DupuytrEn Treatment EffeCtiveness Trial (DETECT): a protocol for prospective, randomised, controlled, outcome assessor-blinded, three-armed parallel 1:1:1, multicentre trial comparing the effectiveness and cost of collagenase clostridium histolyticum, percutaneous needle fasciotomy and limited fasciectomy as short-term and long-term treatment strategies in Dupuytren's contracture

Mikko P Räisänen, Teemu Karjalainen, Harry Göransson, Aleksi Reito, Hannu Kautiainen, Antti Malmivaara, Olli V Leppänen, Mikko P Räisänen, Teemu Karjalainen, Harry Göransson, Aleksi Reito, Hannu Kautiainen, Antti Malmivaara, Olli V Leppänen

Abstract

Introduction: Dupuytren's contracture (DC) is a chronic fibroproliferative disorder of the palmar fascia which leads to flexion contracture in one or more fingers. There is no definitive cure for DC, and treatment aims at relieving symptoms by releasing the contracture using percutaneous or operative techniques.

Methods and analysis: We planned a prospective, randomised, controlled, outcome assessor-blinded, three-armed parallel 1:1:1, multicentre trial comparing the effectiveness and cost of (1) collagenase clostridium histolyticum injection followed by limited fasciectomy in non-responsive cases, (2) percutaneous needle fasciotomy followed by limited fasciectomy in non-responsive cases and (3) primary limited fasciectomy during short-term and long-term follow-up for Tubiana I-III stages DC. We will recruit participants from seven national centres in Finland. Primary outcome is the rate of success in the treatment arm at 5 years after recruitment. Success is a composite outcome comprising (1) at least 50% contracture release from the date of recruitment and (2) participants in a patient-accepted symptom state (PASS). Secondary outcomes are (1) angle of contracture, (2) quick disabilities of the arm, a shoulder and hand outcome measure (QuickDASH), (3) perceived hand function, (4) EQ-5D-3L, (5) rate of major adverse events, (6) patient's trust of the treatment, (7) global rating, (8) rate of PASS, (9) rate of minimal clinically important improvement, (10) expenses, (11) progression of disease, (12) progression-free survival, (13) favoured treatment modality, (14) patients achieving full contracture release and >50% improvement and (15) patient satisfaction with the treatment effect. Predictive factors for achieving the PASS will also be analysed.

Ethics and dissemination: The protocol was approved by the Tampere University Hospital Institutional Review Board and Finnish Medicine Agency. The study will be performed according to the principles of good clinical practice. The results of the trial will be disseminated as published articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number: NCT03192020; Pre-results.

Keywords: aponeurectomy; aponeurotomy; dupuytren disease; hand dysfunction; joint contracture; xiapex.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: MPR, shoulder arthroscopy course paid for by Arthrex and nerve repair course paid for by Axone. TK, cadaver course paid for by Articular Finland and lecture fee from Summed.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Four examples of possible scenarios in the different treatment strategy arms. *Success; **Success not achieved but patient does not want new treatment. CCH, collagenase clostridium histolyticum; LF, limited fasciectomy; PNF, percutaneous needle fasciotomy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The assessment and treatment plan. *Clinically relevant progression is diagnosed in this trial when the patient contacts an outpatient clinic, because the disease has recurred or manifested in another finger (extension of disease) and the patient requests further treatment; that is, patient is not in a patient-accepted symptom state anymore, and at least 20° flexion contracture is observed. Note that the patient’s request for treatment is not limited to follow-up visits. The secondary treatment can be carried out whenever the patient requests it, but no sooner than 3 months after the primary intervention. **The patient will be treated with the same intervention as allocated primarily. However, the patient has right to refuse CCH or PNF and can request LF. If there is no palpable cord, the surgeon can decide to perform LF instead of CCH or PNF. CCH, collagenase clostridium histolyticum; LF, limited fasciectomy; PNF, percutaneous needle fasciotomy.

