Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34384419›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2021

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary arthrodesis versus open reduction and internal fixation in patients with Lisfranc fracture instability (The BFF Study) study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

N A C van den Boom, G A N L Stollenwerck, S M A A Evers, M Poeze

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04519242 (The BFF Study- The Better to Fix or Fuse Study 'Retaining or Removing the Joint in the Foot), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04519242 naunknown statusnot on this map

The BFF Study- The Better to Fix or Fuse Study 'Retaining or Removing the Joint in the Foot: A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial of Primary Arthrodesis Versus Joint Stabilisation in Lisfranc Fracture Dislocation Midfoot Injuries

TypeinterventionalSponsorMaastricht University Medical CenterRan2020 to 2024Enrolled112ConditionsLisfranc Fracture, Arthrodesis, Internal Fixation, Quality of LifeArmsSurgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

N A C van den BoomDept. of Trauma Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands. n.vandenboom@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
G A N L StollenwerckDept. of Surgery-Trauma Surgery, Alrijne Hospital, Simon Smitweg 1, 2353 GA, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands.
S M A A EversTrimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Da Costakade 45, 3521 VS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M PoezeDept. of Trauma Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLAlrijne Ziekenhuis · NLTrimbos Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Lisfranc injury is a complex injury of the midfoot. It can result in persistent pain and functional impairment if treated inappropriately. In Lisfranc fracture dislocation, treatment options are primary arthrodesis of the midfoot joints or open reduction and internal fixation. The purpose of the proposed study is to define the optimal treatment for the Lisfranc fracture dislocation, either primary arthrodesis or open reduction and internal fixation, in regard to quality of life, complications, functional outcomes, and cost effectiveness.

methodsStudy design: A prospective multicenter RCT. STUDY POPULATION: All patients of 18 years and older with an acute (< 6 weeks) traumatic fracture dislocation in the Lisfranc midfoot joints, displaced on static radiographic evaluation or unstable with dynamic evaluation, weight bearing radiographs or fluoroscopic stress testing under anesthesia, and eligible for either one of the surgical procedures. In total, this study will include n = 112 patients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation.

interventionsPatients with Lisfranc fracture dislocation will be randomly allocated to treatment in "The Better to Fix or Fuse Study" (The BFF Study) with either PA or ORIF. Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome parameter: the quality of life. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: complications, functional outcomes, secondary surgical interventions and cost effectiveness. Nature and extent of the burden: PA is expected to have a better outcome, however both treatments are accepted for this injury with a similar low risk of complications. Follow up is standardized and therefore this study will not add extra burden to the patient. DISCUSSION: This study protocol provides a comprehensive overview of the aims and methods of the attached clinical study. Limitations of this study are the absence of patient blinding since it is impossible in surgical intervention, and the outcome measure (AOFAS) that has limited validity not for these injuries. This study will be the first with enough power to define optimal treatment for Lisfranc fracture dislocations. This is necessary since current literature is unclear on this topic. Trial registration Current controlled Trial: NCT04519242 with registration date: 08/13/2020. Retrospectively registered; Protocol date and version: Version 4 05/06/2020.

Indexed as

Fractures, BoneQuality of LifeArthrodesisCost-Benefit AnalysisFracture Fixation, InternalHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReview Literature as TopicTreatment OutcomeCost effectivenessORIFPAQuality of lifeTraumatic Lisfranc fracture dislocation

Identifiers

PMID34384419
PMCPMC8359057
OpenAlexW3188876789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.