Loading…
Re-evaluation of low intensity pulsed ultrasound in treatment of tibial fractures (TRUST): randomized clinical trial
Objective To determine whether low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS), compared with sham treatment, accelerates functional recovery and radiographic healing in patients with operatively managed tibial fractures.Design A concealed, randomized, blinded, sham controlled clinical trial with a parallel...
Saved in:
Published in: | BMJ (Online) 2016-10, Vol.355, p.i5351-i5351 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b502t-6a7ea8c88f7369228ef683dacc17b20ee93acef0f3dc86e5e3b7052b99ab4aad3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b502t-6a7ea8c88f7369228ef683dacc17b20ee93acef0f3dc86e5e3b7052b99ab4aad3 |
container_end_page | i5351 |
container_issue | |
container_start_page | i5351 |
container_title | BMJ (Online) |
container_volume | 355 |
creator | Busse, Jason W Bhandari, Mohit Einhorn, Thomas A Schemitsch, Emil Heckman, James D Tornetta, Paul Leung, Kwok-Sui Heels-Ansdell, Diane Makosso-Kallyth, Sun Della Rocca, Gregory J Jones, Clifford B Guyatt, Gordon H |
description | Objective To determine whether low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS), compared with sham treatment, accelerates functional recovery and radiographic healing in patients with operatively managed tibial fractures.Design A concealed, randomized, blinded, sham controlled clinical trial with a parallel group design of 501 patients, enrolled between October 2008 and September 2012, and followed for one year.Setting 43 North American academic trauma centers.Participants Skeletally mature men or women with an open or closed tibial fracture amenable to intramedullary nail fixation. Exclusions comprised pilon fractures, tibial shaft fractures that extended into the joint and required reduction, pathological fractures, bilateral tibial fractures, segmental fractures, spiral fractures >7.5 cm in length, concomitant injuries that were likely to impair function for at least as long as the patient’s tibial fracture, and tibial fractures that showed 1 cm gap after surgical fixation. 3105 consecutive patients who underwent intramedullary nailing for tibial fracture were assessed, 599 were eligible and 501 provided informed consent and were enrolled.Interventions Patients were allocated centrally to self administer daily LIPUS (n=250) or use a sham device (n=251) until their tibial fracture showed radiographic healing or until one year after intramedullary fixation.Main outcome measures Primary registry specified outcome was time to radiographic healing within one year of fixation; secondary outcome was rate of non-union. Additional protocol specified outcomes included short form-36 (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) scores, return to work, return to household activities, return to ≥80% of function before injury, return to leisure activities, time to full weight bearing, scores on the health utilities index (mark 3), and adverse events related to the device.Results SF-36 PCS data were acquired from 481/501 (96%) patients, for whom we had 2303/2886 (80%) observations, and radiographic healing data were acquired from 482/501 (96%) patients, of whom 82 were censored. Results showed no impact on SF-36 PCS scores between LIPUS and control groups (mean difference 0.55, 95% confidence interval −0.75 to 1.84; P=0.41) or for the interaction between time and treatment (P=0.30); minimal important difference is 3-5 points) or in other functional measures. There was also no difference in time to radiographic healing (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% confidence i |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmj.i5351 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5080447</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1834998514</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b502t-6a7ea8c88f7369228ef683dacc17b20ee93acef0f3dc86e5e3b7052b99ab4aad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kcFqFTEUhgdR2lK76AtIQBftYmoymUwyLgpS1BYKQr1dhzOZM5pLJrkmmUp9enO9tVTBVQLnOx9_8lfVMaNnjPHu7TCvz6zggj2rDpgUXc0U58-f3Pero5TWlNKGS9V3Yq_ab6TspVTyoMo3WOMduAWyDZ6Eibjwg1if0Seb78lmcQlHsrgcIYXFj2VGckTIM_q85bMdLDgyRTB5iZjIyerm9svq9B2J4Mcw259l3zjrrSlYjgV-Wb2YoHiPHs7D6vbjh9XFZX39-dPVxfvrehC0yXUHEkEZpSbJu75pFE6d4iMYw-TQUMSeg8GJTnw0qkOBfJBUNEPfw9ACjPywOt95N8sw42hK4ghOb6KdId7rAFb_PfH2m_4a7rSgiratLIKTB0EM3xdMWc82GXQOPIYl6fK9bd8rwdqCvv4HXYcl-vK8LdUwwXveFep0R5kYUoo4PYZhVG_r1KVO_bvOwr56mv6R_FNeAd7sgO3O_z2_AHCxqe8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1832153936</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Re-evaluation of low intensity pulsed ultrasound in treatment of tibial fractures (TRUST): randomized clinical trial</title><source>BMJ</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Busse, Jason