Anne M Moseley1, Paula R Beckenkamp1, Marion Haas2, Robert D Herbert3, Chung-Wei Christine Lin1. 1. The George Institute for Global Health and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 2. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The benefits of rehabilitation after immobilization for ankle fracture are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of a supervised exercise program and advice (rehabilitation) compared with advice alone and to determine if effects are moderated by fracture severity or age and sex. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The EXACT trial was a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial conducted from December 2010 to June 2014. Patients with isolated ankle fracture presenting to fracture clinics in 7 Australian hospitals were randomized on the day of removal of immobilization. Of 571 eligible patients, 357 chose not to participate and 214 were allocated to rehabilitation (n = 106) or advice alone (n = 108), with 194 (91%) followed up at 1 month, 173 (81%) at 3 months, and 170 (79%) at 6 months. There were no withdrawals attributed to adverse effects. Recruitment terminated early on December 31, 2013 (planned enrollment, 342; actual, 214), because funding was exhausted. INTERVENTIONS:Supervised exercise program and advice about self-management (rehabilitation) (individually tailored, prescribed, monitored, and progressed) or advice alone, both delivered by a physical therapist. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were activity limitation assessed using the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (score range, 0-80; higher scores indicate better activity), and quality of life assessed using the Assessment of Quality of Life (score range, 0-1; higher scores indicate better quality of life), measured at baseline and at 1, 3 (primary time point), and 6 months. RESULTS:Mean activity limitation and quality of life at baseline were 30.1 (SD, 12.5) and 0.51 (SD, 0.24), respectively, for advice and 30.2 (SD, 13.2) and 0.54 (SD, 0.24) for rehabilitation, increasing to 64.3 (SD, 13.5) and 0.85 (SD, 0.17) for advice vs 64.3 (SD, 15.1) and 0.85 (SD, 0.20) for rehabilitation at 3 months. Rehabilitation was not more effective than advice for activity limitation (mean effect at 3 months, 0.4 [95% CI, -3.3 to 4.1]) or quality of life (-0.01 [95% CI, -0.06 to 0.04]). Treatment effects were not moderated by fracture severity or age and sex. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A supervised exercise program and advice did not confer additional benefits in activity limitation or quality of life compared with advice alone for patients with isolated and uncomplicated ankle fracture. These findings do not support the routine use of supervised exercise programs after removal of immobilization for patients with isolated and uncomplicated ankle fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12610000979055.
RCT Entities:
IMPORTANCE: The benefits of rehabilitation after immobilization for ankle fracture are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of a supervised exercise program and advice (rehabilitation) compared with advice alone and to determine if effects are moderated by fracture severity or age and sex. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The EXACT trial was a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial conducted from December 2010 to June 2014. Patients with isolated ankle fracture presenting to fracture clinics in 7 Australian hospitals were randomized on the day of removal of immobilization. Of 571 eligible patients, 357 chose not to participate and 214 were allocated to rehabilitation (n = 106) or advice alone (n = 108), with 194 (91%) followed up at 1 month, 173 (81%) at 3 months, and 170 (79%) at 6 months. There were no withdrawals attributed to adverse effects. Recruitment terminated early on December 31, 2013 (planned enrollment, 342; actual, 214), because funding was exhausted. INTERVENTIONS: Supervised exercise program and advice about self-management (rehabilitation) (individually tailored, prescribed, monitored, and progressed) or advice alone, both delivered by a physical therapist. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were activity limitation assessed using the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (score range, 0-80; higher scores indicate better activity), and quality of life assessed using the Assessment of Quality of Life (score range, 0-1; higher scores indicate better quality of life), measured at baseline and at 1, 3 (primary time point), and 6 months. RESULTS: Mean activity limitation and quality of life at baseline were 30.1 (SD, 12.5) and 0.51 (SD, 0.24), respectively, for advice and 30.2 (SD, 13.2) and 0.54 (SD, 0.24) for rehabilitation, increasing to 64.3 (SD, 13.5) and 0.85 (SD, 0.17) for advice vs 64.3 (SD, 15.1) and 0.85 (SD, 0.20) for rehabilitation at 3 months. Rehabilitation was not more effective than advice for activity limitation (mean effect at 3 months, 0.4 [95% CI, -3.3 to 4.1]) or quality of life (-0.01 [95% CI, -0.06 to 0.04]). Treatment effects were not moderated by fracture severity or age and sex. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A supervised exercise program and advice did not confer additional benefits in activity limitation or quality of life compared with advice alone for patients with isolated and uncomplicated ankle fracture. These findings do not support the routine use of supervised exercise programs after removal of immobilization for patients with isolated and uncomplicated ankle fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12610000979055.
Authors: David J Keene; Colin Forde; Thavapriya Sugavanam; Mark A Williams; Sarah E Lamb Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-07-04 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Christopher Kevin Wong; Bryanna L Strang; Galen A Schram; Elizabeth A Mercer; Rebecca S Kesting; Kabi S Deo Journal: J Man Manip Ther Date: 2018-03-26
Authors: David J Keene; Matthew L Costa; Elizabeth Tutton; Sally Hopewell; Vicki S Barber; Susan J Dutton; Anthony C Redmond; Keith Willett; Sarah E Lamb Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-11-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Diederik Pieter Johan Smeeing; Roderick Marijn Houwert; Jan Paul Briet; Rolf Hendrik Herman Groenwold; Koen Willem Wouter Lansink; Luke Petrus Hendrikus Leenen; Peer van der Zwaal; Jochem Maarten Hoogendoorn; Mark van Heijl; Egbert Jan Verleisdonk; Michiel Joseph Marie Segers; Falco Hietbrink Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 3.693