Aims. A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial. Methods. We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment. Results. Recruiters faced four common obstacles when recruiting to a surgical orthopaedic trial: patient preferences for an intervention; a complex recruitment pathway; various logistical issues; and conflicting views on equipoise. Clinicians expressed concerns that the trial may not show significant differences in the treatments, validating their equipoise. However, they experienced role conflicts due to their own preference and perceived patient preference for an intervention arm. Conclusion. This study provided initial information about barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial. We shared these findings in an all-site investigators’ meeting and encouraged researchers to find solutions to identified barriers; this led to the successful completion of recruitment. Complex trials may benefit for using of a mixed-methods approach to mitigate against recruitment failure, and to improve patient participation and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):631–637

Aims. The optimal management of posterior malleolar ankle fractures, a prevalent type of ankle trauma, is essential for improved prognosis. However, there remains a debate over the most effective surgical approach, particularly between screw and plate fixation methods. This study aims to investigate the differences in outcomes associated with these fixation techniques. Methods. We conducted a comprehensive review of clinical trials comparing anteroposterior (A-P) screws, posteroanterior (P-A) screws, and plate fixation. Two investigators validated the data sourced from multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science). Following PRISMA guidelines, we carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using visual analogue scale and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included range of motion limitations, radiological outcomes, and complication rates. Results. The NMA encompassed 13 studies, consisting of four randomized trials and eight retrospective ones. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve-based ranking, the A-P screw was ranked highest for improvements in AOFAS and exhibited lowest in infection and peroneal nerve injury incidence. The P-A screws, on the other hand, excelled in terms of VAS score improvements. Conversely, posterior buttress plate fixation showed the least incidence of osteoarthritis grade progression, postoperative articular step-off ≥ 2 mm, nonunions, and loss of ankle dorsiflexion ≥ 5°, though it underperformed in most other clinical outcomes. Conclusion. The NMA suggests that open plating is more likely to provide better radiological outcomes, while screw fixation may have a greater potential for superior functional and pain results. Nevertheless, clinicians should still consider the fragment size and fracture pattern, weighing the advantages of rigid biomechanical fixation against the possibility of soft-tissue damage, to optimize treatment results. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):227–235

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to present the mid-term follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) which compared the functional outcome following routine removal (RR) to the outcome following on-demand removal (ODR) of the syndesmotic screw (SS). Methods. All patients included in the ‘ROutine vs on DEmand removal Of the syndesmotic screw’ (RODEO) trial received the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Hindfoot Score (AOFAS), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Out of the 152 patients, 109 (71.7%) completed the mid-term follow-up questionnaire and were included in this study (53 treated with RR and 56 with ODR). Median follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range 43.0 to 56.0) since the initial surgical treatment of the acute syndesmotic injury. The primary outcome of this study consisted of the OMAS scores of the two groups. Results. The median OMAS score was 85.0 for patients treated with RR, and 90.0 for patients treated with ODR (p = 0.384), indicating no significant difference between ODR and RR. The secondary outcome measures included the AOFAS (88.0 in the RR group and 90.0 for ODR; p = 0.722), FAOS (87.5 in the RR group and 92.9 for ODR; p = 0.399), and EQ-5D (0.87 in the RR group and 0.96 for ODR; p = 0.092). Conclusion. This study demonstrated no functional difference comparing ODR to RR in syndesmotic injuries at a four year follow-up period, which supports the results of the primary RODEO trial. ODR should be the standard practice after syndesmotic screw fixation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):957–963

Aims. To compare the cost-utility of removable brace compared with cast in the management of adult patients with ankle fracture. Methods. A within-trial economic evaluation conducted from the UK NHS and personnel social services (PSS) perspective. Health resources and quality-of-life data were collected as part of the Ankle Injury Rehabilitation (AIR) multicentre, randomized controlled trial over a 12-month period using trial case report forms and patient-completed questionnaires. Cost-utility analysis was estimated in terms of the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Estimate uncertainty was explored by bootstrapping, visualized on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio plane. Net monetary benefit and probability of cost-effectiveness were evaluated at a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds and visualized graphically. Results. The incremental cost and QALYs of using brace over a 12-month period were £46.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) £-9 to £147) and 0.0141 (95% CI -0.005 to 0.033), respectively. The cost per QALY gained was £3,318. The probability of brace being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold was 88%. The results remained robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. This within-trial economic evaluation found that it is probable that using a removable brace provides good value to the NHS when compared to cast, in the management of adults with ankle fracture. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):455–462

Aims. A pilon fracture is a severe ankle joint injury caused by high-energy trauma, typically affecting men of working age. Although relatively uncommon (5% to 7% of all tibial fractures), this injury causes among the worst functional and health outcomes of any skeletal injury, with a high risk of serious complications and long-term disability, and with devastating consequences on patients’ quality of life and financial prospects. Robust evidence to guide treatment is currently lacking. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two surgical interventions that are most commonly used to treat pilon fractures. Methods. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 334 adult patients diagnosed with a closed type C pilon fracture will be conducted. Internal locking plate fixation will be compared with external frame fixation. The primary outcome and endpoint will be the Disability Rating Index (a patient self-reported assessment of physical disability) at 12 months. This will also be measured at baseline, three, six, and 24 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes include the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), the five-level EuroQol five-dimenison score (EQ-5D-5L), complications (including bone healing), resource use, work impact, and patient treatment preference. The acceptability of the treatments and study design to patients and health care professionals will be explored through qualitative methods. Discussion. The two treatments being compared are the most commonly used for this injury, however there is uncertainty over which is most clinically and cost-effective. The Articular Pilon Fracture (ACTIVE) Trial is a sufficiently powered and rigorously designed study to inform clinical decisions for the treatment of adults with this injury. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(3):150–163

Aims

The Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant (SCI) entered mainstream use in the management of first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) arthritis following the positive results of large trials in 2016. Limited information is available on the longer-term outcomes of this implant within the literature, particularly when independent from the originator. This single-centre cohort study investigates the efficacy of the Cartiva SCI at up to five years.

Aims

The rationale for exacting restoration of skeletal anatomy after unstable ankle fracture is to improve outcomes by reducing complications from malunion; however, current definitions of malunion lack confirmatory clinical evidence.

Aims

To identify a core outcome set of postoperative radiographic measurements to assess technical skill in ankle fracture open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), and to validate these against Van der Vleuten’s criteria for effective assessment.