W ; Bhandari, Mohit ; Einhorn, Thomas A ; Schemitsch, Emil ; Heckman, James D ; Tornetta, Paul ; Leung, Kwok-Sui ; Heels-Ansdell, Diane ; Makosso-Kallyth, Sun ; Della Rocca, Gregory J ; Jones, Clifford B ; Guyatt, Gordon H</creator><creatorcontrib>Busse, Jason W ; Bhandari, Mohit ; Einhorn, Thomas A ; Schemitsch, Emil ; Heckman, James D ; Tornetta, Paul ; Leung, Kwok-Sui ; Heels-Ansdell, Diane ; Makosso-Kallyth, Sun ; Della Rocca, Gregory J ; Jones, Clifford B ; Guyatt, Gordon H ; TRUST Investigators writing group</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To determine whether low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS), compared with sham treatment, accelerates functional recovery and radiographic healing in patients with operatively managed tibial fractures.Design A concealed, randomized, blinded, sham controlled clinical trial with a parallel group design of 501 patients, enrolled between October 2008 and September 2012, and followed for one year.Setting 43 North American academic trauma centers.Participants Skeletally mature men or women with an open or closed tibial fracture amenable to intramedullary nail fixation. Exclusions comprised pilon fractures, tibial shaft fractures that extended into the joint and required reduction, pathological fractures, bilateral tibial fractures, segmental fractures, spiral fractures >7.5 cm in length, concomitant injuries that were likely to impair function for at least as long as the patient’s tibial fracture, and tibial fractures that showed <25% cortical contact and >1 cm gap after surgical fixation. 3105 consecutive patients who underwent intramedullary nailing for tibial fracture were assessed, 599 were eligible and 501 provided informed consent and were enrolled.Interventions Patients were allocated centrally to self administer daily LIPUS (n=250) or use a sham device (n=251) until their tibial fracture showed radiographic healing or until one year after intramedullary fixation.Main outcome measures Primary registry specified outcome was time to radiographic healing within one year of fixation; secondary outcome was rate of non-union. Additional protocol specified outcomes included short form-36 (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) scores, return to work, return to household activities, return to ≥80% of function before injury, return to leisure activities, time to full weight bearing, scores on the health utilities index (mark 3), and adverse events related to the device.Results SF-36 PCS data were acquired from 481/501 (96%) patients, for whom we had 2303/2886 (80%) observations, and radiographic healing data were acquired from 482/501 (96%) patients, of whom 82 were censored. Results showed no impact on SF-36 PCS scores between LIPUS and control groups (mean difference 0.55, 95% confidence interval −0.75 to 1.84; P=0.41) or for the interaction between time and treatment (P=0.30); minimal important difference is 3-5 points) or in other functional measures. There was also no difference in time to radiographic healing (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.34; P=0.55). There were no differences in safety outcomes between treatment groups. Patient compliance was moderate; 73% of patients administered ≥50% of all recommended treatments.Conclusions Postoperative use of LIPUS after tibial fracture fixation does not accelerate radiographic healing and fails to improve functional recovery.Study registration ClinicalTrialGov Identifier: NCT00667849</description><identifier>ISSN: 1756-1833</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8138</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1756-1833</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i5351</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27797787</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Adult ; Antibiotics ; Bone healing ; Bone surgery ; Clinical trials ; Cortex ; Data analysis ; Evidence-based medicine ; Female ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods ; Fractures ; Humans ; Male ; Medical equipment ; Nonunion ; Patients ; Recovery of function ; Regulatory approval ; Single-Blind Method ; Surgeons ; Tibial Fractures - surgery ; Tibial Fractures - therapy ; Trauma ; Treatment Outcome ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasonic Therapy - methods ; Ultrasonic Waves ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>BMJ (Online), 2016-10, Vol.355, p.i5351-i5351</ispartof><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to</rights><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><rights>Copyright: 2016 Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to 2016 BMJ</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b502t-6a7ea8c88f7369228ef683dacc17b20ee93acef0f3dc86e5e3b7052b99ab4aad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b502t-6a7ea8c88f7369228ef683dacc17b20ee93acef0f3dc86e5e3b7052b99ab4aad3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5351.