Suppr超能文献

成年人 60 岁及以上外侧压缩型 1 型骨盆骨折的手术与非手术治疗:L1FE RCT。

Surgical versus non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture in adults 60 years and older: the L1FE RCT.

机构信息

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Bart's Health NHS Trust, The Royal London Hospital, London, UK.

出版信息

Health Technol Assess. 2024 Mar;28(15):1-67. doi: 10.3310/LAPW3412.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Lateral compression type-1 pelvic fractures are a common fragility fracture in older adults. Patients who do not mobilise due to ongoing pain are at greater risk of immobility-related complications. Standard treatment in the United Kingdom is provision of pain relief and early mobilisation, unlike fragility hip fractures, which are usually treated surgically based on evidence that early surgery is associated with better outcomes. Currently there is no evidence on whether patients with lateral compression type-1 fragility fractures would have a better recovery with surgery than non-surgical management.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical fixation with internal fixation device compared to non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 fragility fractures in older adults.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, randomised controlled superiority trial, with 12-month internal pilot; target sample size was 600 participants. Participants were randomised between surgical and non-surgical management (1 : 1 allocation ratio). An economic evaluation was planned.

SETTING

UK Major Trauma Centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 60 years or older with a lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture, arising from a low-energy fall and unable to mobilise independently to a distance of 3 m and back due to pelvic pain 72 hours after injury.

INTERVENTIONS

Internal fixation device surgical fixation and non-surgical management. Participants, surgeons and outcome assessors were not blinded to treatment allocation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome - average patient health-related quality of life, over 6 months, assessed by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility score. Secondary outcomes (over the 6 months following injury) - self-rated health, physical function, mental health, pain, delirium, displacement of pelvis, mortality, complications and adverse events, and resource use data for the economic evaluation.

RESULTS

The trial closed early, at the end of the internal pilot, due to low recruitment. The internal pilot was undertaken in two separate phases because of a pause in recruitment due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The planned statistical and health economic analyses were not conducted. Outcome data were summarised descriptively. Eleven sites opened for recruitment for a combined total of 92 months. Three-hundred and sixteen patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 43 were eligible (13.6%). The main reason for ineligibility was that the patient was able to mobilise independently to 3 m and back ( = 161). Of the 43 eligible participants, 36 (83.7%) were approached for consent, of whom 11 (30.6%) provided consent. The most common reason for eligible patients not consenting to take part was that they were unwilling to be randomised to a treatment ( = 10). There were 11 participants, 5 randomised to surgical management with internal fixation device and 6 to non-surgical management. The average age of participants was 83.0 years (interquartile range 76.0, 89.0) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility score at 6 months post randomisation ( = 8) was 0.32 (standard deviation 0.37). A limitation of the trial was that study objectives were not addressed due to poor recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

It was not feasible to recruit to this trial in the current context. Further research to understand the treatment and recovery pathways of this group of patients, along with their outcomes, would be needed prior to undertaking a future trial.

FUTURE WORK

Exploration of equipoise across different healthcare professional groups. Investigate longer-term patient outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN16478561.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/57) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 15. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

摘要

背景

侧向压缩型 1 型骨盆骨折是老年人常见的脆性骨折。由于持续疼痛而无法活动的患者发生与活动受限相关并发症的风险更高。在英国,标准治疗方法是提供止痛和早期活动,与脆性髋部骨折不同,后者通常根据早期手术与更好结果相关的证据进行手术治疗。目前,对于侧向压缩型 1 型脆性骨折患者,手术固定与非手术管理相比,是否会有更好的恢复效果,尚无相关证据。

目的

评估侧向压缩型 1 型脆性骨折患者手术内固定与非手术管理相比的临床和成本效益。

设计

实用、随机对照优势试验,12 个月内部预试验;目标样本量为 600 名参与者。参与者按照 1:1 的比例随机分配至手术和非手术管理组。计划进行经济评估。

设置

英国主要创伤中心。

参与者

年龄 60 岁或以上、因低能量跌倒而导致的侧向压缩型 1 型骨盆骨折、伤后 72 小时因骨盆疼痛而无法独立移动至 3 米并返回、无法独立移动至 3 米并返回的患者。

