Isolated fractures of the ulnar diaphysis are uncommon, occurring at a rate of 0.02 to 0.04 per 1,000 cases. Despite their infrequency, these fractures commonly give rise to complications, such as nonunion, limited forearm pronation and supination, restricted elbow range of motion, radioulnar synostosis, and prolonged pain. Treatment options for this injury remain a topic of debate, with limited research available and no consensus on the optimal approach. Therefore, this trial aims to compare clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes of two treatment methods: open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus nonoperative treatment in patients with isolated ulnar diaphyseal fractures. This will be a multicentre, open-label, parallel randomized clinical trial (under National Clinical Trial number NCT01123447), accompanied by a parallel prospective cohort group for patients who meet the inclusion criteria, but decline randomization. Eligible patients will be randomized to one of the two treatment groups: 1) nonoperative treatment with closed reduction and below-elbow casting; or 2) surgical treatment with ORIF utilizing a limited contact dynamic compression plate and screw construct. The primary outcome measured will be the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score at 12 months post-injury. Additionally, functional outcomes will be assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and pain visual analogue scale, allowing for a comparison of outcomes between groups. Secondary outcome measures will encompass clinical outcomes such as range of motion and grip strength, radiological parameters including time to union, as well as economic outcomes assessed from enrolment to 12 months post-injury.Aims
Methods
Treatment of Weber B ankle fractures that are stable on weightbearing radiographs but unstable on concomitant stress tests (classified SER4a) is controversial. Recent studies indicate that these fractures should be treated nonoperatively, but no studies have compared alternative nonoperative options. This study aims to evaluate patient-reported outcomes and the safety of fracture treatment using functional orthosis versus cast immobilization. A total of 110 patients with Weber B/SER4a ankle fractures will be randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive six weeks of functional orthosis treatment or cast immobilization with a two-year follow-up. The primary outcome is patient-reported ankle function and symptoms measured by the Manchester-Oxford Foot and Ankle Questionnaire (MOxFQ); secondary outcomes include Olerud-Molander Ankle Score, radiological evaluation of ankle congruence in weightbearing and gravity stress tests, and rates of treatment-related adverse events. The Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research (approval number 277693) has granted ethical approval, and the study is funded by South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority (grant number 2023014).Aims
Methods
Lower limb fractures are common in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and represent a significant burden to the existing orthopaedic surgical infrastructure. In high income country (HIC) settings, internal fixation is the standard of care due to its superior outcomes. In LMICs, external fixation is often the surgical treatment of choice due to limited supplies, cost considerations, and its perceived lower complication rate. The aim of this systematic review protocol is identifying differences in rates of infection, nonunion, and malunion of extra-articular femoral and tibial shaft fractures in LMICs treated with either internal or external fixation. This systematic review protocol describes a broad search of multiple databases to identify eligible papers. Studies must be published after 2000, include at least five patients, patients must be aged > 16 years or treated as skeletally mature, and the paper must describe a fracture of interest and at least one of our primary outcomes of interest. We did not place restrictions on language or journal. All abstracts and full texts will be screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias and quality of evidence will be analyzed using standardized appraisal tools. A random-effects meta-analysis followed by a subgroup analysis will be performed, given the anticipated heterogeneity among studies, if sufficient data are available.Aims
Methods
