Short term immobilization of severe ankle sprains provides the best clinical outcome .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
Cette étude a été identifiée comme étant potentiellement à fort impact.
L'indicateur High Impact de l'ENP, basé sur l'IA, estime l'influence qu'un article est susceptible d'avoir en intégrant des signaux provenant à la fois de la revue dans laquelle il est publié et du contenu scientifique de l'article lui-même.
Développé à l'aide d'un traitement du langage naturel de pointe, le modèle High Impact de l'ENP prédit avec plus de précision les futures citations d'une étude que le seul facteur d'impact de la revue.
Cela permet d'identifier plus tôt les recherches cliniquement significatives et aide les lecteurs à se concentrer sur les articles les plus susceptibles d'influencer les pratiques futures.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(4):12 Lancet. 2009 Feb 14;373(9663):575-81584 patients with severe ankle sprains were recruited from eight emergency departments to assess the effectiveness of three different bracing options and to compare them with a tubular compression brace. Patients were randomized to treatment with a below-knee cast, an Aircast brace, Bledsoe boot, or tubular compression brace. At three month follow-up, there was a significant improvement in the Foot and Ankle scores of the below-knee casting and Airbrace groups in comparison to the tubular compression brace. There were no differences between groups at a nine month follow-up.
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.
2/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
3/4
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 ?
Severe ankle sprains are a common occurrence. Current treatment methods for this injury vary greatly, with no consensus on a gold standard. High-quality evidence is lacking on determining the most effective method. Immobilization devices is one of such treatment methods; however, it has not been studied extensively. Thus, this study assessed treatment using a variety of support methods and compared them to a common treatment - the tubular compressive bracing.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
Were the clinical outcomes of three mechanical supports for severe ankle sprains (Air cast, Bledsoe boot, and 10 day knee cast) different from a double-layer tubular compression bandage, when measured at 9 months?
- The tubular compression bandage was the least effective treatment brace, in terms of improvements in Foot and Ankle scores
- Clinically important benefits occurred at 3 months in the below-knee cast group when compared with the tubular compression bandage for FAOS quality scores (Mean difference: 9%; 95% CI: 2.4-15.0%; p<0.007). Differences were also demonstrated in FAOS pain, symptoms, and activities of daily living subscales.
- Similar FAOS quality scores were seen in the Aircast group (Mean difference: 8%; 95% CI: 1.8 -14.2%; ES: 0.33) and the below-knee cast (Mean difference: 9%; 95% CI: 2.4-15.0%; ES: 0.36) at 3 months. These scores were better than those in the tubigrip and Bledsoe groups.
- Pertaining to the SF-12 scores, patients in the Aircast and Bledsoe groups had better mental health-related quality of life, in comparison to the other 2 groups at 3 months.
- There were no differences in outcomes between any of the groups at 9 months.
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
Results from this study indicated that both below-knee casting and the Aircast brace were superior treatments for severe ankle sprains, as treatments provided significant improvements in Foot and Ankle scores at 3 months when compared to a tubular compression brace.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
Based on the results from this study patients presenting with severe ankle sprains are advised to undergo short term immobilization treatment using either a 10 day below-knee cast or an Aircast brace. It may be beneficial to determine whether additional treatments such as physiotherapy or surgery are useful adjuncts to mechanical supports, and the optimal time for application.
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
