Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 4, Issue 3 | Pages 188 - 197
15 Mar 2023
Pearson NA Tutton E Gwilym SE Joeris A Grant R Keene DJ Haywood KL

Aims

To systematically review qualitative studies of patients with distal tibia or ankle fracture, and explore their experience of injury and recovery.

Methods

We undertook a systematic review of qualitative studies. Five databases were searched from inception to 1 February 2022. All titles and abstracts were screened, and a subset were independently assessed. Methodological quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. The GRADE-CERQual checklist was used to assign confidence ratings. Thematic synthesis was used to analyze data with the identification of codes which were drawn together to form subthemes and then themes.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 3 | Pages 150 - 163
1 Mar 2021
Flett L Adamson J Barron E Brealey S Corbacho B Costa ML Gedney G Giotakis N Hewitt C Hugill-Jones J Hukins D Keding A McDaid C Mitchell A Northgraves M O'Carroll G Parker A Scantlebury A Stobbart L Torgerson D Turner E Welch C Sharma H

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.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 3 | Pages 290 - 294
1 Mar 2013
MacLeod K Lingham A Chatha H Lewis J Parkes A Grange S Smitham PJ

Clinicians are often asked by patients, “When can I drive again?” after lower limb injury or surgery. This question is difficult to answer in the absence of any guidelines. This review aims to collate the currently available evidence and discuss the factors that influence the decision to allow a patient to return to driving. Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched using the following terms: ‘brake reaction time’, ‘brake response time’, ‘braking force’, ‘brake pedal force’, ‘resume driving’, ‘rate of application of force’, ‘driving after injury’, ‘joint replacement and driving’, and ‘fracture and driving’. Of the relevant literature identified, most studies used the brake reaction time and total brake time as the outcome measures. Varying recovery periods were proposed based on the type and severity of injury or surgery. Surveys of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Police, insurance companies in the United Kingdom and Orthopaedic Surgeons offered a variety of opinions.

There is currently insufficient evidence for any authoritative body to determine fitness to drive. The lack of guidance could result in patients being withheld from driving for longer than is necessary, or returning to driving while still unsafe.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:290–4.