COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A randomized, controlled trial of a removable brace versus casting in children with low-risk ankle fractures.

Pediatrics 2007 June
OBJECTIVES: Isolated distal fibular ankle fractures in children are very common and at very low risk for future complications. Nevertheless, standard therapy for these fractures still consists of casting, a practice that carries risks, inconveniences, and use of subspecialty health care resources. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to determine whether children who have these low-risk ankle fractures that are treated with a removable ankle brace have at least as effective a recovery of physical function as those that are treated with a cast.

METHODS: This was a noninferiority, randomized, single-blind trial in which children who were 5 to 18 years of age and treated in a pediatric emergency department for low-risk ankle fractures were randomly assigned to a removable ankle brace or a below-knee walking cast. The primary outcome at 4 weeks was physical function, measured by using the modified Activities Scale for Kids. Additional outcomes included patient preferences and costs.

RESULTS: The mean activity score at 4 weeks was 91.3% in the brace group (n = 54), and this was significantly higher than the mean of 85.3% in the cast group (n = 50). Significantly more children who were treated with a brace had returned to baseline activities by 4 weeks compared with those who were casted (80.8% vs 59.5%). Fifty-four percent of the casted children would have preferred the brace, but only 5.7% of children who received the brace would have preferred the cast. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was always >80%; therefore, the brace was cost-effective compared with the cast.

CONCLUSIONS: The removable ankle brace is more effective than the cast with respect to recovery of physical function, is associated with a faster return to baseline activities, is superior with respect to patient preferences, and is also cost-effective.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app