Walking boot versus below knee cast in stable ankle fractures

• Research type

  Research Study

• Full title

  Walking boot versus cast immobilisation in supination external rotation type 2 ankle fractures: a prospective comparative study

• IRAS ID

  182592

• Contact name

  Peter Rosenfeld

• Sponsor organisation

  Imperial College

• Duration of Study in the UK

  1 years, 5 months, 0 days

• Research summary

  The purpose of this study is to investigate whether patients that sustain stable, un-displaced ankle fractures have different outcomes depending on what treatment method received. Traditional treatment methods for these fractures was to ensure the patient was kept non-weight bearing in a below knee plaster cast. In recent years however, devices such as a removable walking boot have been developed, allowing patients to weight bear and potentially rehabilitate faster. The optimum treatment for this injury has yet to be determined as a variation in practice amongst hospitals and surgeons exists with no current national guideline. There is a gap in the published literature comparing both types of treatment.

  Our study will aim to compare these two treatments and consist of two study groups. 1) patients who are treated in a below knee plaster cast, non-weight bearing for 6 weeks and 2) patients who are treated with a walking boot and allowed to mobilise during the rehabilitation period. Patients will initially be seen in the Accident & Emergency (A&E) department and referred to a research clinic within a week, where they would then be randomised into either treatment arm. Initial treatment from A&E would be with standard below knee plaster cast, non weight-bearing for all patients. Thereafter patients will attend the research clinic on three further occasions, where they will have repeat radiographs and a series of questionnaires that will assess function and quality of life for both treatment arms. If the fracture is deemed unstable, the patient will be offered surgery regardless of which treatment group they are in. We aim to conduct the study over 18 months and determine which is the optimal treatment in this common injury.

• REC name

  London - Fulham Research Ethics Committee

• REC reference

  15/LO/1731

• Date of REC Opinion

  28 Jan 2016

• REC opinion

  Further Information Favourable Opinion