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.

Moulded cast compared with K-wire fixation after manipulation of an acute dorsally displaced distal radius fracture: the DRAFFT 2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a displaced fracture of the distal radius are frequently offered surgical fixation. Manipulation of the fracture and moulded plaster casting is an alternative treatment that avoids metal implants, but evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare functional outcomes, quality-of-life outcomes, complications and resource use among patients with a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius treated with manipulation and surgical fixation with Kirschner wires (K-wires) and those treated with manipulation and moulded cast. DESIGN: Pragmatic, superiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with a health economic evaluation. SETTING: A total of 36 orthopaedic trauma centres in the UK NHS. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (aged ≥ 16 years) treated for an acute dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius were potentially eligible. Patients were excluded if their injury had occurred > 2 weeks previously, if the fracture was open, if it extended > 3 cm from the radiocarpal joint or if it required open reduction, or if the participant was unable to complete questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned in theatre (1 : 1) to receive a moulded cast (i.e. the cast group) or surgical fixation with K-wires (i.e. the K-wire group) after fracture manipulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at 12 months, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Health-related quality of life was recorded using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, and resource use was recorded from a health and personal social care perspective. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and March 2019, 500 participants (mean age 60 years, 83% women) were randomly allocated to receive a moulded cast (n = 255) or surgical fixation with K-wire (n = 245) following a manipulation of their fracture. A total of 395 (80%) participants were included in the primary analysis at 12 months. There was no difference in the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at 1 year post randomisation [cast group: n = 200, mean score 21.2 (standard deviation 23.1); K-wire group: n = 195, mean score 20.7 (standard deviation 22.3); adjusted mean difference -0.34 (95% confidence interval -4.33 to 3.66); p = 0.87]. A total of 33 (13%) participants in the cast group required surgical fixation for loss of fracture position in the first 6 weeks, compared with one participant in the K-wire group (odds ratio 0.02, 95% confidence interval 0.001 to 0.10). The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis showed that manipulation and surgical fixation with K-wires had a higher mean cost than manipulation and a moulded cast, despite similar mean effectiveness. The use of K-wires is unlikely to be cost-effective, and sensitivity analyses found this result to be robust. LIMITATIONS: Because the interventions were identifiable, neither patients nor clinicians could be blind to their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical fixation with K-wires was not found to be superior to moulded casting following manipulation of a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius, as measured by Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score. However, one in eight participants treated in a moulded cast required surgery for loss of fracture reduction in the first 6 weeks. After a successful closed reduction, clinicians may consider a moulded cast as a safe and cost-effective alternative to surgical fixation with K-wires. FUTURE WORK: Further research should focus on optimal techniques for immobilisation and manipulation of this type of fracture, including optimal analgesia, and for rehabilitation of the patient after immobilisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11980540 and UKCRN Portfolio 208830. 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. 26, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Many patients with a wrist fracture can be treated with a simple cast or splint. However, if the broken bones have moved out of position, patients are frequently offered a manipulation of the fracture to restore the position of the broken bones. The bones may then be held in place with metal implants while they heal. A moulded plaster cast, shaped to support the bones, is an alternative treatment that avoids metal implants, but there is little research to suggest which treatment is better. The Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial 2 (DRAFFT 2) study compared surgical fixation with metal wires with a moulded cast for patients with a broken wrist. Half of the patients underwent surgical fixation and half were given the moulded cast. The decision about which treatment patients were given was made by chance using a computer to ensure a fair comparison. The patients in both groups described their own wrist function and quality of life in the first year after their treatment and these descriptions were compared. A total of 500 patients took part at 36 NHS hospitals in the UK. The patients treated with a moulded cast reported very similar wrist function and quality of life to that of the patients treated with surgical fixation. However, one in eight patients treated with the moulded cast later required surgery because their broken bones had fallen back out of position. This study showed that a moulded cast is as good as, but costs less than, surgical fixation for patients with a broken wrist in terms of wrist function. However, a small proportion of the patients treated with a moulded cast may require later surgery if the broken bones cannot be held in position by the cast alone.

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.

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.

Retrograde intramedullary nail fixation compared with fixed-angle plate fixation for fracture of the distal femur: the TrAFFix feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the distal femur are an increasingly common injury; the optimal management of these injuries remains controversial. The two interventions used in UK practice are intramedullary fixation, with a locked retrograde nail, and extramedullary fixation, with a fixed angle plate. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the feasibility of a definitive trial and included a process evaluation to understand the generalisability and likely success of a future trial. DESIGN: A multicentre, parallel, two-arm, randomised controlled feasibility trial with an embedded process evaluation. Treatment with a plate or nail was allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio, stratified by centre and chronic cognitive impairment. Surgeons were not blinded, but participants were not told their allocation. SETTING: Seven NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a fracture of the distal femur who the attending surgeon believed would benefit from internal fixation were potentially eligible. Patients were excluded if they had a loose arthroplasty requiring revision or a femoral deformity or arthroplasty that precluded nail fixation. The sample was recruited between 29 September 2016 and 31 August 2017. Consent was obtained from the patient or appropriate consultee before enrolment. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive fixation of their distal femur fracture with either a proximally and distally locked retrograde nail that spanned the diaphysis of the femur or an anatomical distal femoral locking plate with at least one locked screw distal to the fracture. Reduction and supplemental fixation were at the surgeon's discretion. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome measures for this study were the recruitment rate and the completion rate of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), at 6 weeks and 4 months. Additional measurements included baseline characteristics, measures of social support and self-efficacy, disability rating index, dementia quality-of-life measures and a radiographical assessment of any malunion. Participants' and staff views were obtained, at interview, for the process evaluation. RESULTS: The process evaluation showed that surgeon-related factors, principally confidence with both technologies and a lack of individual equipoise, were key barriers to recruitment. A total of 23 participants were randomised and analysed (nail, n = 11; plate, n = 12). The recruitment rate was estimated as 0.42 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.62] participants per centre per month, lower than the prespecified feasibility threshold of 1.0 participants per centre per month. Data completeness of the EQ-5D-5L was estimated at 65% (95% CI 43% to 83%). CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study has challenged many of the assumptions that underpinned the development of proposed definitive trial protocol. A modified protocol is proposed that would be feasible given the recruitment rate observed here, which is equal to that reported in the similar FixDT trial [Health Technology Assessment (HTA) 11/136/04: Costa ML, Achten J, Hennings S, Boota N, Griffin J, Petrou S, et al. Intramedullary nail fixation versus locking plate fixation for adults with a fracture of the distal tibia: the UK FixDT RCT. Health Technol Assess 2018;22(25)], which delivered to target and budget. FUTURE WORK: A definitive trial with a modified design is recommended, including an internal pilot to confirm initial recruitment rate assumptions. REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92089567. 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. 23, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Breaks of the lower end of the thigh bone are increasingly common injuries. Two operations are used to treat these injuries: a rod placed along the centre of the bone or a plate attached to the edge of the bone. It is not clear which is better. We report the results from a study that will help develop the design of a definitive study to test which operation produces the best outcomes for patients. Adult patients with a break at the end of the thigh bone treated in one of seven hospitals were eligible to take part in the study. Participants were treated with one of two operations; the choice was made by chance using a computer program. Participants' basic information and pre-injury health status were recorded and participants were followed up at 6 and 16 weeks. We assessed the rate at which participants agreed to take part in the study and the number who completed follow-up. A value-for-money analysis was performed to determine how to plan this element of a future study. Staff and patients were interviewed about the study processes and the context of the treatments and hospitals to understand how the treatments work and the practicalities of delivering the study. Lower than expected numbers of participants took part in the study; 173 patients were considered for the study, but only 23 agreed to participate. The main reason was that several of the participating surgeons felt strongly that one or the other operation was superior. The rate of follow-up was similar to that of other studies using these treatments. Therefore, the proposed definitive trial is unlikely to be successful if designed in the same way as this feasibility study. Several important considerations that informed the planning of this study were found not to hold true. We believe a modified study could be delivered and could answer this important research question.

Intramedullary nails versus distal locking plates for fracture of the distal femur: results from the Trial of Acute Femoral Fracture Fixation (TrAFFix) randomised feasibility study and process evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: This feasibility study and process evaluation assessed the likely success of a definitive trial of intramedullary fixation with locked retrograde nails versus extramedullary fixation with fixed angle plates for fractures of the distal femur. DESIGN & SETTING: A multicentre, parallel, two-arm, randomised controlled feasibility study with an embedded process evaluation was conducted at seven NHS hospitals in England. Treatment was randomly allocated in 1:1 ratio, stratified by centre and chronic cognitive impairment. Participants, but not surgeons or research staff, were blinded to the allocation. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 18 years and older with a fracture of the distal femur, who their surgeon believed would benefit from internal fixation, were eligible to take part.Participants were allocated to receive either a retrograde intramedullary nail or an anatomical locking plate. OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes for this feasibility study were the recruitment rate and completion rate of the EQ-5D-5L at 4 months post-randomisation. Baseline characteristics, disability rating index, quality of life scores, measurements of social support and self-efficacy, resource use and radiographic assessments were also collected. The views of patients and staff were collected during interviews. RESULTS: Recruitment and data completion were lower than expected. 23 of 82 eligible patients were recruited (nail, 11; plate, 12). The recruitment rate was estimated as 0.42 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.62) participants per centre-month. Data completeness of the EQ-5D-5L at 4 months was 61 per cent (95% CI 43% to 83%). The process evaluation demonstrated that the main barriers to recruitment were variation in treatment pathways across centres, lack of surgeon equipoise and confidence in using both interventions and newly formed research cultures that lacked cohesion. CONCLUSIONS: A modified trial design, with embedded recruitment support intervention, comparing functional outcome in cognitively intact adults who have sustained a fragility fracture of the distal femur is feasible. ETHICS APPROVAL: The Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 approved the study (ref: 16/WA/0225). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN92089567; Pre-results.

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.