踝关节骨折术后即刻负重与非负重的比较:INWN实用、随机、多中心试验的结果。

Ramy Khojaly,Fiachra E Rowan,Vinay Shah,Matthew Nagle,Muhammad Shahab,Amir Sohaib Ahmad,Darren Dahly,Colm Taylor,Ruairí Mac Niocaill,May Cleary
{"title":"踝关节骨折术后即刻负重与非负重的比较:INWN实用、随机、多中心试验的结果。","authors":"Ramy Khojaly,Fiachra E Rowan,Vinay Shah,Matthew Nagle,Muhammad Shahab,Amir Sohaib Ahmad,Darren Dahly,Colm Taylor,Ruairí Mac Niocaill,May Cleary","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.00965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nThere has been weak consensus and a paucity of robust literature with regard to the best postoperative weight-bearing and immobilization regime for operatively treated ankle fractures. This trial compared immediate protected weight-bearing (IWB) with non-weight-bearing (NWB) with cast immobilization following ankle fracture fixation (open reduction and internal fixation [ORIF]), with a particular focus on functional outcomes, complication rates, and cost utility.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nThis INWN (Is postoperative Non-Weight-bearing Necessary?) study was a prospective, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial (RCT), with participants allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 1 of 2 parallel groups. IWB from postoperative day 1 in a walking boot was compared with NWB and immobilization in a cast for 6 weeks, following ORIF of all standard types of unstable ankle fractures. Skeletally immature patients and patients with tibial plafond fractures were excluded. The type of surgical fixation was at the surgeon's discretion. Patients were randomized postoperatively by an operating room nurse using computerized block randomization (20 patients per block). Surgeons were blinded until after the operation. The study was multicenter and included 2 major orthopaedic centers in Ireland. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was the functional outcome assessed by the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) at 6 weeks. A cost-utility analysis via decision tree modeling was performed to derive an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nWe recruited 160 patients between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, with 80 patients per arm, who were 15 to 94 years of age (mean age, 45.5 years), and 54% of patients were female. The IWB group demonstrated a higher mean OMAS at 6 weeks (43 ± 24 for the IWB group and 35 ± 20 for the NWB group, with a mean difference of 10.4; p = 0.005). The complication rates were similar in both groups, including surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, implant removal, and further operations. Over a 1-year horizon, IWB was associated with a lower expected cost (€1,027.68) than NWB (€1,825.70) as well as a higher health benefit (0.741 quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) than NWB (0.704 QALY). IWB dominated NWB, yielding cost savings of €798.02 and a QALY gain of 0.04.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nIWB in a walking boot following ankle fracture fixation demonstrated superior functional outcomes, greater cost savings, earlier return to work, and similar complication rates compared with NWB in a cast for 6 weeks. These findings support the implementation of IWB as the routine mobilization protocol following ankle fracture fixation.\r\n\r\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\r\nTherapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Immediate Weight-Bearing Compared with Non-Weight-Bearing After Operative Ankle Fracture Fixation: Results of the INWN Pragmatic, Randomized, Multicenter Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Ramy Khojaly,Fiachra E Rowan,Vinay Shah,Matthew Nagle,Muhammad Shahab,Amir Sohaib Ahmad,Darren Dahly,Colm Taylor,Ruairí Mac Niocaill,May Cleary\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/jbjs.24.00965\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nThere has been weak consensus and a paucity of robust literature with regard to the best postoperative weight-bearing and immobilization regime for operatively treated ankle fractures. This trial compared immediate protected weight-bearing (IWB) with non-weight-bearing (NWB) with cast immobilization following ankle fracture fixation (open reduction and internal fixation [ORIF]), with a particular focus on functional outcomes, complication rates, and cost utility.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nThis INWN (Is postoperative Non-Weight-bearing Necessary?) study was a prospective, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial (RCT), with participants allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 1 of 2 parallel groups. IWB from postoperative day 1 in a walking boot was compared with NWB and immobilization in a cast for 6 weeks, following ORIF of all standard types of unstable ankle fractures. Skeletally immature patients and patients with tibial plafond fractures were excluded. The type of surgical fixation was at the surgeon's discretion. Patients were randomized postoperatively by an operating room nurse using computerized block randomization (20 patients per block). Surgeons were blinded until after the operation. The study was multicenter and included 2 major orthopaedic centers in Ireland. