Search

Background: Various treatment approaches for individuals with ankle sprains can reduce treatment costs and enhance recovery. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of spring ankle braces with splints and casts in treating ankle sprains. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study involved 60 patients diagnosed with ankle sprains at the orthopedic clinic of Imam Khomeini Hospital in Jiroft in 2022. Following diagnosis confirmation through additional examinations and imaging, patients with ankle sprains not requiring surgery were selected and placed in two groups: one treated with spring ankle braces and the other with splints or casts. Both groups underwent a 4-week treatment regimen, comprising 30 individuals each. Data were collected and analyzed using SPSS version 26. Results: The average age of patients was 32.5 ± 13.4 years. Of the ankle sprain patients, 56.7% were male. Patients reported the highest satisfaction levels with the plaster cast treatment method. A statistically significant relationship was found between patient satisfaction and the treatment methods of spring ankle braces and plaster casting (P < 0.05). Patients treated with plaster casts reported the lowest pain levels, with a significant relationship between pain levels and the two treatment methods (P < 0.05). Range of motion results were similar for both treatment methods, while the cast treatment showed the highest incidence of skin complications. A significant relationship was observed between spring ankle braces and plaster casts regarding skin complications (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Treating ankle sprains with plaster casts leads to higher satisfaction and lower pain levels compared to using spring ankle braces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Various treatment approaches for individuals with ankle sprains can reduce treatment costs and enhance recovery. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of spring ankle braces with splints and casts in treating ankle sprains. Materials and methods This cross-sectional study involved 60 patients diagnosed with ankle sprains at the orthopedic clinic of Imam Khomeini Hospital in Jiroft in 2022. Following diagnosis confirmation through additional examinations and imaging, patients with ankle sprains not requiring surgery were selected and placed in two groups: one treated with spring ankle braces and the other with splints or casts. Both groups underwent a 4-week treatment regimen, comprising 30 individuals each. Data were collected and analyzed using SPSS version 26. Results The average age of patients was 32.5 ± 13.4 years. Of the ankle sprain patients, 56.7% were male. Patients reported the highest satisfaction levels with the plaster cast treatment method. A statistically significant relationship was found between patient satisfaction and the treatment methods of spring ankle braces and plaster casting (P

Abstract Background There is no consensus concerning the optimal casting technique for displaced distal radius fractures (DRFs) following closed reduction. This study evaluates whether a splint or a circumferential cast is most optimal to prevent fracture redisplacement in adult patients with a reduced DRF. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of both cast types will be calculated. Methods/design This multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial will compare initial immobilization with a circumferential below-elbow cast versus a below-elbow plaster splint in reduced DRFs. Randomization will take place on hospital-level (cluster, n = 10) with a cross-over point halfway the inclusion of the needed number of patients per hospital. Inclusion criteria comprise adult patients (≥ 18 years) with a primary displaced DRF which is treated conservatively after closed reduction. Multiple trauma patients (Injury Severity Score ≥ 16), concomitant ulnar fractures (except styloid process fractures) and patients with concomitant injury on the ipsilateral arm or inability to complete study forms will be excluded. Primary study outcome is fracture redisplacement of the initial reduced DRF. Secondary outcomes are patient-reported outcomes assessed with the Disability Arm Shoulder Hand score (DASH) and Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE), comfort of the cast, quality of life assessed with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, analgesics use, cost-effectiveness and (serious) adverse events occurence. In total, 560 patients will be included and followed for 1 year. The estimated time required for inclusion will be 18 months. Discussion The CAST study will provide evidence whether the type of cast immobilization is of influence on fracture redisplacement in distal radius fractures. Extensive follow-up during one year concerning radiographic, functional and patient reported outcomes will give a broad view on DRF recovery. Trial registration Registered in the Dutch Trial Registry on January 14th 2020. Registration number: NL8311 .

Background: There is no consensus concerning the optimal casting technique for displaced distal radius fractures (DRFs) following closed reduction. This study evaluates whether a splint or a circumferential cast is most optimal to prevent fracture redisplacement in adult patients with a reduced DRF. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of both cast types will be calculated.Methods/design: This multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial will compare initial immobilization with a circumferential below-elbow cast versus a below-elbow plaster splint in reduced DRFs. Randomization will take place on hospital-level (cluster, n = 10) with a cross-over point halfway the inclusion of the needed number of patients per hospital. Inclusion criteria comprise adult patients (≥ 18 years) with a primary displaced DRF which is treated conservatively after closed reduction. Multiple trauma patients (Injury Severity Score ≥ 16), concomitant ulnar fractures (except styloid process fractures) and patients with concomitant injury on the ipsilateral arm or inability to complete study forms will be excluded. Primary study outcome is fracture redisplacement of the initial reduced DRF. Secondary outcomes are patient-reported outcomes assessed with the Disability Arm Shoulder Hand score (DASH) and Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE), comfort of the cast, quality of life assessed with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, analgesics use, cost-effectiveness and (serious) adverse events occurence. In total, 560 patients will be included and followed for 1 year. The estimated time required for inclusion will be 18 months.Discussion: The CAST study will provide evidence whether the type of cast immobilization is of influence on fracture redisplacement in distal radius fractures. Extensive follow-up during one year concerning radiographic, functional and patient reported outcomes will give a broad view on DRF recovery.Trial Registration: Registered in the Dutch Trial Registry on January 14th 2020. Registration number: NL8311 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ankle fractures account for 9% of all fractures with a quarter of these occurring in adults over 60 years. The short term disability and long-term consequences of this injury can be considerable. Current opinion favours open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) over non-operative treatment (fracture manipulation and the application of a standard moulded cast) for older people. Both techniques are associated with complications but the limited published research indicates higher complication rates of fracture malunion (poor position at healing) with casting. The aim of this study is to compare ORIF with a modification of existing casting techniques, Close Contact Casting (CCC). We propose that CCC may offer an equivalent functional outcome to ORIF and avoid the risks associated with surgery. Methods/Design: This study is a pragmatic multi-centre equivalence randomised controlled trial. 620 participants will be randomised to receive ORIF or CCC after sustaining an isolated displaced unstable ankle fracture. Participants will be recruited from a minimum of 20 National Health Service (NHS) acute hospitals throughout England and Wales. Participants will be aged over 60 years and be ambulatory prior to injury. Follow-up will be at six weeks and six months after randomisation. The primary outcome is the Olerud & Molander Ankle Score, a functional patient reported outcome measure, at 6 months. Follow-up will also include assessments of mobility, ankle range of movement, health related quality of life and complications. The six-month follow-up will be conducted face-to-face by an assessor blinded to the allocated intervention. A parallel economic evaluation will consider both a health service and a broader societal perspective including the individual and their family. In order to explore patient experience of their treatment and recovery, a purposive sample of 40 patients will also be interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule between 6-10 weeks post treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]