CROSSFIRE - Evaluation of surgical fixation versus conservative management for distal radius fractures in the elderly.

None listed

Fractures of the distal radius are the most common fractures presenting to emergency departments and orthopaedic surgeons. These fractures are more common in the elderly (due to osteoporosis and increased risk of falls) and the incidence in this age group is increasing. Considerable practice variation exists in the management of distal radius fractures in the elderly in Australia, ranging from closed reduction (manipulation of the arm to realign the fracture) with cast immobilisation, to open reduction (surgical exposure and realignment of the fracture) with plate fixation. Open reduction and (volar locking) plate fixation is currently the most common treatment provided. While there is evidence showing no significant advantage for some forms of surgical fixation over closed treatment, and no difference between different surgical techniques, there is a lack of evidence comparing the two most common treatments used in Australia: volar locked plate fixation versus cast immobilisation. Surgical management of these fractures involves significant costs (implant costs, medical costs, hospital costs) and risks (infection, implant failure, general surgical risks) compared to non-operative management (closed reduction and cast immobilisation in the emergency department). Therefore, high level evidence comparing the current treatment alternatives (plate fixation versus casting) is required in order to address practice variation, justify or avoid costs, and to provide the best clinical outcome for patients with these common fractures. This pragmatic, multicentre randomised comparative effectiveness trial aims to determine whether (volar locking) plate fixation leads to better pain and function and is more cost-effective than closed reduction with cast immobilisation in displaced distal radius fractures in adults aged 60 years and older. The trial will compare the two techniques, but will also follow patients that are unwilling to be randomised (but consent to follow up) in a separate, observational arm. Inclusion of non-randomised patients provides a more complete spectrum of fracture presentation, provides practice and outcome insights about standard care, and improves the generalisation of the results from the randomised arms. Given that plate fixation requires hospital admission and surgery, and that closed reduction with cast immobilisation is usually performed in the emergency department without admission, the findings have important implications for use of resources (theatre time, bed days, staff and implant costs) and may also reduce harms associated with plate fixation (infection, implant mal-positioning, tendon rupture and reoperation for implant removal). This trial will have significance in Australia, New Zealand and internationally, as it will address an important need for evidence supporting surgical practice.