Search

Background: The most common fractures in children are torus (buckle) fractures of the wrist. Controversy exists over treatment, which ranges from splint immobilisation and discharge to cast immobilisation, follow-up, and repeat imaging. This study compared pain and function in affected children offered a soft bandage and immediate discharge with those receiving rigid immobilisation and follow-up as per treating centre protocol., Methods: In this randomised controlled equivalence trial we included 965 children (aged 4-15 years) with a distal radius torus fracture from 23 hospitals in the UK. Children were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the offer of bandage group or rigid immobilisation group using bespoke web-based randomisation software. Treating clinicians, participants, and their families could not be masked to treatment allocation. Exclusion criteria included multiple injuries, diagnosis at more than 36 h after injury, and inability to complete follow-up. The primary outcome was pain at 3-days post-randomisation measured using Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. We performed a modified intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis. The trial was registered with ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13955395., Findings: Between Jan 16, 2019, and July 13, 2020, 965 children were randomly allocated to a group, 489 to the offer of a bandage group and 476 to the rigid immobilisation group, 379 (39%) were girls and 586 (61%) were boys. Primary outcome data was collected for 908 (94%) of participants, all of whom were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Pain was equivalent at 3 days with 3·21 points (SD 2·08) in the offer of bandage group versus 3·14 points (2·11) in the rigid immobilisation group. With reference to a prespecified equivalence margin of 1·0, the adjusted difference in the intention-to-treat population was -0·10 (95% CI -0·37 to 0·17) and-0·06 (95% CI -0·34 to 0·21) in the per-protocol population., Interpretation: This trial found equivalence in pain at 3 days in children with a torus fracture of the distal radius assigned to the offer of a bandage group or the rigid immobilisation group, with no between-group differences in pain or function during the 6 weeks of follow-up., Funding: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors received a grant from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (17/23/02) during the conduct of the trial. DCP is a NIHR Research Professor and a member of the Commissioning Board for the NIHR HTA funding stream. DTR was chair of Paediatric Emergency Research United Kingdom and Ireland (PERUKI), which was a partner organisation for the study. SM receives financial support from the NIHR Research Scholar North West Coast and is the secretary of PERUKI. MLC is a NIHR Senior Investigator and a member of the General Board for the NIHR HTA funding stream. The views expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Phenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant for treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus in the UK; however, some evidence suggests that levetiracetam could be an effective and safer alternative. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus., Methods: This open-label, randomised clinical trial was undertaken at 30 UK emergency departments at secondary and tertiary care centres. Participants aged 6 months to under 18 years, with convulsive status epilepticus requiring second-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive levetiracetam (40 mg/kg over 5 min) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg over at least 20 min), stratified by centre. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding those who did not require second-line treatment after randomisation and those who did not provide consent). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN22567894., Findings: Between July 17, 2015, and April 7, 2018, 1432 patients were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned. After exclusion of those who did not require second-line treatment and those who did not consent, 286 randomised participants were treated and had available data: 152 allocated to levetiracetam, and 134 to phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) children in the levetiracetam group and in 86 (64%) in the phenytoin group. Median time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus was 35 min (IQR 20 to not assessable) in the levetiracetam group and 45 min (24 to not assessable) in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 0·91-1·60; p=0·20). One participant who received levetiracetam followed by phenytoin died as a result of catastrophic cerebral oedema unrelated to either treatment. One participant who received phenytoin had serious adverse reactions related to study treatment (hypotension considered to be immediately life-threatening [a serious adverse reaction] and increased focal seizures and decreased consciousness considered to be medically significant [a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction])., Interpretation: Although levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin, the results, together with previously reported safety profiles and comparative ease of administration of levetiracetam, suggest it could be an appropriate alternative to phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line anticonvulsant in the treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)