References

    1. Dolmans GH, Werker PM, Hennies HC, et al. . Wnt signaling and dupuytren’s disease. N Engl J Med 2011;365:307–17. 10.1056/NEJMoa1101029
    1. Larsen S, Krogsgaard DG, Aagaard Larsen L, et al. . Genetic and environmental influences in dupuytren’s disease: a study of 30,330 danish twin pairs. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2015;40:171–6. 10.1177/1753193414535720
    1. Early PF. Population studies in dupuytren’s contracture. Bone & Joint Journal 1962;44-B:602–13.
    1. Gudmundsson KG, Arngrímsson R, Sigfússon N, et al. . Epidemiology of dupuytren’s disease: Clinical, serological, and social assessment. The reykjavik study. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:291–6.
    1. Lanting R, Broekstra DC, Werker PM, et al. . A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of Dupuytren disease in the general population of Western countries. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;133:593–603. 10.1097/01.prs.0000438455.37604.0f
    1. McFarlane RM, McGrouther DA, Flint MH. Dupuytren’s disease: biology and treatment. Edinburgh; New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:451.
    1. Zhao JZ, Hadley S, Floyd E, et al. . The impact of collagenase clostridium histolyticum introduction on dupuytren treatment patterns in the United States. J Hand Surg Am 2016;41:963–8. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.090
    1. Atroshi I, Strandberg E, Lauritzson A, et al. . Costs for collagenase injections compared with fasciectomy in the treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004166 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004166
    1. Bradley J, Warwick D. Patient satisfaction with collagenase. J Hand Surg Am 2016;41:689–97. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.03.003
    1. Muppavarapu RC, Waters MJ, Leibman MI, et al. . Clinical outcomes following collagenase injections compared to fasciectomy in the treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture. Hand 2015;10:260–5. 10.1007/s11552-014-9704-0
    1. Mehta S, Belcher HJ. A single-centre cost comparison analysis of collagenase injection versus surgical fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s contracture of the hand. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014;67:368–72. 10.1016/j.bjps.2013.12.030
    1. Nydick JA, Olliff BW, Garcia MJ, et al. . A comparison of percutaneous needle fasciotomy and collagenase injection for dupuytren disease. J Hand Surg Am 2013;38:2377–80. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.08.096
    1. Rodrigues JN, Becker GW, Ball C, et al. . Surgery for dupuytren’s contracture of the fingers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015(12):CD010143 10.1002/14651858.CD010143.pub2
    1. Strömberg J, Ibsen-Sörensen A, Fridén J. Comparison of treatment outcome after collagenase and needle fasciotomy for dupuytren contracture: a randomized, single-blinded, clinical trial with a 1-year follow-up. J Hand Surg Am 2016;41:873–80. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.06.014
    1. Tay TK, Tien H, Lim EY. Comparison between collagenase injection and partial fasciectomy in the treatment of dupuytren’s contracture. Hand Surg 2015;20:386–90. 10.1142/S0218810415500288
    1. van Rijssen AL, Gerbrandy FS, Ter Linden H, et al. . A comparison of the direct outcomes of percutaneous needle fasciotomy and limited fasciectomy for dupuytren’s disease: a 6-week follow-up study. J Hand Surg Am 2006;31:717–25. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.02.021
    1. van Rijssen AL, ter Linden H, Werker PM. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial on treatment in Dupuytren’s disease: percutaneous needle fasciotomy versus limited fasciectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129:469–77. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aea95
    1. Skov ST, Bisgaard T, Søndergaard P, et al. . Injectable collagenase versus percutaneous needle fasciotomy for dupuytren contracture in proximal interphalangeal joints: a randomized controlled trial. J Hand Surg Am 2017;42:321–8. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.03.003
    1. Zhou C, Hovius SE, Slijper HP, et al. . Collagenase clostridium histolyticum versus limited fasciectomy for dupuytren’s contracture: outcomes from a multicenter propensity score matched study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;136:87–97. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001320
    1. Scherman P, Jenmalm P, Dahlin LB. One-year results of needle fasciotomy and collagenase injection in treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture: A two-centre prospective randomized clinical trial. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2016;41:577–82. 10.1177/1753193415617385
    1. Naam NH. Functional outcome of collagenase injections compared with fasciectomy in treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture. Hand 2013;8:410–6. 10.1007/s11552-013-9540-7
    1. Rodrigo JJ, Niebauer JJ, Brown RL, et al. . Treatment of dupuytren’s contracture. long-term results after fasciotomy and fascial excision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976;58:380–7. 10.2106/00004623-197658030-00016
    1. Kotkansalo T, Taskinen H, Booth N, et al. . The effectiveness safety and cost of collagenase injection treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture. Finnish Medical Journal 2013;68:3007–12.
    1. Neuwirth M, Binter A, Pipam W, et al. . [Comparative cost effectiveness of clostridium histolyticum collagenase (xiapex®) and partial fasciectomy for the treatment of dupuytren’s contracture in Austria]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2016;48:233–8. 10.1055/s-0042-108803
    1. Herrera FA, Benhaim P, Suliman A, et al. . Cost comparison of open fasciectomy versus percutaneous needle aponeurotomy for treatment of dupuytren contracture. Ann Plast Surg 2013;70:454–6. 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31827e531d
    1. Tubiana R, Michon J. Classification de la maladie de dupuytren. Mém Acad Chir 1961;87:886–7.
    1. Tubach F, Dougados M, Falissard B, et al. . Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:526–30. 10.1002/art.22110
    1. Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB. Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66(Suppl 3):iii40–1. 10.1136/ard.2007.079798
    1. Hurst LC, Badalamente MA, Hentz VR, et al. . Injectable collagenase clostridium histolyticum for dupuytren’s contracture. N Engl J Med 2009;361:968–79. 10.1056/NEJMoa0810866
    1. Werker PM, Pess GM, van Rijssen AL, et al. . Correction of contracture and recurrence rates of Dupuytren contracture following invasive treatment: the importance of clear definitions. J Hand Surg Am 2012;37:2095–105. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.06.032
    1. Rodrigues JN, Zhang W, Scammell BE, et al. . Dynamism in dupuytren’s contractures. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2015;40:166–70. 10.1177/1753193414529074

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit