Surgical fixation versus non-surgical care for children with a displaced medial epicondyle fracture of the elbow (the SCIENCE study): a multicentre, randomised controlled, superiority trial and economic evaluation

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Displaced medial epicondyle fractures are among the most controversial injuries in children, with increasing trends towards surgical fixation despite little supporting evidence. Approximately half of affected children undergo surgical fixation, while others receive non-surgical care. The SCIENCE trial aimed to determine whether surgical fixation to restore the position of the bone provides superior functional outcomes and is cost-effective compared with non-surgical care. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic multicentre, randomised, superiority trial across 59 hospitals in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Recruiting sites were secondary or tertiary care hospitals providing acute paediatric trauma care. Eligible participants were aged 7-15 years with a displaced medial epicondyle fracture and patients were excluded if the injury occurred more than 2 weeks prior, they had a medial epicondyle fragment that was incarcerated (trapped) within the joint, the injury was part of a complex elbow fracture (ie, extending into the joint), or there were additional fractured bones outside of the elbow. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either surgical fixation or non-surgical care using a web-based randomisation software from Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, with minimisation (including a random element) stratified by centre and elbow dislocation status at presentation. Participants and their parents and carers could not be masked to treatment. Surgical fixation was performed under general anaesthesia and involved a surgical incision, restoration of the anatomical alignment, and fixing the fragment, typically with a screw or wires. Non-surgical care involved immobilisation of the elbow at approximately 90° of flexion using a cast, splint, or sling. Both groups were allowed mobilisation as pain allowed, although cast immobilisation beyond 4 weeks was discouraged. The primary outcome was upper limb function at 12 months, measured using the Patient Report Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Score for Children in the intention-to-treat population, which included all participants in the groups to which they were randomly assigned, irrespective of treatment received. Complications and serious adverse events were summarised in a safety (as-treated) population defined by treatment received. A within-trial economic evaluation was undertaken from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 12-month time period. The trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN16619778; recruitment is complete and extended follow-up to age 16 years is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 10, 2019, and Sept 22, 2023, 647 patients from 59 sites met the inclusion criteria. 146 patients were excluded (64 due to the injury being more than 2 weeks old and 24 because the epicondyle fragment was incarcerated within the joint), 161 families of children meeting the eligibility criteria declined to participate, and for five patients there was no clinician equipoise. 335 participants were randomly assigned to an intervention (166 to the non-surgical care group and 168 to the surgical fixation group) and one was immediately excluded due to a randomisation error. Primary outcome data were collected from 285 (85%) participants. 170 (51%) participants were female and 164 (49%) were male. Mean participant age at baseline was 11·7 years (SD 2·3). At 12 months post-randomisation, the PROMIS Upper Extremity score was 53·1 (SD 7·8) in the non-surgical care group and 54·3 (5·7) in the surgical fixation group (mean treatment difference, 1·57 [95% CI -0·01 to 3·14; p=0·052]). This estimate of treatment effect was below the clinically important difference specified (4 points), supporting the conclusion that a clinically important effect is unlikely. Additional episodes of surgery, either planned or related to complications, occurred in 24 participants in the surgical group and three in the non-surgical group. Among the 150 participants who underwent surgical fixation, there were 14 intraoperative complications from 13 (9%) participants, and seven participants had a postoperative complication (5% participants) each requiring surgery. Routine screw or wire removal was undertaken in a further 17 (11%) participants. From the 184 participants in the non-surgical group, there were five complications among four (2%) participants, three (2%) of which required additional surgery. The mean per patient cost from the NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was £2435 (95% CI 1812 to 3057) more for participants in the surgical fixation group with a mean per patient quality-adjusted life year difference of -0·008 (95% CI -0·039 to 0·024). The probability that surgical fixation is cost-effective at the £20 000 or £30 000 per quality-adjusted life year willingness-to-pay threshold was 0%. INTERPRETATION: The SCIENCE trial demonstrates that surgical fixation offers no clinical benefit and is not cost-effective compared with non-surgical care, while exposing children to avoidable surgical risks. These findings suggest that non-surgical care should be adopted as the default management strategy for these injuries, regardless of initial elbow dislocation status. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (17/18/02), with additional support from the NIHR Academy, Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the Starship Foundation (New Zealand).

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.