Department of surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Henri Dunantstraat 1, 5223 GZ 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Feb 16;13:21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-21.
BACKGROUND: Acute lateral ankle ligament injuries are very common problems in present health care. Still there is no hard evidence about which treatment strategy is superior. Current evidence supports the view that a functional treatment strategy is preferable, but insufficient data are present to prove the benefit of external support devices in these types of treatment. The hypothesis of our study is that external ankle support devices will not result in better outcome in the treatment of acute ankle sprains, compared to a purely functional treatment strategy. Overall objective is to compare the results of three different strategies of functional treatment for acute ankle sprain, especially to determine the advantages of external support devices in addition to functional treatment strategy, based on balance and coordination exercises. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is designed as a randomised controlled multi-centre trial with one-year follow-up. Adult and healthy patients (N = 180) with acute, single sided and first inversion trauma of the lateral ankle ligaments will be included. They will all follow the same schedule of balancing exercises and will be divided into 3 treatment groups, 1. pressure bandage and tape, 2. pressure bandage and brace and 3. no external support. Primary outcome measure is the Karlsson scoring scale; secondary outcomes are FAOS (subscales), number of recurrent ankle injuries, Visual Analogue Scales of pain and satisfaction and adverse events. They will be measured after one week, 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year. DISCUSSION: The ANKLE TRIAL is a randomized controlled trial in which a purely functional treated control group, without any external support is investigated. Results of this study could lead to other opinions about usefulness of external support devices in the treatment of acute ankle sprain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2151.
背景:急性外踝韧带损伤是目前医疗保健中非常常见的问题。目前仍没有确凿的证据表明哪种治疗策略更优越。现有证据支持功能治疗策略更优,但目前尚无足够数据证明在这些治疗类型中外部支撑装置的益处。我们研究的假设是,与单纯的功能治疗策略相比,外部踝关节支撑装置不会在外踝扭伤的治疗中带来更好的结果。总体目标是比较三种不同功能治疗策略治疗急性踝关节扭伤的结果,特别是基于平衡和协调练习来确定外部支撑装置在功能治疗策略之外的优势。
方法/设计:这是一项具有一年随访的随机对照多中心试验。纳入急性、单侧和初次外旋创伤的外侧踝关节韧带的成人和健康患者(N=180)。他们都将遵循相同的平衡练习计划,并分为 3 个治疗组,1. 压力绷带和胶带,2. 压力绷带和支架,3. 无外部支撑。主要结局测量指标是 Karlsson 评分量表;次要结局指标是 FAOS(子量表)、复发性踝关节损伤的次数、疼痛和满意度的视觉模拟量表以及不良事件。将在 1 周、6 周、6 个月和 1 年时进行测量。
讨论:ANKLE TRIAL 是一项随机对照试验,研究了单纯功能治疗的对照组,没有任何外部支撑。该研究的结果可能会导致对急性踝关节扭伤治疗中外用支撑装置有用性的其他看法。
试验注册:荷兰试验注册处(NTR):NTR2151。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013-3-28
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013-5-28
J Clin Med. 2025-2-21
Pak J Med Sci. 2015
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007-2