Functional brace vs walking boot in management of severe lateral ankle sprains .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2014;2(10):12 Foot Ankle Int. 2014 Mar;35(3):201-6186 patients with a severe lateral ankle sprain (type III) were randomized to treatment to 3 weeks of rigid immobilization with a walking boot followed by 3 weeks of immobilization with a functional brace, or to a functional brace for 6 weeks. The purpose was to compare these two conservative treatment methods for outcomes in pain, function, and ankle stability up to 12 weeks after the injury. AOFAS scores were better for the first 6 weeks in patients receiving the functional brace, and pain and comfort outcomes also benefited within the first few weeks from using a functional brace. By 12 weeks, ankle stability was re-established effectively and similarly between the two groups.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
1/4
Randomization
2/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
2/4
Therapy Description
4/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
Despite lateral ankle sprains causing ligament ruptures being one of the most prevalent presentations in either the emergency room or orthopaedic office, debate among practitioners and residents still exists on both classification of the injury and the most effective means to treat it. Traditionally, injuries of this nature have been treated using rigid immobilization for 3 weeks, subsequently followed by protection using a functional brace for another 3 weeks. However, there has been growing interest in whether using a functional brace initially, and foregoing rigid immobilization, may provide patients with earlier functional return and comparably good final results.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
How do two conservative treatment methods - rigid immobilization for 3 weeks followed by functional brace immobilization for 3 weeks, or functional brace use only - compare, with respect to pain intensity, function, recovery and instability following a severe lateral ankle sprain?
- At 1 week, no significant differences were noted between groups in edema intensity, average VAS pain, or weight-bearing capacity. A significant difference in comfortability (p=0.029) and AOFAS scores (p=0.00003) was noted between groups, both favouring Group B.
- Irrespective of group allocation, AOFAS score at 1 week were lower among participants with 3 ligamentous lesions.
- At 3 weeks, groups did not significantly differ in either pain location or weight-bearing capacity. At this time point, AOFAS scores remained significantly higher in Group B (84.8 +/- 8.8 vs. 79.5 +/- 9.2; p=0.00004), and patients of Group B had missed fewer days from work (3.9 +/- 2.7 vs. 7.0 +/- 3.8; p<0.01). Pain intensity at 3 weeks did not clinically differ between groups (Group A 1.7 +/- 1.2; Group B 1.4 +/- 1.2).
- At 6 weeks, the only significant difference that was noted between groups was a higher AOFAS in Group B (94.3 +/- 6.6 vs. 90.5 +/- 10.6; p=0.027). Anterior drawer tests were normal in all patients but 1 at 6 weeks.
- At 12 weeks, no significant differences were observed between groups. At this time, articular stability was assessed using varus stress and anterior drawer stress X-rays, with no differences noted between contralateral and affected sides.
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
Treatment of a lateral ankle sprain with a functional brace was associated with increased comfort over the first 3 weeks and slightly better functional outcome over 6 weeks when compared to treatment with a walking boot followed by a functional brace. Both treatment methods resulted in restoration of normal ankle stability within 6 weeks. Short-term functional outcome of extensive ligament injuries (three injured ligaments) was lower than less severe injuries, regardless of allocated treatment.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
Either treatment method included in this study appears to effectively re-establish ankle stability following a type III lateral ankle sprain characterized by gross instability. Immobilization with a functional brace from the initiation of treatment appears to confer similar efficacy to rigid immobilization with a walking boot, and may even be more comfortable for patients. Short-term pain and function also somewhat benefited with the functional brace. The long term stability implications of these two treatment methods should be determined.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
