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
Aims. This study sought to estimate the clinical outcomes and describe the nationwide variation in practice, as part of the feasibility workup for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended randomized clinical trial to determine the optimal treatment of
Torus fractures of the distal radius are the most common fractures in children. The NICE non-complex fracture guidelines recently concluded that bandaging was probably the optimal treatment for these injuries. However, across the UK current treatment varies widely due to a lack of evidence underpinning the guidelines. The Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) trial evaluates the effect of a soft bandage and immediate discharge compared with rigid immobilization. FORCE is a multicentre, parallel group randomized controlled equivalence trial. The primary outcome is the Wong-Baker FACES pain score at three days after randomization and the primary analysis of this outcome will use a multivariate linear regression model to compare the two groups. Secondary outcomes are measured at one and seven days, and three and six-weeks post-randomization and include the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity limb score, EuroQoL EQ-5D-Y, analgesia use, school absence, complications, and healthcare resource use. The planned statistical and health economic analyses for this trial are described here. The FORCE trial protocol has been published separately.Aims
Methods
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.