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5351.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>112,113,230,314,780,784,885,3194,27924,27925,77594,77595</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27797787$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Busse, Jason W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhandari, Mohit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Einhorn, Thomas A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schemitsch, Emil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heckman, James D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tornetta, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leung, Kwok-Sui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heels-Ansdell, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makosso-Kallyth, Sun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Della Rocca, Gregory J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Clifford B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guyatt, Gordon H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TRUST Investigators writing group</creatorcontrib><title>Re-evaluation of low intensity pulsed ultrasound in treatment of tibial fractures (TRUST): randomized clinical trial</title><title>BMJ (Online)</title><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><description>Objective To determine whether low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS), compared with sham treatment, accelerates functional recovery and radiographic healing in patients with operatively managed tibial fractures.Design A concealed, randomized, blinded, sham controlled clinical trial with a parallel group design of 501 patients, enrolled between October 2008 and September 2012, and followed for one year.Setting 43 North American academic trauma centers.Participants Skeletally mature men or women with an open or closed tibial fracture amenable to intramedullary nail fixation. Exclusions comprised pilon fractures, tibial shaft fractures that extended into the joint and required reduction, pathological fractures, bilateral tibial fractures, segmental fractures, spiral fractures >7.5 cm in length, concomitant injuries that were likely to impair function for at least as long as the patient’s tibial fracture, and tibial fractures that showed <25% cortical contact and >1 cm gap after surgical fixation. 3105 consecutive patients who underwent intramedullary nailing for tibial fracture were assessed, 599 were eligible and 501 provided informed consent and were enrolled.Interventions Patients were allocated centrally to self administer daily LIPUS (n=250) or use a sham device (n=251) until their tibial fracture showed radiographic healing or until one year after intramedullary fixation.Main outcome measures Primary registry specified outcome was time to radiographic healing within one year of fixation; secondary outcome was rate of non-union. Additional protocol specified outcomes included short form-36 (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) scores, return to work, return to household activities, return to ≥80% of function before injury, return to leisure activities, time to full weight bearing, scores on the health utilities index (mark 3), and adverse events related to the device.Results SF-36 PCS data were acquired from 481/501 (96%) patients, for whom we had 2303/2886 (80%) observations, and radiographic healing data were acquired from 482/501 (96%) patients, of whom 82 were censored. Results showed no impact on SF-36 PCS scores between LIPUS and control groups (mean difference 0.55, 95% confidence interval −0.75 to 1.84; P=0.41) or for the interaction between time and treatment (P=0.30); minimal important difference is 3-5 points) or in other functional measures. There was also no difference in time to radiographic healing (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.34; P=0.55). There were no differences in safety outcomes between treatment groups. Patient compliance was moderate; 73% of patients administered ≥50% of all recommended treatments.Conclusions Postoperative use of LIPUS after tibial fracture fixation does not accelerate radiographic healing and fails to improve functional recovery.Study registration ClinicalTrialGov Identifier: NCT00667849</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Bone healing</subject><subject>Bone surgery</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cortex</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods</subject><subject>Fractures</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Nonunion</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Recovery of function</subject><subject>Regulatory