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was the functional outcome assessed by the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) at 6 weeks. A cost-utility analysis via decision tree modeling was performed to derive an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nWe recruited 160 patients between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, with 80 patients per arm, who were 15 to 94 years of age (mean age, 45.5 years), and 54% of patients were female. The IWB group demonstrated a higher mean OMAS at 6 weeks (43 ± 24 for the IWB group and 35 ± 20 for the NWB group, with a mean difference of 10.4; p = 0.005). The complication rates were similar in both groups, including surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, implant removal, and further operations. Over a 1-year horizon, IWB was associated with a lower expected cost (€1,027.68) than NWB (€1,825.70) as well as a higher health benefit (0.741 quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) than NWB (0.704 QALY). IWB dominated NWB, yielding cost savings of €798.02 and a QALY gain of 0.04.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nIWB in a walking boot following ankle fracture fixation demonstrated superior functional outcomes, greater cost savings, earlier return to work, and similar complication rates compared with NWB in a cast for 6 weeks. These findings support the implementation of IWB as the routine mobilization protocol following ankle fracture fixation.\\r\\n\\r\\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\\r\\nTherapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.00965\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.00965","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:关于手术治疗踝关节骨折的最佳术后负重和固定方案,目前还缺乏共识和可靠的文献。该试验比较了踝关节骨折固定(切开复位内固定[ORIF])后立即保护负重(IWB)和非负重(NWB)石膏固定,特别关注功能结局、并发症发生率和成本效用。方法本研究是一项前瞻性、实用性、随机对照试验(RCT),参与者按1:1的比例分配到2个平行组中的1个。在所有标准类型的不稳定踝关节骨折ORIF后,将术后第1天步行靴内的IWB与NWB和石膏固定6周进行比较。排除骨未成熟患者和胫骨平台骨折患者。手术固定的类型由外科医生决定。术后患者由一名手术室护士采用计算机化分组随机化(每个分组20例患者)进行随机化。手术结束前,外科医生都是盲人。该研究是多中心的,包括爱尔兰的两个主要骨科中心。在意向治疗基础上进行分析。主要结局是6周时通过Olerud-Molander踝关节评分(OMAS)评估的功能结局。通过决策树模型进行成本效用分析,得出增量成本效益比(ICER)。结果我们在2019年1月1日至2020年6月30日期间招募了160例患者,每组80例患者,年龄在15至94岁之间(平均年龄45.5岁),54%的患者为女性。IWB组在6周时表现出更高的平均OMAS (IWB组为43±24,NWB组为35±20,平均差异为10.4;P = 0.005)。两组的并发症发生率相似,包括手术部位感染、伤口裂开、植入物移除和进一步手术。在1年的时间跨度内,IWB的预期成本(1027.68欧元)低于NWB(1825.70欧元),健康效益(0.741质量调整生命年[QALY])高于NWB (0.704 QALY)。IWB以NWB为主,节省成本798.02欧元,QALY收益0.04欧元。结论:与使用石膏固定6周的NWB相比,在踝关节骨折固定后使用步行靴的siwb具有更好的功能预后、更大的成本节约、更早的重返工作岗位和相似的并发症发生率。这些发现支持IWB作为踝关节骨折固定后常规活动方案的实施。证据级别:治疗性i级。参见《作者说明》获得证据级别的完整描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Immediate Weight-Bearing Compared with Non-Weight-Bearing After Operative Ankle Fracture Fixation: Results of the INWN Pragmatic, Randomized, Multicenter Trial.
BACKGROUND There has been weak consensus and a paucity of robust literature with regard to the best postoperative weight-bearing and immobilization regime for operatively treated ankle fractures. This trial compared immediate protected weight-bearing (IWB) with non-weight-bearing (NWB) with cast immobilization following ankle fracture fixation (open reduction and internal fixation [ORIF]), with a particular focus on functional outcomes, complication rates, and cost utility. METHODS This INWN (Is postoperative Non-Weight-bearing Necessary?) study was a prospective, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial (RCT), with participants allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 1 of 2 parallel groups. IWB from postoperative day 1 in a walking boot was compared with NWB and immobilization in a cast for 6 weeks, following ORIF of all standard types of unstable ankle fractures. Skeletally immature patients and patients with tibial plafond fractures were excluded. The type of surgical fixation was at the surgeon's discretion. Patients were randomized postoperatively by an operating room nurse using computerized block randomization (20 patients per block). Surgeons were blinded until after the operation. The study was multicenter and included 2 major orthopaedic centers in Ireland. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was the functional outcome assessed by the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) at 6 weeks. A cost-utility analysis via decision tree modeling was performed to derive an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS We recruited 160 patients between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, with 80 patients per arm, who were 15 to 94 years of age (mean age, 45.5 years), and 54% of patients were female. The IWB group demonstrated a higher mean OMAS at 6 weeks (43 ± 24 for the IWB group and 35 ± 20 for the NWB group, with a mean difference of 10.4; p = 0.005). The complication rates were similar in both groups, including surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, implant removal, and further operations. Over a 1-year horizon, IWB was associated with a lower expected cost (€1,027.68) than NWB (€1,825.70) as well as a higher health benefit (0.741 quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) than NWB (0.704 QALY). IWB dominated NWB, yielding cost savings of €798.02 and a QALY gain of 0.04. CONCLUSIONS IWB in a walking boot following ankle fracture fixation demonstrated superior functional outcomes, greater cost savings, earlier return to work, and similar complication rates compared with NWB in a cast for 6 weeks. These findings support the implementation of IWB as the routine mobilization protocol following ankle fracture fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信