clinician would consider plaster cast a reasonable management option. Exclusions included open or pathological fracture, unable to adhere to trial procedures, had other lower limb injury or required close contact casting. Participants were randomised using an independent telephone service to receive either plaster cast or removable orthotic. The primary outcome was to determine the recruitment and follow-up rates at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months to assess the feasibility of a full RCT. RESULTS: Eighty five eligible patients presented during the 10-month recruitment period, 50 consented. Two patients were randomised who did not fulfil the eligibility criteria (protocol deviations), and 1 patient from each group crossed over. Follow-up at each time point was 92% at 6 weeks; 74% at 3 months and 83% at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment and follow-up data demonstrated feasibility of conducting a larger-scale randomised controlled trial. The distributional properties of the patient-reported outcome measures will be used to determine future sample sizes. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: This study is registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN17809322), assigned 5 November 2015 and approved by the NRES Committee (The Black Country, 15/WM/0340), protocol version 2.0 (17 November 2015). It is co-sponsored by the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust and University of Warwick and funded by the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit (PB-PG-0614-34,009). The trial sponsors have no direct involvement in any aspects of study design, conduct or decision to submit the report for publication.

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.

A protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial to assess the difference between functional bracing and plaster cast for the treatment of ankle fractures.

BACKGROUND: UK Hospital Episode Statistics 2013-2014 recorded 57,286 fractures of the lower limb including the ankle. This figure is expected to continue to increase due to a greater population of older adults. Following an ankle fracture, patients usually have their ankle immobilised with a plaster cast. This provides maximum support for the healing ankle but is associated with stiffness and muscle wasting. A Cochrane Review has concluded that functional bracing may reduce muscle wasting and speed recovery of ankle movement. The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of conducting a full randomised controlled trial in adults with an ankle fracture followed by functional bracing and exercises versus standard plaster cast care. METHODS: This is a single-centre feasibility randomised controlled trial. All patients with a fractured ankle are potentially eligible. The trial will employ 1:1 random allocation, stratified by age and non-operative/operative management. Baseline demographic and pre-injury functional data, the Manchester-Oxford Foot and Ankle Questionnaire (MOXFQ) and Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) will be collected alongside the EuroQol EQ-5D-5 L health-related quality of life questionnaire. A research associate will perform a clinical assessment and obtain X-rays in 6 weeks and 6 months post randomisation to record complications. Functional outcome and health-related quality of life will be collected in 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: This feasibility trial will provide authoritative high-quality evidence to inform the design of a definitive trial in this important area. TRIAL REGISTRATION SPONSORSHIP AND FUNDING: This study is registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN17809322), assigned 5 November 2015 and approved by the NRES Committee (The Black Country, 15/WM/0340), protocol version 2.0 (17 November 2015). It is co-sponsored by the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust and University of Warwick and funded by the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit (PB-PG-0614-34009). The trial sponsors have no direct involvement in any aspects of study design, conduct or decision to submit the report for publication.

Injection therapies for Achilles tendinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Achilles tendinopathy is a common condition, often with significant functional consequences. As a wide range of injection treatments are available, a review of randomised trials evaluating injection therapies to help inform treatment decisions is warranted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of injection therapies for people with Achilles tendinopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 20 April 2015: the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. We also searched trial registers (29 May 2014) and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating injection therapies in adults with an investigator-reported diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy. We accepted comparison arms of placebo (sham) or no injection control, or other active treatment (such as physiotherapy, pharmaceuticals or surgery). Our primary outcomes were function, using measures such as the VISA-A (Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire), and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We assessed treatment effects using mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for dichotomous variables. For follow-up data, we defined short-term as up to six weeks, medium-term as up to three months and longer-term as data beyond three months. We performed meta-analysis where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies (732 participants). Seven trials exclusively studied athletic populations. The mean ages of the participants in the individual trials ranged from 20 years to 50 years. Fifteen trials compared an injection therapy with a placebo injection or no injection control, four trials compared an injection therapy with active treatment, and one compared two different concentrations of the same injection. Thus no trials compared different injection therapies. Two studies had three trial arms and we included them twice in two different categories. Within these categories, we further subdivided injection therapies by mode of action (injury-causing versus direct repair agents).The risk of bias was unclear (due to poor reporting) or high in six trials published between 1987 and 1994. Improved methodology and reporting for the subsequent trials published between 2004 and 2013 meant that these were at less risk of bias.Given the very low quality evidence available from each of four small trials comparing different combinations of injection therapy versus active treatment and the single trial comparing two doses of one injection therapy, only the results of the first comparison (injection therapy versus control) are presented.There is low quality evidence of a lack of significant or clinically important differences in VISA-A scores (0 to 100: best function) between injection therapy and control groups at six weeks (MD 0.79, 95% CI -4.56 to 6.14; 200 participants, five trials), three months (MD -0.94, 95% CI -6.34 to 4.46; 189 participants, five trials) or between six and 12 months (MD 0.14, 95% CI -6.54 to 6.82; 132 participants, three trials). Very low quality evidence from 13 trials showed little difference between the two groups in adverse events (14/243 versus 12/206; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.89), most of which were minor and short-lasting. The only major adverse event in the injection therapy group was an Achilles tendon rupture, which happened in a trial testing corticosteroid injections. There was very low quality evidence in favour of the injection therapy group in short-term (under three months) pain (219 participants, seven trials) and in the return to sports (335 participants, seven trials). There was very low quality evidence indicating little difference between groups in patient satisfaction with treatment (152 participants, four trials). There was insufficient evidence to conclude on subgroup differences based on mode of action given that only two trials tested injury-causing agents and the clear heterogeneity of the other 13 trials, which tested seven different therapies that act directly on the repair pathway. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to draw conclusions on the use, or to support the routine use, of injection therapies for treating Achilles tendinopathy. This review has highlighted a need for definitive research in the area of injection therapies for Achilles tendinopathy, including in older non-athletic populations. This review has shown that there is a consensus in the literature that placebo-controlled trials are considered the most appropriate trial design.

The Achilles tendon total rupture score: a study of responsiveness, internal consistency and convergent validity on patients with acute Achilles tendon ruptures.

BACKGROUND: The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score was developed by a research group in 2007 in response to the need for a patient reported outcome measure for this patient population. Beyond this original development paper, no further validation studies have been published.Consequently the purpose of this study was to evaluate internal consistency, convergent validity and responsiveness of this newly developed patient reported outcome measure within patients who have sustained an isolated acute Achilles tendon rupture. METHODS: Sixty-four eligible patients with an acute rupture of their Achilles tendon completed the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score alongside two further patient reported outcome measures (Disability Rating Index and EQ 5D). These were completed at baseline, six weeks, three months, six months and nine months post injury. The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score was evaluated for internal consistency, using Cronbach's alpha, convergent validity, through correlation analysis and responsiveness, by analysing floor and ceiling effects and calculating its relative efficiency in comparison to the Disability Rating Index and EQ 5D scores. RESULTS: The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha > 0.8) and correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with the Disability Rating Index at five time points (pre-injury, six weeks, three, six and nine months) with correlation coefficients between -0.5 and -0.9. However, the confidence intervals were wide. Furthermore, the ability of the new score to detect clinically important changes over time (responsiveness) was shown to be greater than the Disability Rating Index and EQ 5D. CONCLUSIONS: A universally accepted outcome measure is imperative to allow comparisons to be made across practice. This is the first study to evaluate aspects of validity of this newly developed outcome measure, outside of the developing centre. The ATRS demonstrated high internal consistency and responsiveness, with limited convergent validity. This research provides further support for the use of this outcome measure, however further research is required to advocate its universal use in patients with acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Such areas include inter-rater reliability and research to determine the minimally clinically important difference between scores.All authors have read and concur with the content of this manuscript. The material presented has not been and will not be submitted for publication elsewhere, except as an abstract. All authors have made substantial contributions to all of the following: (1) the conception and design of the study, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content and (3) final approval of the submitted version. This research has been funded by Arthritis Research UK, no conflicts of interests have been declared by the authors.

A systematic review of early rehabilitation methods following a rupture of the Achilles tendon.

OBJECTIVES: Rupture of the Achilles tendon is a debilitating injury. Advances have led to the development of immediate weight bearing rehabilitation. A range of early rehabilitation methods exist, but further research is required into this new area. The first stage in the investigation of a complex intervention is to identify its defining components. The aim of this review was to systemically identify and summarise, from clinical studies, the individual components that define immediate weight bearing rehabilitation protocols for the treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture's. DATA SOURCES: The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and the register of current controlled trials were searched up to March 2010. REVIEW METHODS: All study designs and languages were included. Two independent reviewers used pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify all eligible articles. Eligible articles were summarised and critically reviewed, using the extension of the CONSORT statement for non-pharmacological interventions. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifteen articles were screened, nine were included. These studies, presented the results of 424 patients; 236 who had surgery and 188 who were managed non-operatively. There were a range of rehabilitation protocols that were defined by four components. These components consisted of the degree of maintained plantarflexion, whether daily range of movement exercises were permitted, the type of orthotic and for how long it was worn. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of different immediate weight bearing rehabilitation protocols following an acute rupture of the Achilles tendon remains unclear. Further research is required to evaluate the identified components to optimise rehabilitation.

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures used to assess Achilles tendon rupture management: what's being used and should we be using it?

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal management for patients following an Achilles tendon rupture. To allow comparisons between different treatments, a universally accepted outcome measure is required. However, there are currently a range of these reported within the literature. OBJECTIVE: To recommend the most suitable patient-reported outcome measure for the assessment of patients following an Achilles tendon rupture, based on a systematic review of first what is currently used and second evidence of validity. METHODS: The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and AMED were searched up to September 2010. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify what outcome measures are reported in the literature. Aspects of validity were defined and a checklist used to determine which aspects have been evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-one outcome measures in 50 research papers were identified. The most commonly used was the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society hind-foot score. Of the 21 outcome measures, only 4 cited independent validation data. Of these four, only the 'Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score' reported evidence to support multiple facets of validity, as defined by a predetermined criteria checklist. CONCLUSIONS: The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score was identified as the only outcome measure which has demonstrated multiple facets of validity for use in this patient group. However, even this tool has limitations. Researchers should be aware of the limitations of the available outcome measurement tools and check on their validity before use in clinical research.