Aims

During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing.

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Ethics and dissemination. This trial has been approved by the lead site Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (CHREB; REB14-2004) and local ethics boards at each participating site. Findings from the trial will be disseminated through presentations at regional, national, and international scientific conferences and public forums. The primary results and secondary findings will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):411–418

Aims. Fractures of the humeral shaft represent 3% to 5% of all fractures. The most common treatment for isolated humeral diaphysis fractures in the UK is non-operative using functional bracing, which carries a low risk of complications, but is associated with a longer healing time and a greater risk of nonunion than surgery. There is an increasing trend to surgical treatment, which may lead to quicker functional recovery and lower rates of fracture nonunion than functional bracing. However, surgery carries inherent risk, including infection, bleeding, and nerve damage. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of functional bracing compared to surgical fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Methods. The HUmeral SHaft (HUSH) fracture study is a multicentre, prospective randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures in adult patients. Participants will be randomized to receive either functional bracing or surgery. With 334 participants, the trial will have 90% power to detect a clinically important difference for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score, assuming 20% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include function, pain, quality of life, complications, cost-effectiveness, time off work, and ability to drive. Discussion. The results of this trial will provide evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness between surgical and non-surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Ethical approval has been obtained from East of England – Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee. Publication is anticipated to occur in 2024. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):343–349

Aims. Ankle fracture is one of the most common musculoskeletal injuries sustained in the UK. Many patients experience pain and physical impairment, with the consequences of the fracture and its management lasting for several months or even years. The broad aim of ankle fracture treatment is to maintain the alignment of the joint while the fracture heals, and to reduce the risks of problems, such as stiffness. More severe injuries to the ankle are routinely treated surgically. However, even with advances in surgery, there remains a risk of complications; for patients experiencing these, the associated loss of function and quality of life (Qol) is considerable. Non-surgical treatment is an alternative to surgery and involves applying a cast carefully shaped to the patient’s ankle to correct and maintain alignment of the joint with the key benefit being a reduction in the frequency of common complications of surgery. The main potential risk of non-surgical treatment is a loss of alignment with a consequent reduction in ankle function. This study aims to determine whether ankle function, four months after treatment, in patients with unstable ankle fractures treated with close contact casting is not worse than in those treated with surgical intervention, which is the current standard of care. Methods. This trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial with an embedded pilot, and with 12 months clinical follow-up and parallel economic analysis. A surveillance study using routinely collected data will be performed annually to five years post-treatment. Adult patients, aged 60 years and younger, with unstable ankle fractures will be identified in daily trauma meetings and fracture clinics and approached for recruitment prior to their treatment. Treatments will be performed in trauma units across the UK by a wide range of surgeons. Details of the surgical treatment, including how the operation is done, implant choice, and the recovery programme afterwards, will be at the discretion of the treating surgeon. The non-surgical treatment will be close-contact casting performed under anaesthetic, a technique which has gained in popularity since the publication of the Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial. In all, 890 participants (445 per group) will be randomly allocated to surgical or non-surgical treatment. Data regarding ankle function, QoL, complications, and healthcare-related costs will be collected at eight weeks, four and 12 months, and then annually for five years following treatment. The primary outcome measure is patient-reported ankle function at four months from treatment. Anticipated impact. The 12-month results will be presented and published internationally. This is anticipated to be the only pragmatic trial reporting outcomes comparing surgical with non-surgical treatment in unstable ankle fractures in younger adults (aged 60 years and younger), and, as such, will inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) ‘non-complex fracture’ recommendations at their scheduled update in 2024. A report of long-term outcomes at five years will be produced by January 2027. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):184–201

Aims

Is it feasible to conduct a definitive multicentre trial in community settings of corticosteroid injections (CSI) and hydrodilation (HD) compared to CSI for patients with frozen shoulder? An adequately powered definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) delivered in primary care will inform clinicians and the public whether hydrodilation is a clinically and cost-effective intervention. In this study, prior to a full RCT, we propose a feasibility trial to evaluate recruitment and retention by patient and clinician willingness of randomization; rates of withdrawal, crossover and attrition; and feasibility of outcome data collection from routine primary and secondary care data.