Aims. The aim of this trial was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a soft bandage and immediate discharge, compared with rigid immobilization, in children aged four to 15 years with a torus fracture of the distal radius. Methods. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective, as well as a broader societal point of view. Health resources and quality of life (the youth version of the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-Y)) data were collected, as part of the Forearm Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) multicentre randomized controlled trial over a six-week period, using trial case report forms and patient-completed questionnaires. Costs and health gains (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) were estimated for the two trial treatment groups. Regression was used to estimate the probability of the new treatment being cost-effective at a range of ‘willingness-to-pay’ thresholds, which reflect a range of costs per QALY at which governments are typically prepared to reimburse for treatment. Results. The offer of a soft bandage significantly reduced cost per patient (saving £12.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) -£5.30 to £19.80)) while QALYs were similar (QALY difference between groups: 0.0013 (95% CI -0.0004 to 0.003)). The high probability (95%) that offering a bandage is a cost-effective option was consistent when examining the data in a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. In addition to the known clinical equivalence, this study found that the offer of a bandage reduced cost compared with rigid immobilization among children with a torus fracture of the distal radius. While the cost saving was small for each patient, the high frequency of these injuries indicates a significant saving across the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):623–630

Torus (buckle) fractures of the distal radius are common in childhood. Based on the results of a postal questionnaire and a prospective, randomised trial, we describe a simple treatment for this injury, which saves both time and money.

Over a six-month period, we randomised 201 consecutive patients with this injury to treatment with either a traditional forearm plaster-of-Paris cast or a ‘Futura-type’ wrist splint. All patients were treated for a period of three weeks, followed by clinical and radiological review.

There was no difference in outcome between the two groups, and all patients had a good result. Only one patient did not tolerate the splint which was replaced by a cast.

The questionnaire showed a marked variation in the way in which these injuries are treated with regard to the method and period of immobilisation, the number of follow-up visits and radiographs taken.

We suggest that a ‘Futura-type’ wrist splint can be used to treat these fractures. The patient should be reviewed on the following day to confirm the diagnosis and to give appropriate advice. There is no evidence that further follow-up is required.

This simple treatment has major benefits in terms of cost and reduction of the number of attendances.