干预措施

内固定装置手术固定和非手术管理。参与者、外科医生和结局评估者对治疗分配不知情。

主要结局测量指标

主要结局-6 个月内平均患者健康相关生活质量,使用欧洲五维健康量表(EQ-5D)五维版效用评分评估。次要结局(伤后 6 个月内)-自我报告的健康状况、身体功能、心理健康、疼痛、谵妄、骨盆移位、死亡率、并发症和不良事件,以及经济评估的资源使用数据。

结果

由于招募人数低,该试验在内部预试验结束时提前关闭。由于招募暂停(因 2019 年冠状病毒病),内部预试验分两个阶段进行。未进行计划的统计和健康经济分析。汇总了描述性的结局数据。有 11 个地点开始招募,共招募 92 个月。对 316 名患者进行了入选评估,其中 43 名符合条件(13.6%)。主要的排除标准是患者能够独立移动至 3 米并返回( = 161)。在 43 名符合条件的参与者中,有 36 名(83.7%)被邀请同意,其中 11 名(30.6%)同意。有意愿参加的合格患者最常见的原因是不愿意随机分配到治疗组( = 10)。有 11 名参与者,5 名随机分配至手术内固定治疗组,6 名分配至非手术治疗组。参与者的平均年龄为 83.0 岁(四分位距 76.0,89.0),随机分组后 6 个月的 EQ-5D 五维版效用评分( = 8)为 0.32(标准差 0.37)。试验的一个局限性是由于招募人数少,研究目标未达到。在进行未来的试验之前,需要进一步研究这组患者的治疗和康复途径及其结局。

结论

在当前情况下,无法招募到足够的参与者参与该试验。

未来工作

探索不同医疗保健专业人员群体之间的平衡。调查患者的长期结局。

试验注册

该试验在 ISRCTN 注册,注册号为 ISRCTN16478561。

资金

该研究由英国国家卫生与保健研究院(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划资助(NIHR 拨款号:16/167/57),全文发表于 ; 第 28 卷,第 15 期。如需了解更多关于该拨款的信息,请访问 NIHR 资助和奖励网站。

相似文献

3
Surgery versus conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fracture: the PRESTO feasibility RCT.
Health Technol Assess. 2021 Nov;25(62):1-126. doi: 10.3310/hta25620.

引用本文的文献

2
Bladder Injury and Urinary Tract Infection Following Low-Energy Pelvic Fracture in an Elderly Patient.
Cureus. 2024 Dec 27;16(12):e76482. doi: 10.7759/cureus.76482. eCollection 2024 Dec.
3
Lateral Compression Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis: Diagnosis, Classifications, and Modern Management.
Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2024 Dec;22(6):621-631. doi: 10.1007/s11914-024-00891-1. Epub 2024 Sep 23.

本文引用的文献

1
Surgery versus conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fracture: the PRESTO feasibility RCT.
Health Technol Assess. 2021 Nov;25(62):1-126. doi: 10.3310/hta25620.
2
An overview of the key principles and guidelines in the management of pelvic fractures.
J Perioper Pract. 2021 Sep;31(9):341-348. doi: 10.1177/1750458920947358. Epub 2020 Sep 8.
5
Loss of Ambulatory Independence Following Low-Energy Pelvic Ring Fractures.
Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2019 Sep 25;10:2151459319878101. doi: 10.1177/2151459319878101. eCollection 2019.
7
Validation of Digital Visual Analog Scale Pain Scoring With a Traditional Paper-based Visual Analog Scale in Adults.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2018 Mar 23;2(3):e088. doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-17-00088. eCollection 2018 Mar.
9
Complications after percutaneous internal fixator for anterior pelvic ring injuries.
Int Orthop. 2017 Sep;41(9):1785-1790. doi: 10.1007/s00264-017-3415-4. Epub 2017 Feb 24.
10
INFIX versus plating for pelvic fractures with disruption of the symphysis pubis.
Int Orthop. 2017 Aug;41(8):1671-1678. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3387-9. Epub 2017 Jan 11.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验