Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgery versus casting for elderly patients with Displaced intra-Articular type C distal Radius fractures: protocol of a randomised controlled Trial with economic evaluation (the DART study).

INTRODUCTION: Current literature is inconclusive about the optimal treatment of elderly patients with displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures. Cast treatment is less invasive and less expensive than surgical treatment. Nevertheless, surgery is often the preferred treatment for this common type of distal radius fracture. Patients with a non-acceptable position after closed reduction are more likely to benefit from surgery than patients with an acceptable position after closed reduction. Therefore, this study aims to assess non-inferiority of functional outcomes after casting versus surgery in elderly patients with a non-acceptable position following a distal radius fracture. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a non-inferiority design and an economic evaluation alongside. The population consists of patients aged 65 years and older with a displaced intra-articular distal radius fracture with non-acceptable radiological characteristics following either inadequate reduction or redisplacement after adequate reduction. Patients will be randomised between surgical treatment (open reduction and internal fixation) and non-operative treatment (closed reduction followed by cast treatment). We will use two age strata (65-75 and >75 years of age) and a web-based mixed block randomisation. A total of 154 patients will be enrolled and evaluated with the patient-rated wrist evaluation as the primary outcome at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D), wrist range of motion, grip strength and adverse events. In addition, we will perform a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis from a societal and healthcare perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be presented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Research and Ethics Committee approved this RCT (NL56858.100.16). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal. We will present the results of this study at (inter)national conferences and disseminate the results through guideline committees. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03009890). Dutch Trial Registry (NTR6365).

Are the patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire used in distal radial fractures truly valid and reliable?

OBJECTIVES: The patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire are patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used for clinical and research purposes. Methodological high-quality clinimetric studies that determine the measurement properties of these PROMs when used in patients with a distal radial fracture are lacking. This study aimed to validate the PRWE and DASH in Dutch patients with a displaced distal radial fracture (DRF). METHODS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for test-retest reliability, between PROMs completed twice with a two-week interval at six to eight months after DRF. Internal consistency was determined using Cronbach's α for the dimensions found in the factor analysis. The measurement error was expressed by the smallest detectable change (SDC). A semi-structured interview was conducted between eight and 12 weeks after DRF to assess the content validity. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients (mean age 58 years (sd 15)), 74% female, completed PROMs at a mean time of six months (sd 1) post-fracture. One overall meaningful dimension was found for the PRWE and the DASH. Internal consistency was excellent for both PROMs (Cronbach's α 0.96 (PRWE) and 0.97 (DASH)). Test-retest reliability was good for the PRWE (ICC 0.87) and excellent for the DASH (ICC 0.91). The SDC was 20 for the PRWE and 14 for the DASH. No floor or ceiling effects were found. The content validity was good for both questionnaires. CONCLUSION: The PRWE and DASH are valid and reliable PROMs in assessing function and disability in Dutch patients with a displaced DRF. However, due to the high SDC, the PRWE and DASH are less useful for individual patients with a distal radial fracture in clinical practice.Cite this article: Y. V. Kleinlugtenbelt, R. G. Krol, M. Bhandari, J. C. Goslings, R. W. Poolman, V. A. B. Scholtes. Are the patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire used in distal radial fractures truly valid and reliable? Bone Joint Res 2018;7:36-45. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0081.R1.

Can experienced surgeons predict the additional value of a CT scan in patients with displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures?

There are no clear guidelines when an additional CT scan should be obtained for the treatment of displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures (DRF). This study aimed to investigate whether surgeons can predict the usefulness of CT scans to facilitate choice of treatment plan and/or pre-operative planning for DRF. Four surgeons evaluated 51 patients with displaced DRF. The choice of treatment (operative or nonoperative) was based on conventional radiographs. Subsequently, the surgeons were asked whether they would have requested an additional CT scan to determine this treatment choice, and also whether they required a CT scan for pre-operative planning. After 4 weeks, the additional CT scan was provided and the cases were assessed again. Based on these data, we calculated the number needed to scan (NNS) and number needed to harm (NNH) for two decision models. Model 1: Only provide a CT scan if the surgeon requested one based on their judgment of the X-rays. Model 2: CT scans for all displaced intra-articular DRF. For choice of treatment, the NNS was lower for model 1 than for model 2 (2.6 vs. 4.3) and the NNH is higher for model 1 (3.1 vs. 1.3). For pre-operative planning, the NNS (1.3 vs. 1.4) and NNH (3.7 vs. 3.4) were comparable for both models. Surgeons are able to predict the usefulness of an additional CT scan for intra-articular displaced DRF for OR indication. However, for pre-operative planning the usefulness of a CT scan is much harder to predict.

Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid? A critical assessment using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used to evaluate the outcome of treatment in patients with distal radial fractures. Which PROM to select is often based on assessment of measurement properties, such as validity and reliability. Measurement properties are assessed in clinimetric studies, and results are often reviewed without considering the methodological quality of these studies. Our aim was to systematically review the methodological quality of clinimetric studies that evaluated measurement properties of PROMs used in patients with distal radial fractures, and to make recommendations for the selection of PROMs based on the level of evidence of each individual measurement property. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases to identify relevant clinimetric studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies on measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Level of evidence (strong / moderate / limited / lacking) for each measurement property per PROM was determined by combining the methodological quality and the results of the different clinimetric studies. RESULTS: In all, 19 out of 1508 identified unique studies were included, in which 12 PROMs were rated. The Patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) were evaluated on most measurement properties. The evidence for the PRWE is moderate that its reliability, validity (content and hypothesis testing), and responsiveness are good. The evidence is limited that its internal consistency and cross-cultural validity are good, and its measurement error is acceptable. There is no evidence for its structural and criterion validity. The evidence for the DASH is moderate that its responsiveness is good. The evidence is limited that its reliability and the validity on hypothesis testing are good. There is no evidence for the other measurement properties. CONCLUSION: According to this systematic review, there is, at best, moderate evidence that the responsiveness of the PRWE and DASH are good, as are the reliability and validity of the PRWE. We recommend these PROMs in clinical studies in patients with distal radial fractures; however, more clinimetric studies of higher methodological quality are needed to adequately determine the other measurement properties.Cite this article: Dr Y. V. Kleinlugtenbelt. Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid?: A critical assessment using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:153-161. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000462.

Spectrum bias, a common unrecognised issue in orthopaedic agreement studies: do CT scans really influence the agreement on treatment plans in fractures of the distal radius?

OBJECTIVES: Current studies on the additional benefit of using computed tomography (CT) in order to evaluate the surgeons' agreement on treatment plans for fracture are inconsistent. This inconsistency can be explained by a methodological phenomenon called 'spectrum bias', defined as the bias inherent when investigators choose a population lacking therapeutic uncertainty for evaluation. The aim of the study is to determine the influence of spectrum bias on the intra-observer agreement of treatment plans for fractures of the distal radius. METHODS: Four surgeons evaluated 51 patients with displaced fractures of the distal radius at four time points: T1 and T2: conventional radiographs; T3 and T4: radiographs and additional CT scan (radiograph and CT). Choice of treatment plan (operative or non-operative) and therapeutic certainty (five-point scale: very uncertain to very certain) were rated. To determine the influence of spectrum bias, the intra-observer agreement was analysed, using Kappa statistics, for each degree of therapeutic certainty. RESULTS: In cases with high therapeutic certainty, intra-observer agreement based on radiograph was almost perfect (0.86 to 0.90), but decreased to moderate based on a radiograph and CT (0.47 to 0.60). In cases with high therapeutic uncertainty, intra-observer agreement was slight at best (-0.12 to 0.19), but increased to moderate based on the radiograph and CT (0.56 to 0.57). CONCLUSION: Spectrum bias influenced the outcome of this agreement study on treatment plans. An additional CT scan improves the intra-observer agreement on treatment plans for a fracture of the distal radius only when there is therapeutic uncertainty. Reporting and analysing intra-observer agreement based on the surgeon's level of certainty is an appropriate method to minimise spectrum bias. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2015;4:190-194.