Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgery versus casting for elderly patients with D isplaced intra- A rticular type C distal R adius fractures: protocol of a randomised controlled T rial with economic evaluation (the DART study)

D P Ter Meulen, M A M Mulders, A A Kruiswijk, E J Kret, M E Slichter, J M van Dongen, G M M J Kerkhoffs, J C Goslings, Y V Kleinlugtenbelt, N W Willigenburg, N W L Schep, R W Poolman, DART Study Group, B A Twigt, A H van der Veen, Gjp Smits, E R Flikweert, Ebm Landman, Ejmm Verleisdonk, Kww Lansink, T Gosens, J W Colaris, B A van Dijkman, A J Dijkstra, M Rutgers, R G Zuurmond, S H van Helden, McQ Steinweg, N Oerlemans, B C van der Zwaard, S Romijn, Rjp van der Wal, J Vermeulen, C A Selles, P A Jawahier, B I Cleffken, D Haverkamp, A J Vochteloo, R Huis In 't Veld, R N van Veen, H R van den Berg, R Haverlag, M P Simons, A Rasker, Jpm Frölke, G A Kraan, Nmc Mathijssen, M R de Vries, N Sosef, A van Noort, I N Sierevelt, D P Ter Meulen, M A M Mulders, A A Kruiswijk, E J Kret, M E Slichter, J M van Dongen, G M M J Kerkhoffs, J C Goslings, Y V Kleinlugtenbelt, N W Willigenburg, N W L Schep, R W Poolman, DART Study Group, B A Twigt, A H van der Veen, Gjp Smits, E R Flikweert, Ebm Landman, Ejmm Verleisdonk, Kww Lansink, T Gosens, J W Colaris, B A van Dijkman, A J Dijkstra, M Rutgers, R G Zuurmond, S H van Helden, McQ Steinweg, N Oerlemans, B C van der Zwaard, S Romijn, Rjp van der Wal, J Vermeulen, C A Selles, P A Jawahier, B I Cleffken, D Haverkamp, A J Vochteloo, R Huis In 't Veld, R N van Veen, H R van den Berg, R Haverlag, M P Simons, A Rasker, Jpm Frölke, G A Kraan, Nmc Mathijssen, M R de Vries, N Sosef, A van Noort, I N Sierevelt

Abstract

Introduction: Current literature is inconclusive about the optimal treatment of elderly patients with displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures. Cast treatment is less invasive and less expensive than surgical treatment. Nevertheless, surgery is often the preferred treatment for this common type of distal radius fracture. Patients with a non-acceptable position after closed reduction are more likely to benefit from surgery than patients with an acceptable position after closed reduction. Therefore, this study aims to assess non-inferiority of functional outcomes after casting versus surgery in elderly patients with a non-acceptable position following a distal radius fracture.

Methods and analysis: This study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a non-inferiority design and an economic evaluation alongside. The population consists of patients aged 65 years and older with a displaced intra-articular distal radius fracture with non-acceptable radiological characteristics following either inadequate reduction or redisplacement after adequate reduction. Patients will be randomised between surgical treatment (open reduction and internal fixation) and non-operative treatment (closed reduction followed by cast treatment). We will use two age strata (65-75 and >75 years of age) and a web-based mixed block randomisation. A total of 154 patients will be enrolled and evaluated with the patient-rated wrist evaluation as the primary outcome at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D), wrist range of motion, grip strength and adverse events. In addition, we will perform a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis from a societal and healthcare perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be presented.

Ethics and dissemination: The Research and Ethics Committee approved this RCT (NL56858.100.16). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal. We will present the results of this study at (inter)national conferences and disseminate the results through guideline committees.

Trial registration number: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03009890). Dutch Trial Registry (NTR6365).

