1
|
Cook E, Laycock J, Acharya M, Backhouse MR, Corbacho B, Doherty L, Forward D, Hewitt C, Hilton C, Hull P, Kassam J, Maturana C, Mcdaid C, Roche J, Sivapathasuntharam D, Torgerson D, Bates P. Lateral compression type 1 fracture fixation in the elderly (L1FE): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (with internal pilot) comparing the effects of INFIX surgery and non-surgical management for treating patients with lateral compression type 1 (LC-1) fragility fractures. Trials 2023; 24:78. [PMID: 36732808 PMCID: PMC9893645 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-07063-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2022] [Accepted: 12/30/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lateral compression type1 (LC-1) fragility fractures are a common, painful injury in older adults resulting in reduced mobility. The incidence of these fractures is increasing with the growing older adult population. The current standard of care is non-surgical management; however, patients with this injury are at risk of long-term immobility and related complications. INFIX is a pelvic fixation device used in younger patients with high-energy fractures. The device is fitted via a percutaneous technique with no external pin sites and has good purchase even in osteoporotic bone. It therefore has the potential to be well tolerated in patients with LC-1 fragility fractures. INFIX could improve patients' ability to mobilise and reduce the risk of immobility-related complications. However, there is a risk of complications related to surgery, and robust evidence is required on patient outcomes. This study will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical fixation with INFIX compared to non-surgical management of LC-1 fragility fractures in older adults. METHODS A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of 600 patients allocated 1:1 to non-surgical management or INFIX surgery. The study will have a 12-month internal pilot to assess recruitment and trial feasibility. The primary outcome will be the patient quality of life over 6 months, measured by the patient-reported EQ-5D-5L. The secondary outcomes will include physical function, mental health, pain, delirium, imaging assessment, resource use, and complications. DISCUSSION The L1FE study aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical management of people aged 60 years and older with LC-1 fragility fractures. The trial is sufficiently powered and rigorously designed to inform future clinical and patient decision-making and allocation of NHS resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN16478561. Registered on 8 April 2019.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth Cook
- grid.5685.e0000 0004 1936 9668York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD UK
| | - Joanne Laycock
- grid.5685.e0000 0004 1936 9668York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD UK
| | - Mehool Acharya
- grid.416201.00000 0004 0417 1173Pelvic and Acetabular Reconstruction Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB UK
| | - Michael Ross Backhouse
- grid.5685.e0000 0004 1936 9668York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD UK ,grid.7372.10000 0000 8809 1613Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL UK
| | - Belen Corbacho
- grid.5685.e0000 0004 1936 9668York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD UK
| | - Laura Doherty
- grid.5685.e0000 0004 1936 9668York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD UK
| | - Daren Forward
- grid.240404.60000 0001 0440 1889Nottingham University Hospitals, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH UK
| | - Catherine Hewitt
- grid.5685.e0000 0004 1936 9668York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD UK
| | - Catherine Hilton
- grid.416041.60000 0001 0738 5466Bart’s Health NHS Trust, The Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel Road, Whitechapel, London, E1 1BB UK
| | - Peter Hull
- grid.24029.3d0000 0004 0383 8386Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ UK
| | - Jamila Kassam
- grid.416041.60000 0001 0738 5466Bart’s Health NHS Trust, The Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel Road, Whitechapel, London, E1 1BB UK
| | - Camila Maturana
- grid.5685.e0000 0004 1936 9668York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD UK
| | - Catriona Mcdaid
- grid.5685.e0000 0004 1936 9668York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD UK
| | - Jenny Roche
- grid.5685.e0000 0004 1936 9668York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD UK
| | - Dhanupriya Sivapathasuntharam
- grid.416041.60000 0001 0738 5466Bart’s Health NHS Trust, The Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel Road, Whitechapel, London, E1 1BB UK
| | - David Torgerson
- grid.5685.e0000 0004 1936 9668York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD UK
| | - Peter Bates
- grid.416041.60000 0001 0738 5466Bart’s Health NHS Trust, The Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel Road, Whitechapel, London, E1 1BB UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the accuracy with which the Majeed Pelvic Score has been reported in the English literature. DATA SOURCES Databases used to search for literature were PubMed, Embase, and Ovid, restricted to English language from inception to October 2, 2018. STUDY SELECTION Search words used were: Majeed, pelvis, and outcome. DATA EXTRACTION Articles were assessed for descriptions of scoring and proper reporting of Majeed Pelvic Outcome Score. DATA SYNTHESIS Descriptive statistics were used to report the outcome of our findings. CONCLUSIONS Ninty-two English articles were identified. Twenty-four (26%) articles were identified as including methodology related to the use and scoring of the Majeed Pelvic score. The remaining 68 presented mean Majeed scores with no methodological information. None (0/92) discussed how the range of possible scores for the most severe function was applied. Six (7%) reported adjusted scores for patients not working. Three (3%) included a discussion of the scores as adjusted for patients working before injury compared with those not working. Ten (11%) addressed the categorization of scores by excellent to poor describing what raw scores defined those categories. We observed poor accuracy and notable inconsistency in the use and reporting of the Majeed Pelvic Outcome Score in the literature. These data demonstrate that interpretation and comparison of research reporting this score should be done cautiously. Future studies should include specific information as to how the Majeed instrument calculated to allow for verification of the presented scores and subsequent conclusions.
Collapse
|