approval</subject><subject>Single-Blind Method</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Tibial Fractures - surgery</subject><subject>Tibial Fractures - therapy</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonic Therapy - methods</subject><subject>Ultrasonic Waves</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>1756-1833</issn><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>1756-1833</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>9YT</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kcFqFTEUhgdR2lK76AtIQBftYmoymUwyLgpS1BYKQr1dhzOZM5pLJrkmmUp9enO9tVTBVQLnOx9_8lfVMaNnjPHu7TCvz6zggj2rDpgUXc0U58-f3Pero5TWlNKGS9V3Yq_ab6TspVTyoMo3WOMduAWyDZ6Eibjwg1if0Seb78lmcQlHsrgcIYXFj2VGckTIM_q85bMdLDgyRTB5iZjIyerm9svq9B2J4Mcw259l3zjrrSlYjgV-Wb2YoHiPHs7D6vbjh9XFZX39-dPVxfvrehC0yXUHEkEZpSbJu75pFE6d4iMYw-TQUMSeg8GJTnw0qkOBfJBUNEPfw9ACjPywOt95N8sw42hK4ghOb6KdId7rAFb_PfH2m_4a7rSgiratLIKTB0EM3xdMWc82GXQOPIYl6fK9bd8rwdqCvv4HXYcl-vK8LdUwwXveFep0R5kYUoo4PYZhVG_r1KVO_bvOwr56mv6R_FNeAd7sgO3O_z2_AHCxqe8</recordid><startdate>20161025</startdate><enddate>20161025</enddate><creator>Busse, Jason W</creator><creator>Bhandari, Mohit</creator><creator>Einhorn, Thomas A</creator><creator>Schemitsch, Emil</creator><creator>Heckman, James D</creator><creator>Tornetta, Paul</creator><creator>Leung, Kwok-Sui</creator><creator>Heels-Ansdell, Diane</creator><creator>Makosso-Kallyth, Sun</creator><creator>Della Rocca, Gregory J</creator><creator>Jones, Clifford B</creator><creator>Guyatt, Gordon H</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><scope>9YT</scope><scope>ACMMV</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161025</creationdate><title>Re-evaluation of low intensity pulsed ultrasound in treatment of tibial fractures (TRUST): randomized clinical trial</title><author>Busse, Jason W ; Bhandari, Mohit ; Einhorn, Thomas A ; Schemitsch, Emil ; Heckman, James D ; Tornetta, Paul ; Leung, Kwok-Sui ; Heels-Ansdell, Diane ; Makosso-Kallyth, Sun ; Della Rocca, Gregory J ; Jones, Clifford B ; Guyatt, Gordon H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b502t-6a7ea8c88f7369228ef683dacc17b20ee93acef0f3dc86e5e3b7052b99ab4aad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Bone healing</topic><topic>Bone surgery</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cortex</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods</topic><topic>Fractures</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Nonunion</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Recovery of function</topic><topic>Regulatory approval</topic><topic>Single-Blind Method</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Tibial Fractures - surgery</topic><topic>Tibial Fractures - therapy</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonic Therapy - methods</topic><topic>Ultrasonic Waves</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Busse, Jason W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhandari, Mohit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Einhorn, Thomas A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schemitsch, Emil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heckman, James D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tornetta, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leung, Kwok-Sui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heels-Ansdell, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makosso-Kallyth, Sun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Della Rocca, Gregory J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Clifford B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guyatt, Gordon H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TRUST Investigators writing group</creatorcontrib><collection>BMJ Open Access Journals</collection><collection>BMJ Journals:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest_Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest_Research Library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ (Online)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Busse, Jason W</au><au>Bhandari, Mohit</au><au>Einhorn, Thomas A</au><au>Schemitsch, Emil</au><au>Heckman, James D</au><au>Tornetta, Paul</au><au>Leung, Kwok-Sui</au><au>Heels-Ansdell, Diane</au><au>Makosso-Kallyth, Sun</au><au>Della Rocca, Gregory J</au><au>Jones, Clifford B</au><au>Guyatt, Gordon H</au><aucorp>TRUST Investigators writing group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Re-evaluation of low intensity pulsed ultrasound in treatment of tibial fractures (TRUST): randomized clinical trial</atitle><jtitle>BMJ (Online)</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><date>2016-10-25</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>355</volume><spage>i5351</spage><epage>i5351</epage><pages>i5351-i5351</pages><issn>1756-1833</issn><issn>0959-8138</issn><eissn>1756-1833</eissn><abstract>Objective To determine whether low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS), compared with sham treatment, accelerates functional recovery and radiographic healing in patients with operatively managed tibial fractures.Design A concealed, randomized, blinded, sham controlled clinical trial with a parallel group design of 501 patients, enrolled between October 2008 and September 2012, and followed for one year.Setting 43 North American academic trauma centers.Participants Skeletally mature men or women with an open or closed tibial fracture amenable to intramedullary nail fixation. Exclusions comprised pilon fractures, tibial shaft fractures that extended into the joint and required reduction, pathological fractures, bilateral tibial fractures, segmental fractures, spiral fractures >7.5 cm in length, concomitant injuries that were likely to impair function for at least as long as the patient’s tibial fracture, and tibial fractures that showed <25% cortical contact and >1 cm gap after surgical fixation. 3105 consecutive patients who underwent intramedullary nailing for tibial fracture were assessed, 599 were eligible and 501 provided informed consent and were enrolled.Interventions Patients were allocated centrally to self administer daily LIPUS (n=250) or use a sham device (n=251) until their tibial fracture showed radiographic healing or until one year after intramedullary fixation.Main outcome measures Primary registry specified outcome was time to radiographic healing within one year of fixation; secondary outcome was rate of non-union. Additional protocol specified outcomes included short form-36 (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) scores, return to work, return to household activities, return to ≥80% of function before injury, return to leisure activities, time to full weight bearing, scores on the health utilities index (mark 3), and adverse events related to the device.Results SF-36 PCS data were acquired from 481/501 (96%) patients, for whom we had 2303/2886 (80%) observations, and radiographic healing data were acquired from 482/501 (96%) patients, of whom 82 were censored. Results showed no impact on SF-36 PCS scores between LIPUS and control groups (mean difference 0.55, 95% confidence interval −0.75 to 1.84; P=0.41) or for the interaction between time and treatment (P=0.30); minimal important difference is 3-5 points) or in other functional measures. There was also no difference in time to radiographic healing (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.34; P=0.55). There were no differences in safety outcomes between treatment groups. Patient compliance was moderate; 73% of patients administered ≥50% of all recommended treatments.Conclusions Postoperative use of LIPUS after tibial fracture fixation does not accelerate radiographic healing and fails to improve functional recovery.Study registration ClinicalTrialGov Identifier: NCT00667849</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><pmid>27797787</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmj.i5351</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1756-1833 |
ispartof | BMJ (Online), 2016-10, Vol.355, p.i5351-i5351 |
issn | 1756-1833 0959-8138 1756-1833 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5080447 |
source | BMJ; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection |
subjects | Adult Antibiotics Bone healing Bone surgery Clinical trials Cortex Data analysis Evidence-based medicine Female Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods Fractures Humans Male Medical equipment Nonunion Patients Recovery of function Regulatory approval Single-Blind Method Surgeons Tibial Fractures - surgery Tibial Fractures - therapy Trauma Treatment Outcome Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasonic Therapy - methods Ultrasonic Waves Ultrasound |
title | Re-evaluation of low intensity pulsed ultrasound in treatment of tibial fractures (TRUST): randomized clinical trial |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T02%3A28%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Re-evaluation%20of%20low%20intensity%20pulsed%20ultrasound%20in%20treatment%20of%20tibial%20fractures%20(TRUST):%20randomized%20clinical%20trial&rft.jtitle=BMJ%20(Online)&rft.au=Busse,%20Jason%20W&rft.aucorp=TRUST%20Investigators%20writing%20group&rft.date=2016-10-25&rft.volume=355&rft.spage=i5351&rft.epage=i5351&rft.pages=i5351-i5351&rft.issn=1756-1833&rft.eissn=1756-1833&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmj.i5351&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1834998514%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b502t-6a7ea8c88f7369228ef683dacc17b20ee93acef0f3dc86e5e3b7052b99ab4aad3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1832153936&rft_id=info:pmid/27797787&rfr_iscdi=true |