Keywords: clinical trials; hand & wrist; musculoskeletal disorders; orthopaedic & trauma surgery; trauma management.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. Bartl C, Stengel D, Bruckner T, et al. . The treatment of displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures in elderly patients. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2014;111:779–87. 10.3238/arztebl.2014.0779
    1. Diaz-Garcia RJ, Oda T, Shauver MJ, et al. . A systematic review of outcomes and complications of treating unstable distal radius fractures in the elderly. J Hand Surg Am 2011;36:824–35. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.02.005
    1. Ochen Y, Peek J, van der Velde D, et al. . Operative vs Nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e203497. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3497
    1. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Birkmeyer JD. Trends in the United States in the treatment of distal radial fractures in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:1868–73. 10.2106/JBJS.H.01297
    1. Polinder S, Iordens GIT, Panneman MJM, et al. . Trends in incidence and costs of injuries to the shoulder, arm and wrist in the Netherlands between 1986 and 2008. BMC Public Health 2013;13:531. 10.1186/1471-2458-13-531
    1. Hartholt KA, Polinder S, Van der Cammen TJM, et al. . Costs of falls in an ageing population: a nationwide study from the Netherlands (2007-2009). Injury 2012;43:1199–203. 10.1016/j.injury.2012.03.033
    1. Raudasoja L, Vastamäki H, Aspinen S. Deterioration of initially accepted radiological alignment of conservatively treated AO type-C distal radius fractures: mid-term outcome. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2020;30:1009–15. 10.1007/s00590-020-02659-6
    1. Knirk JL, Jupiter JB. Intra-Articular fractures of the distal end of the radius in young adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986;68:647–59. 10.2106/00004623-198668050-00003
    1. Arora R, Gabl M, Gschwentner M, et al. . A comparative study of clinical and radiologic outcomes of unstable Colles type distal radius fractures in patients older than 70 years: nonoperative treatment versus volar locking plating. J Orthop Trauma 2009;23:237–42. 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31819b24e9
    1. Arora R, Lutz M, Deml C, et al. . A prospective randomized trial comparing nonoperative treatment with volar locking plate fixation for displaced and unstable distal radial fractures in patients sixty-five years of age and older. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:2146–53. 10.2106/JBJS.J.01597
    1. Anzarut A, Johnson JA, Rowe BH, et al. . Radiologic and patient-reported functional outcomes in an elderly cohort with conservatively treated distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am 2004;29:1121–7. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.07.002
    1. Young BT, Rayan GM. Outcome following nonoperative treatment of displaced distal radius fractures in low-demand patients older than 60 years. J Hand Surg Am 2000;25:19–28. 10.1053/jhsu.2000.jhsu025a0019
    1. Synn AJ, Makhni EC, Makhni MC, et al. . Distal radius fractures in older patients: is anatomic reduction necessary? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:1612–20. 10.1007/s11999-008-0660-2
    1. Mulders MAM, Walenkamp MMJ, van Dieren S, et al. . Volar plate fixation versus plaster immobilization in Acceptably reduced extra-articular distal radial fractures: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019;101:787–96. 10.2106/JBJS.18.00693
    1. Brink PRG BN, Deijkers RLM, van Eerten PV. Guideline distal radius fractures: diagnosis and treatment, 2010. Available:
    1. Brink SM, Voskamp EG, Houpt P, et al. . Psychometric properties of the Patient Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation - Dutch Language Version (PRWH/E-DLV). J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2009;34:556–7. 10.1177/1753193409103733
    1. El Moumni M, Van Eck ME, Wendt KW, et al. . Structural validity of the Dutch version of the Patient-Rated wrist evaluation (PRWE-NL) in patients with hand and wrist injuries. Phys Ther 2016;96:908–16. 10.2522/ptj.20140589
    1. Kleinlugtenbelt YV, Krol RG, Bhandari M, et al. . Are the patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire used in distal radial fractures truly valid and reliable? Bone Joint Res 2018;7:36–45. 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0081.R1
    1. Changulani M, Okonkwo U, Keswani T, et al. . Outcome evaluation measures for wrist and hand: which one to choose? Int Orthop 2008;32:1–6. 10.1007/s00264-007-0368-z
    1. Sorensen AA, Howard D, Tan WH, et al. . Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am 2013;38:641–9. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.12.032
    1. Veehof MM, Sleegers EJA, van Veldhoven NHMJ, et al. . Psychometric qualities of the Dutch language version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH-DLV). J Hand Ther 2002;15:347–54. 10.1016/S0894-1130(02)80006-0
    1. Rundgren J, Enocson A, Mellstrand Navarro C, et al. . Responsiveness of EQ-5D in patients with a distal radius fracture. Hand 2018;13:572–80. 10.1177/1558944717725378
    1. Peters LL, Boter H, Burgerhof JGM, et al. . Construct validity of the Groningen frailty indicator established in a large sample of home-dwelling elderly persons: evidence of stability across age and gender. Exp Gerontol 2015;69:129–41. 10.1016/j.exger.2015.05.006
    1. Bohannon RW. Grip strength: an indispensable biomarker for older adults. Clin Interv Aging 2019;14:1681–91. 10.2147/CIA.S194543
    1. Van Damme S, Crombez G, Bijttebier P, et al. . A confirmatory factor analysis of the pain Catastrophizing scale: invariant factor structure across clinical and non-clinical populations. Pain 2002;96:319–24. 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00463-8
    1. Acosta J, Tang P, Regal S, et al. . Investigating the bias in orthopaedic patient-reported outcome measures by mode of administration: a meta-analysis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2020;4:e20.00194–194. 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-20-00194
    1. Sealed envelope Ltd. 2012. power calculator for continuous outcome non-inferiority trial. Available: [Accessed 02 Feb 2021].
    1. Brouwer WBF, van Exel NJA, Baltussen RMPM, et al. . A dollar is a dollar is a dollar--or is it? Value Health 2006;9:341–7. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00123.x
    1. Drummond MFS, Stoddart GL, et al. . Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4 edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
    1. Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Linden NVder, Bouwmans C. Tim Kanters, and Siok Swan Tan., Methodologie van kostenonderzoek en referentieprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg in opdracht van Zorginstituut Nederland Geactualiseerde versie. Handleiding Voor Kostenonderzoek. C.V. Zorgverzekeringen, 2015.
    1. Lamers LM, Stalmeier PFM, McDonnell J, et al. . [Measuring the quality of life in economic evaluations: the Dutch EQ-5D tariff]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005;149:1574–8.
    1. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99. 10.1002/sim.4067
    1. Gomes M, Grieve R, Nixon R, et al. . Methods for covariate adjustment in cost-effectiveness analysis that use cluster randomised trials. Health Econ 2012;21:1101–18. 10.1002/hec.2812
    1. Bosmans JE, de Bruijne MC, van Hout HPJ, et al. . Practical guidelines for economic evaluations alongside equivalence trials. Value Health 2008;11:251–8. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00245.x
    1. Fenwick E, Marshall DA, Levy AR, et al. . Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation. BMC Health Serv Res 2006;6:52. 10.1186/1472-6963-6-52
    1. Drummond MF SM, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3 edn. New York: O University, 2005.
    1. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng Y-S, et al. . Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15. 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever