Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Low enrollment making completion of the study impossible, relocation of both the PI and Co-PI
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Our null hypothesis is that fibular intramedullary fixation (IMFN) does not impact complication rates when compared to standard of care treatment with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). There are no current or past RCTs comparing these fixation techniques to one another in diabetic patients. There is good data supporting both the use of intramedullary fixation for fibular fractures alone, and in high-risk patient populations (elderly, and diabetics). However, the effectiveness of these methods with respect to each other has never been investigated. The knowledge gained will allow us to potentially influence and adapt protocols to treat this patient population. Additionally, resources available at our institution provide a supportive framework with which to maintain contact with patients after hospital discharge. These key factors will allow us to perform a robust analysis of this population, to include outcomes measures of function and complications.
Our null hypothesis is that fibular intramedullary fixation (IMFN) does not impact complication rates when compared to standard of care treatment with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). There are no current or past RCTs comparing these fixation techniques to one another in diabetic patients. There is good data supporting both the use of intramedullary fixation for fibular fractures alone, and in high-risk patient populations (elderly, and diabetics). However, the effectiveness of these methods with respect to each other has never been investigated. The knowledge gained will allow us to potentially influence and adapt protocols to treat this patient population. Additionally, resources available at our institution provide a supportive framework with which to maintain contact with patients after hospital discharge. These key factors will allow us to perform a robust analysis of this population, to include outcomes measures of function and complications.
With much of the existing literature on fibular nails being retrospective with limited focus on the diabetic population, there is no clear guidance on when the use of this device is indicated. Retrospective studies in fracture patients bring in significant bias given that a specific surgical technique may be chosen because of individual patient factors including soft tissue condition, fracture pattern and perceived level of risk. This limits our understanding of how an implant will perform across the population of interest. Our approach to randomize our patients will reduce the bias that exists in the current literature. In addition, the only prospective study that has been performed on the fibular nail was in elderly patients in which only two patients were diabetic. Given the many challenges with high rates of infection in this patient population we seek intramedullary fibular fracture fixation as a treatment that could potentially change this existing paradigm
Primary Objective Compare post-operative all cause complications in diabetic patients with ankle fractures.
Secondary Objective(s) Compare patient reported outcomes, range of motion, pain and radiographic outcomes in patients treated with ORIF vs. fibular intramedullary nails.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fibular intramedullary nail | Active Comparator | Randomized in the OR to ankle fracture repair with fibular intramedullary nail |
|
| Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) | Active Comparator | Randomized in the OR to ankle fracture repair with ORIF |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fibular intramedullary nail | Procedure | The standard manufacturers approved technique will be performed including the use of 2 distal interlocking screws and the use of a minimum of 1 fibula pro tibia fixation screw depending on the patients' anatomical characteristics. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Composite complication rate | The difference in overall composite complication rate between Fibular intramedullary fixation and ORIF | 1 year post-operatively |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Patient reported outcome scores | Any difference in Patient reported outcomes scores (PROMIS Physical Function or Pain Interference CAT) score between Fibular Intramedullary fixation and ORIF | 1 year post-operatively |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Age 18 or older
Unstable ankle fracture
Diagnosis of Diabetes:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Kelly Hynes, MD | University of Chicago | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Chicago | Chicago | Illinois | 60637 | United States |
IPD will not be shared with other researchers.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D064386 | Ankle Fractures |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D050723 | Fractures, Bone |
| D014947 | Wounds and Injuries |
| D016512 | Ankle Injuries |
| D007869 | Leg Injuries |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D000070799 | Open Fracture Reduction |
| D005593 | Fracture Fixation, Internal |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D005592 | Fracture Fixation |
| D019637 | Orthopedic Procedures |
| D013812 | Therapeutics |
| D013514 | Surgical Procedures, Operative |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Open reduction and internal fixation | Procedure | An open approach (direct lateral or posterolateral incision) will be carried out. The reduction will be performed using standard techniques of clamping and traction. Fixation will be performed after reduction of the fracture with a plate and screw construct. The surgeon will then proceed to perform surgical fixation of other associated fractures or ligament injuries as indicated. This will most often include open reduction and internal fixation of the medial malleolus with screws through a separate medial incision. |
|