Reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures (STIFF-F): a mixed methods feasibility study
Background Segmental tibial fractures are fractures in two or more areas of the tibial diaphysis resulting in a separate intercalary segment of the bone. Surgical fixation is recommended for patients with segmental tibial fractures as non-operative treatment outcomes are poor. The most common surgic...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
| _version_ | 1797050633797238784 |
|---|---|
| author | Hing, C Tutton, E Smith, T Glaze, M Cook, J Dritsaki, M Phelps, E Cooper, C Tompeter, A Pearse, M Law, M Costa, M |
| author_facet | Hing, C Tutton, E Smith, T Glaze, M Cook, J Dritsaki, M Phelps, E Cooper, C Tompeter, A Pearse, M Law, M Costa, M |
| author_sort | Hing, C |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Background
Segmental tibial fractures are fractures in two or more areas of the tibial diaphysis resulting in a separate intercalary segment of the bone. Surgical fixation is recommended for patients with segmental tibial fractures as non-operative treatment outcomes are poor. The most common surgical interventions are intramedullary nailing (IMN) and circular frame external fixation (CFEF), but evidence about which is better is of poor quality. An adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine optimum treatment is required. STIFF-F aimed to assess the feasibility of a multicentre RCT comparing IMN with CFEF for segmental tibial fracture.
Methods
STIFF-F was a mixed-methods feasibility study comprising a pilot RCT conducted at six UK Major Trauma Centres, qualitative interviews drawing on Phenomenology and an online survey of rehabilitation. The primary outcome was recruitment rate. Patients, 16 years and over, with a segmental tibial fracture (open or closed) deemed suitable for IMN or CFEF were eligible to participate. Randomisation was stratified by site using random permuted blocks of varying sizes. Participant or assessor blinding was not possible. Interviews were undertaken with patients about their experience of injury, treatment, recovery and participation. Staff were interviewed to identify contextual factors affecting trial processes, their experience of recruitment and the treatment pathway. An online survey was developed to understand the rehabilitation context of the treatments.
Results
Eleven patients were screened and three recruited to the pilot RCT. Nineteen staff and four patients participated in interviews, and 11 physiotherapists responded to the survey. This study found the following: (i) segmental tibial fractures were rarer than anticipated, (ii) the complexity of the injury, study setup times and surgeon treatment preferences impeded recruitment, (iii) recovery from a segmental tibial fracture is challenging, and rehabilitation protocols are inconsistent and (iv) despite the difficulty recruiting, staff valued this research question and strived to find a way forward.
Conclusion
The proposed multicentre RCT comparing IMN with CFEF is not feasible. This study highlighted the difficulty of recruiting patients to an RCT of a complex rare injury over a short time period.
Trial registration
The study was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Registry: ISRCTN11229660
|
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:08:04Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:021bee93-80f0-4295-90d7-529a18e86a68 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:08:04Z |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| publisher | BioMed Central |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:021bee93-80f0-4295-90d7-529a18e86a682022-03-26T08:38:39ZReamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures (STIFF-F): a mixed methods feasibility studyJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:021bee93-80f0-4295-90d7-529a18e86a68EnglishSymplectic ElementsBioMed Central2021Hing, CTutton, ESmith, TGlaze, MCook, JDritsaki, MPhelps, ECooper, CTompeter, APearse, MLaw, MCosta, MBackground Segmental tibial fractures are fractures in two or more areas of the tibial diaphysis resulting in a separate intercalary segment of the bone. Surgical fixation is recommended for patients with segmental tibial fractures as non-operative treatment outcomes are poor. The most common surgical interventions are intramedullary nailing (IMN) and circular frame external fixation (CFEF), but evidence about which is better is of poor quality. An adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine optimum treatment is required. STIFF-F aimed to assess the feasibility of a multicentre RCT comparing IMN with CFEF for segmental tibial fracture. Methods STIFF-F was a mixed-methods feasibility study comprising a pilot RCT conducted at six UK Major Trauma Centres, qualitative interviews drawing on Phenomenology and an online survey of rehabilitation. The primary outcome was recruitment rate. Patients, 16 years and over, with a segmental tibial fracture (open or closed) deemed suitable for IMN or CFEF were eligible to participate. Randomisation was stratified by site using random permuted blocks of varying sizes. Participant or assessor blinding was not possible. Interviews were undertaken with patients about their experience of injury, treatment, recovery and participation. Staff were interviewed to identify contextual factors affecting trial processes, their experience of recruitment and the treatment pathway. An online survey was developed to understand the rehabilitation context of the treatments. Results Eleven patients were screened and three recruited to the pilot RCT. Nineteen staff and four patients participated in interviews, and 11 physiotherapists responded to the survey. This study found the following: (i) segmental tibial fractures were rarer than anticipated, (ii) the complexity of the injury, study setup times and surgeon treatment preferences impeded recruitment, (iii) recovery from a segmental tibial fracture is challenging, and rehabilitation protocols are inconsistent and (iv) despite the difficulty recruiting, staff valued this research question and strived to find a way forward. Conclusion The proposed multicentre RCT comparing IMN with CFEF is not feasible. This study highlighted the difficulty of recruiting patients to an RCT of a complex rare injury over a short time period. Trial registration The study was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Registry: ISRCTN11229660 |
| spellingShingle | Hing, C Tutton, E Smith, T Glaze, M Cook, J Dritsaki, M Phelps, E Cooper, C Tompeter, A Pearse, M Law, M Costa, M Reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures (STIFF-F): a mixed methods feasibility study |
| title | Reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures (STIFF-F): a mixed methods feasibility study |
| title_full | Reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures (STIFF-F): a mixed methods feasibility study |
| title_fullStr | Reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures (STIFF-F): a mixed methods feasibility study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures (STIFF-F): a mixed methods feasibility study |
| title_short | Reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures (STIFF-F): a mixed methods feasibility study |
| title_sort | reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures stiff f a mixed methods feasibility study |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hingc reamedintramedullarynailingversuscircularframeexternalfixationforsegmentaltibialfracturesstifffamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudy AT tuttone reamedintramedullarynailingversuscircularframeexternalfixationforsegmentaltibialfracturesstifffamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudy AT smitht reamedintramedullarynailingversuscircularframeexternalfixationforsegmentaltibialfracturesstifffamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudy AT glazem reamedintramedullarynailingversuscircularframeexternalfixationforsegmentaltibialfracturesstifffamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudy AT cookj reamedintramedullarynailingversuscircularframeexternalfixationforsegmentaltibialfracturesstifffamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudy AT dritsakim reamedintramedullarynailingversuscircularframeexternalfixationforsegmentaltibialfracturesstifffamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudy AT phelpse reamedintramedullarynailingversuscircularframeexternalfixationforsegmentaltibialfracturesstifffamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudy AT cooperc reamedintramedullarynailingversuscircularframeexternalfixationforsegmentaltibialfracturesstifffamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudy AT tompetera reamedintramedullarynailingversuscircularframeexternalfixationforsegmentaltibialfracturesstifffamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudy AT pearsem reamedintramedullarynailingversuscircularframeexternalfixationforsegmentaltibialfracturesstifffamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudy AT lawm reamedintramedullarynailingversuscircularframeexternalfixationforsegmentaltibialfracturesstifffamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudy AT costam reamedintramedullarynailingversuscircularframeexternalfixationforsegmentaltibialfracturesstifffamixedmethodsfeasibilitystudy |