Speciality Medical Dialogues
    • facebook
    • twitter
    Login Register
    • facebook
    • twitter
    Login Register
    • Medical Dialogues
    • Education Dialogues
    • Business Dialogues
    • Medical Jobs
    • Medical Matrimony
    • MD Brand Connect
    Speciality Medical Dialogues
    • Editorial
    • News
        • Anesthesiology
        • Cancer
        • Cardiac Sciences
        • Critical Care
        • Dentistry
        • Dermatology
        • Diabetes and Endo
        • Diagnostics
        • ENT
        • Featured Research
        • Gastroenterology
        • Geriatrics
        • Medicine
        • Nephrology
        • Neurosciences
        • Nursing
        • Obs and Gynae
        • Ophthalmology
        • Orthopaedics
        • Paediatrics
        • Parmedics
        • Pharmacy
        • Psychiatry
        • Pulmonology
        • Radiology
        • Surgery
        • Urology
    • Practice Guidelines
        • Anesthesiology Guidelines
        • Cancer Guidelines
        • Cardiac Sciences Guidelines
        • Critical Care Guidelines
        • Dentistry Guidelines
        • Dermatology Guidelines
        • Diabetes and Endo Guidelines
        • Diagnostics Guidelines
        • ENT Guidelines
        • Featured Practice Guidelines
        • Gastroenterology Guidelines
        • Geriatrics Guidelines
        • Medicine Guidelines
        • Nephrology Guidelines
        • Neurosciences Guidelines
        • Obs and Gynae Guidelines
        • Ophthalmology Guidelines
        • Orthopaedics Guidelines
        • Paediatrics Guidelines
        • Psychiatry Guidelines
        • Pulmonology Guidelines
        • Radiology Guidelines
        • Surgery Guidelines
        • Urology Guidelines
    LoginRegister
    Speciality Medical Dialogues
    LoginRegister
    • Home
    • Editorial
    • News
      • Anesthesiology
      • Cancer
      • Cardiac Sciences
      • Critical Care
      • Dentistry
      • Dermatology
      • Diabetes and Endo
      • Diagnostics
      • ENT
      • Featured Research
      • Gastroenterology
      • Geriatrics
      • Medicine
      • Nephrology
      • Neurosciences
      • Nursing
      • Obs and Gynae
      • Ophthalmology
      • Orthopaedics
      • Paediatrics
      • Parmedics
      • Pharmacy
      • Psychiatry
      • Pulmonology
      • Radiology
      • Surgery
      • Urology
    • Practice Guidelines
      • Anesthesiology Guidelines
      • Cancer Guidelines
      • Cardiac Sciences Guidelines
      • Critical Care Guidelines
      • Dentistry Guidelines
      • Dermatology Guidelines
      • Diabetes and Endo Guidelines
      • Diagnostics Guidelines
      • ENT Guidelines
      • Featured Practice Guidelines
      • Gastroenterology Guidelines
      • Geriatrics Guidelines
      • Medicine Guidelines
      • Nephrology Guidelines
      • Neurosciences Guidelines
      • Obs and Gynae Guidelines
      • Ophthalmology Guidelines
      • Orthopaedics Guidelines
      • Paediatrics Guidelines
      • Psychiatry Guidelines
      • Pulmonology Guidelines
      • Radiology Guidelines
      • Surgery Guidelines
      • Urology Guidelines
    • Home
    • Editors Pick
    • Three weeks...

    Three weeks Immobilization just as good as six for ankle fractures

    Written by Hina Zahid Published On 2019-01-23T20:10:27+05:30  |  Updated On 23 Jan 2019 8:10 PM IST
    Three weeks Immobilization just as good as six for ankle fractures

    According to findings of a randomised controlled trial, wearing a cast or ankle support for three weeks may be no worse than the usual six weeks for healing ankle fractures. A shorter immobilization period could be easier for patients and help to reduce costs, The study has been published in The BMJ today.


    Some recent studies have looked at time limit for wearing a cast, but due to the lack of high-quality evidence, wearing a cast for six weeks remains the accepted treatment. There are certainly risks associated with prolonged immobilization, including stiffness, skin damage and blocked blood vessels.


    Researchers in Finland investigated whether a shorter treatment period of 3 weeks could safely match the results of 6 weeks when treating the most common type of ankle fracture (Weber B-type).


    The trial was conducted at two major trauma centres in Finland between 2012-2016 and included 247 participants aged 16 and above, with an average age of 45.


    Around half of the participants were male (51%) and all had sustained stable ankle fractures (fractures that don’t require surgery), which were confirmed by an external-rotation (ER) stress test.


    The participants were randomly allocated to a treatment group: 84 people had the conventional six-week cast, 83 people spent three weeks in a cast, and 80 people wore a simple ankle brace for three weeks.


    They had follow up appointments at 6, 12 and 52 weeks to measure ankle fracture symptoms using the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), where higher scores indicate better healing.


    The researchers also assessed ankle function, pain, quality of life, ankle motion and x-ray results, and they looked at harms by asking the patients to describe any negative effects of the treatment.


    At the year follow-up, the mean OMAS scores for the groups showed that the 3 week periods were no worse than the six weeks, with the 3-week cast and device groups scoring 91.7 and 89.8, respectively, compared with 87.6 in the six-week group.


    The researchers also noted a slight improvement in participants’ ankle mobility in the 3-week ankle brace group, compared with the 6-week group.


    But no other significant difference was found between the groups with regard to harms.


    The authors concluded that the healing process after 3 weeks was just as successful compared with conventional therapy of six weeks, without any added harms. They, however, highlighted some limitations of the study, such as the question around the generalisability of their findings, and they cannot rule out the possibility that other unmeasured factors may have had an influence.


    They point out that the findings were similar after accounting for patient differences and after further analyses to test the strength of the results.


    What’s more, they say the results of the trial are applicable to most patients with this type of ankle fracture, because “both study hospitals were virtually the only hospitals treating ankle fractures within their catchment area.”


    And although the ER stress testing used to assess the initial stability of the fracture is not used universally, the authors say that their findings “make a strong case for wider adoption of ER stress testing in this setting.”


    With stable ankle fractures not requiring surgery, shorter and more convenient strategies could result in successful fracture healing, they conclude.


    For more details click on the link: http://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k5432
    blocked blood vesselsHealingimmobilizationOlerud-Molander Ankle Scoreshortersix weeksThe BMJx-ray results
    Source : BMJ

    Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2020 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

    Hina Zahid
    Hina Zahid
      Show Full Article
      Next Story
      Similar Posts
      NO DATA FOUND

      • Email: info@medicaldialogues.in
      • Phone: 011 - 4372 0751

      Website Last Updated On : 12 Oct 2022 7:06 AM GMT
      Company
      • About Us
      • Contact Us
      • Our Team
      • Reach our Editor
      • Feedback
      • Submit Article
      Ads & Legal
      • Advertise
      • Advertise Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
      • Privacy Policy
      • Editorial Policy
      • Comments Policy
      • Disclamier
      Medical Dialogues is health news portal designed to update medical and healthcare professionals but does not limit/block other interested parties from accessing our general health content. The health content on Medical Dialogues and its subdomains is created and/or edited by our expert team, that includes doctors, healthcare researchers and scientific writers, who review all medical information to keep them in line with the latest evidence-based medical information and accepted health guidelines by established medical organisations of the world.

      Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription.Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. You can check out disclaimers here. © 2025 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

      © 2025 - Medical Dialogues. All Rights Reserved.
      Powered By: Hocalwire
      X
      We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok