Cast versus functional brace in the rehabilitation of patients treated non-operatively for a rupture of the Achilles tendon : protocol for UK Study of Tendo Achilles Rehabilitation (UK STAR)

Introduction Achilles tendon rupture affects over 11,000 people yearly in the UK, and the incidence is increasing. Controversy remains with regards the best rehabilitation strategy for these patients. In operatively treated patients, functional bracing provides better outcomes compared with plaster casts. However, the role of functional bracing in non-operatively managed patients is unclear. This is the protocol for a multi-centre randomised trial of plaster cast immobilisation versus functional bracing for patients with a non-operatively managed Achilles tendon rupture. Methods and analysis All adults presenting with a primary rupture of the Achilles tendon will be screened. Non-operatively treated patients will be eligible to take part in the trial. Broad eligibility criteria will ensure that the results of the study can be generalised to the wider patient population. Randomisation will be on a 1:1 basis. Both rehabilitation strategies are widely used within the NHS. Standardised protocols will be followed, but details of plaster material and brace will be as per the site’s usual practice. A minimum of 330 patients will be randomised to obtain 90% power to detect a difference of 8 points in Achilles Tendon Rupture Score (ATRS) at 9 months. Quality of life and resource use will also be collected at 3, 6 and 9 months. The differences between treatment groups will be assessed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results are expected to be available in the summer of 2019. Ethics and dissemination. National Research Ethic Committee approved this study on the 18th of March 2016 (16/SC/0109). The NIHR Health Technology Assessment monograph and a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal will be submitted upon completion of the trial. The results of this trial will substantially inform clinical practice on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the treatment of this injury

RMAs in Motion: Addressing the Challenge of Moving to a New Country as a Research Manager

What is new? More and more Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs) are moving country to pursue their career, but often find themselves unprepared for what they encounter in a new environment. This paper explores for the first time some of the issues encountered when RMAs move country, and attempts to offer some recommendations for universities, as well as professional organisations, to help them overcome any difficulties. What was the approach? Before and after a paper given at the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA) 2021 conference a survey was run gathering opinions and experiences of RMAs. What is the academic impact? This paper presents the first insights into the issue of international mobility amongst RMAs, and opens the way for research into this issue. What is the wider impact? These findings will help encourage universities and member associations to help support RMAs further in their career moves. It will also help RMAs prepare further for such a move

Has a change in established care pathways during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic led to an excess death rate in the fragility fracture population? A longitudinal cohort study of 1846 patients

Objective During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, changes to established care pathways and discharge thresholds for patients with fragility fractures were made. This was to increase hospital bed capacity and minimise the inpatient risk of contracting COVID-19. This study aims to identify the excess death rate in this population during the first wave of the pandemic. Design A longitudinal cohort study of patients with fragility fractures identified by specific International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes. The first wave of the pandemic was defined as the 3-month period between 1 March and 1 June 2020. The control group presented between 1 March and 1 June 2019. Setting Two acute National Health Service hospitals within the East Midlands region of England. Participants 1846 patients with fragility fractures over the aforementioned two specified matched time points. Primary and secondary outcome measures Four-month mortality of all patients with fragility fractures with a subanalysis of patients with fragility hip fractures. Results 832 patients with fragility fracture were admitted during the pandemic period (104 diagnosed with COVID-19). 1014 patients presented with fragility fractures in the control group. Mortality in patients with fragility fracture without COVID-19 was significantly higher among pandemic period admissions (14.7%) than the pre-pandemic cohort (10.2%) (HR=1.86; 95% CI 1.41 to 2.45; pCopyright © 2022 Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-05852

Early motion and directed exercise (EMADE) versus usual care post ankle fracture fixation: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Background: Following surgical fixation of ankle fractures, the traditional management has included immobilisation for 6 weeks in a below-knee cast. However, this can lead to disuse atrophy of the affected leg and joint stiffness. While early rehabilitation from 2 weeks post surgery is viewed as safe, controversy remains regarding its benefits. We will compare the effectiveness of early motion and directed exercise (EMADE) ankle rehabilitation, against usual care, i.e. 6 weeks’ immobilisation in a below-knee cast. Method/design: We have designed a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (p-RCT) to compare the EMADE intervention against usual care. We will recruit 144 independently living adult participants, absent of tissue-healing comorbidities, who have undergone surgical stabilisation of isolated Weber B ankle fractures. The EMADE intervention consists of a non-weight-bearing progressive home exercise programme, complemented with manual therapy and education. Usual care consists of immobilisation in a non-weight-bearing below-knee cast. The intervention period is between week 2 and week 6 post surgery. The primary outcome is the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at 12 weeks post surgery. Secondary PROMs include the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire, return to work and return to driving, with objective outcomes including ankle range of motion. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. An economic evaluation will be included. Discussion: The EMADE intervention is a package of care designed to address the detrimental effects of disuse atrophy and joint stiffness. An advantage of the OMAS is the potential of meta-analysis with other designs. Within the economic evaluation, the cost-utility analysis, may be used by commissioners, while the use of patient-relevant outcomes, such as return to work and driving, will ensure that the study remains pertinent to patients and their families. As it is being conducted in the clinical environment, this p-RCT has high external validity. Accordingly, if significant clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness are demonstrated, EMADE should become a worthwhile treatment option. A larger-scale, multicentre trial may be required to influence national guidelines. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN11212729. Registered retrospectively on 20 March 2017

CORE-Kids: a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for childhood fractures

Introduction Limb fractures in children are common yet there are few trials that compare treatments for these injuries. There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes reported in the paediatric orthopaedic literature, which limits the ability to compare study results and draw firm conclusions. The aim of the CORE-Kids Study is to develop a core outcome set for use in research studies of childhood limb fractures. A core outcome set will provide a minimum set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to minimise the heterogeneity of outcomes reported and minimise reporting bias. A core outcome set ensures that outcomes are reported that are relevant to families as well as clinicians. The core outcome set will include additional upper and lower limb modules.Methods The development of the core outcome set will require four phases to evaluate:What are the outcomes that are relevant to professionals?What are the outcomes that are relevant to families?What are the most important of these outcomes?Which outcomes should be included in the core outcome set?This will be completed through a systematic review of trials to identify the outcomes domains that are relevant to trialists. A series of semi-structured interviews will be completed with families to identify the outcome domains that are relevant to families. These outcome domains will be used in a three-round Delphi Study to analyse the importance of these outcome domains to a range of stakeholders including parents, clinicians and researchers. Following this, the core outcome set will be decided at a consensus meeting.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been awarded HRA/REC IRAS number 262503. Date of approval 06/08/2019. Dissemination will be through scientific literature and international societies.Trial registrationCore Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative, registration number: 1274. Date of registration 13/12/2018.PROSPERO registration number CRD42018106605

Hip fracture outcomes in patients with COPD

Hip fractures are common in patients with COPD and contemporary outcome data is needed. Patients admitted with a hip fracture to one acute trust (2010-2015) were assessed prospectively (UK National Hip Fracture Database audit) and mortality data collected. Of the 4020 patients, 16.2% had a recorded COPD diagnosis. Mortality was significantly greater in patients with COPD compared to non-COPD: 30-days (12.6% vs 7.8%) and 1-year (35.3% vs 25.3%), both p[less than] 0.001 and remained significant after adjustment (aOR at 1 year 1.44 95% CI1.18 -1.76). There is further excess mortality following a hip fracture in those with COPD

Supportive bandage, removable splint, or walking casts for low-risk ankle fractures in children: A feasibility randomized controlled trial

Aims: It is unclear if a supportive bandage, removable splint, or walking cast offers the best outcome following low-risk ankle fractures in children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to compare these treatments., Methods: Children aged five to 15 years with low-risk ankle fractures were recruited to this feasibility trial from 1 February 2020 to 30 March 2023. Children were randomized to supportive bandage, removable splint, or walking cast for two weeks. Follow-up at two, six, and 12 weeks was undertaken to determine feasibility for a definitive trial. Outcomes collected included complications, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) mobility score, Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory, youth version of the EuroQol five-dimension health questionnaire, and Activities Scale for Kids - Performance., Results: A total of 87 children from six hospitals were randomized at a rate of 0.9 participants per site per month. Two children in the supportive bandage group crossed over to an alternative device. Complications were reported in six children. One child in the cast group developed skin blisters. One child in cast and one in bandage sustained a reinjury during the 12-week follow-up, and two children (one splint and one cast) required additional immobilization after the two-week treatment for persistent pain. Of the 84 participants who remained in the study at six weeks, 43 (51.2%) returned follow-up questionnaires at six weeks. Of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), proxy-reported PROMIS mobility showed good responsiveness, low ceiling effects, and low missing item rates. In an exploratory analysis, small differences were observed between groups, with no evidence that any of the treatments were superior., Conclusion: This feasibility study showed acceptable recruitment and retention rates. There remains equipoise regarding the best treatment of these injuries. All three treatments appear well tolerated with similar complication rates. A primary outcome of complications or treatment failure would provide the highest study retention with secondary PROMs and economic analysis. Copyright © 2025 Marson et al.https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0354.R