The Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial: the way forward or off target?

A Retrospective Analysis of Distal Fibula Fractures Treated With Intramedullary Fibular Nail Fixation

There is growing literature supporting the use of intramedullary fixation for fracture care because of its smaller incisions, improved biomechanical outcomes, and faster time to weightbearing than traditional internal fixation methods. The aim of this study is to investigate the postoperative outcomes in ankle fractures treated with intramedullary nail fixation in the largest patient cohort to date. From 2015 to 2021, 151 patients were evaluated following surgical treatment of fibular fractures with intramedullary nail fixation. Patients were identified through a medical record database search for appropriate ankle fracture procedure codes. Patient information was reviewed for fracture type, adjunct procedures, time to weightbearing and postoperative complications. Radiographs were assessed for quality and time to radiographic union. The mean time to weightbearing was 4.8 weeks. Minor wound dehiscence was identified in 2 patients (1.3%). Superficial infection was present in 4 patients (2.6%) and a deep infection developed in 2 patients (1.3%). Two patients developed a nonunion (1.5%). There were no DVTs reported, although 1 patient developed a PE postoperatively. Radiographic quality of reduction and time to union is comparable to literature reported plate and screw construct outcomes. Reduction was classified as good in 86.1% of patients and radiographic union was appreciated in 98.5% of patients. This is the largest cohort study evaluating the outcomes of intramedullary nail fixation for ORIF of ankle fractures. These data reinforce that intramedullary nailing provides a minimally invasive approach with accurate anatomic reduction, excellent fracture union rates, low complication rates, and an early return to weightbearing.

A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Two-Center, International Trial Comparing the Fibular Nail With Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Unstable Ankle Fractures in Younger Patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcome of fibular nailing with plate fixation for unstable fractures of the ankle in a cohort of patients under the age of 65 years.

SETTING

2 international university trauma centers.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

One hundred twenty-five patients who were 18-64 years of age with an acute unstable fracture of the ankle were included in the study.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to fixation with a fibular nail (n = 63) or plate (n = 62) and were reviewed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome measure was the Olerud and Molander score at 1 year. Secondary outcomes were the rates of complications and reinterventions.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the 2 groups with respect to the primary outcome measure [mean Olerud and Molander score 78.4 in the nail group vs. 80.2 in the plate group (P = 0.621)]. Wound infections occurred in 2 patients who were treated with a nail and 9 patients who were treated with a plate, but this did not reach statistical significance. No difference was seen in the overall rate of complications and reinterventions between groups [28.6% in the nail group vs. 29% in the plate group (P = 0.955)].

CONCLUSIONS

In younger patients with ankle fractures, no difference was found in the patient-reported outcome between fibular nail and plate fixation at 1 year after surgery. The fibular nail is an effective and safe option for the stabilization of ankle fractures in younger patients, although the benefits associated with reduced wound complications are not as apparent as for elderly patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A review of trauma and orthopaedic randomised clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals

Introduction

The recent past has seen a significant increase in the number of trauma and orthopaedic randomised clinical trials published in “the big five” general medical journals. The quality of this research has, however, not yet been established.

Methods

We therefore set out to critically appraise the quality of available literature over a 10-year period (April 2010–April 2020) through a systematic search of these 5 high-impact general medical journals (JAMA, NEJM, BMJ, Lancet and Annals). A standardised data extraction proforma was utilised to gather information regarding: trial design, sample size calculation, results, study quality and pragmatism. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the modified Delphi list. Study pragmatism was assessed using the PRECIS-2 tool.

Results

A total of 25 studies were eligible for inclusion. Over half of the included trials did not meet their sample size calculation for the primary outcome, with a similar proportion of these studies at risk of type II error for their non-significant results. There was a high degree of pragmatism according to PRECIS-2. Non-significant studies had greater pragmatism that those with statistically significant results (p < 0.001). Only 56% studies provided adequate justification for the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in the population assessed. Overall, very few studies were deemed high quality/low risk of bias.

Conclusions

These findings highlight that there are some important methodological concerns present within the current evidence base of RCTs published in high-impact medical journals. Potential strategies that may improve future trial design are highlighted.

Level of evidence

Level 1.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00590-021-03137-3.