Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGriffin, XL
dc.contributor.authorCosta, ML
dc.contributor.authorPhelps, E
dc.contributor.authorParsons, N
dc.contributor.authorDritsaki, M
dc.contributor.authorAchten, J
dc.contributor.authorTutton, E
dc.contributor.authorLerner, RG
dc.contributor.authorMcGibbon, A
dc.contributor.authorBaird, J
dc.contributor.authorNoyes, D
dc.contributor.authorGiannoudis, P
dc.contributor.authorOllivere, B
dc.contributor.authorLewis, C
dc.contributor.authorMajeed, H
dc.contributor.authorMcClelland, D
dc.contributor.authorKulkarni, A
dc.contributor.authorCollaborators, TS
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-26T16:10:54Z
dc.date.available2021-05-26T16:10:54Z
dc.date.issued2019-05-05
dc.identifier.citationGriffin XL, Costa ML, Phelps E TraFFix study collaborators, et alIntramedullary nails versus distal locking plates for fracture of the distal femur: results from the Trial of Acute Femoral Fracture Fixation (TrAFFix) randomised feasibility study and process evaluationBMJ Open 2019;9:e026810. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026810en_US
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.otherARTN e026810
dc.identifier.urihttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/72089
dc.description.abstractObjectives This feasibility study and process evaluation assessed the likely success of a definitive trial of intramedullary fixation with locked retrograde nails versus extramedullary fixation with fixed angle plates for fractures of the distal femur. Design & setting A multicentre, parallel, two-arm, randomised controlled feasibility study with an embedded process evaluation was conducted at seven NHS hospitals in England. Treatment was randomly allocated in 1:1 ratio, stratified by centre and chronic cognitive impairment. Participants, but not surgeons or research staff, were blinded to the allocation. Participants Patients 18 years and older with a fracture of the distal femur, who their surgeon believed would benefit from internal fixation, were eligible to take part.Participants were allocated to receive either a retrograde intramedullary nail or an anatomical locking plate. Outcomes The primary outcomes for this feasibility study were the recruitment rate and completion rate of the EQ-5D-5L at 4 months post-randomisation. Baseline characteristics, disability rating index, quality of life scores, measurements of social support and self-efficacy, resource use and radiographic assessments were also collected. The views of patients and staff were collected during interviews. Results Recruitment and data completion were lower than expected. 23 of 82 eligible patients were recruited (nail, 11; plate, 12). The recruitment rate was estimated as 0.42 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.62) participants per centre-month. Data completeness of the EQ-5D-5L at 4 months was 61 per cent (95% CI 43% to 83%). The process evaluation demonstrated that the main barriers to recruitment were variation in treatment pathways across centres, lack of surgeon equipoise and confidence in using both interventions and newly formed research cultures that lacked cohesion. Conclusions A modified trial design, with embedded recruitment support intervention, comparing functional outcome in cognitively intact adults who have sustained a fragility fracture of the distal femur is feasible. Ethics approval The Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 approved the study (ref: 16/WA/0225). Trial registration number ISRCTN92089567; Pre-results.en_US
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ OPEN
dc.rightsThis is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
dc.titleIntramedullary nails versus distal locking plates for fracture of the distal femur: results from the Trial of Acute Femoral Fracture Fixation (TrAFFix) randomised feasibility study and process evaluation.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.holder© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026810
pubs.author-urlhttp://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000471192800222&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=612ae0d773dcbdba3046f6df545e9f6aen_US
pubs.issue5en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.publisher-urlhttp://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026810
pubs.volume9en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-04-01
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record