Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12617000200381
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
11/01/2017
Date registered
6/02/2017
Date last updated
22/01/2018
Type of registration
Retrospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
A randomised controlled trial comparing post operative shoes following surgery of the first ray
Query!
Scientific title
FORFoot: A randomised controlled trial of clinical and radiological outcomes comparing reverse camber forefoot offloading shoes with rigid flat soled shoes in adult patients with surgery of the first ray:
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
290869
0
nil known
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Forefoot Offloader vs Rigid flat shoe in forefoot surgery (FORfoot)
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
musculoskeletal- first ray surgery
301564
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Musculoskeletal
301278
301278
0
0
Query!
Other muscular and skeletal disorders
Query!
Surgery
301349
301349
0
0
Query!
Other surgery
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
intervention - rigid flat soled post operative shoe
- The intervention group receive a rigid flat soled shoe. This is a stable device enabling near normal gait at the cost of putting pressure through the operated first ray. Patients will be given an information leaflet summarising the risks and benefits of a rigid flat post operative shoe when compared to the control which allows offloading of the operated forefoot and the expense of stability when mobilising.
- The only difference between groups will be the type of shoe they are given. All other operative techniques and post operative instructions will be standardised between groups. The shoe will be fitted in theatre by a trained member of the surgical team (specialist nurse or subspecialist foot and ankle fellow) and the patient will be mobilised on the ward by a trained physiotherapist and discharged when safely walking with the aid of two crutches.
The patient information leaflet will include contact details of a member of the research team that they can contact if they have any queries or concerns.
The shoe will be kept in place for 6 weeks and the only non standard post operative request will be for the patient to complete a patient reported outcome booklet containing the primary outcome measure and a secondary satisfaction measure.
At one year all patients will be requested to complete a final radiograph which is not part of standard post operative care to assess for final radiographic outcome
Query!
Intervention code [1]
296814
0
Treatment: Devices
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
control- Reverse camber post operative shoe
The reverse camber shoe is a forefoot offloading device which is currently the gold standard after forefoot surgery. This type of shoe has been shown to reduce forefoot pressure when mobilising therefore protecting the operative procedures whilst allowing mobilisation. However, there is no clinical evidence as to whether forefoot offloading is required after first ray surgery and the reverse camber shoe used as a control has issues such as abnormal gait patterns and instability leading to falls risks.
Query!
Control group
Active
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
300690
0
100 point visual analogue score for pain
Query!
Assessment method [1]
300690
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
300690
0
6 weeks post surgery
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
330620
0
modified 5 point likert satisfaction questionnaire
Query!
Assessment method [1]
330620
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
330620
0
6 weeks post surgery
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
330623
0
radiographic analysis of union for arthrodesis
Query!
Assessment method [2]
330623
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
330623
0
12 months post surgery
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
330779
0
radiographic analysis of correction for hallux valgus
Query!
Assessment method [3]
330779
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
330779
0
12 months post surgery
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
primary surgery of the first ray- arthrodesis of the 1st metatarsophalangeal joint or scarf/akin osteotomy for hallux valgus
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
No limit
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
revision surgery
bilateral surgery
first ray procedures other than those listed in the inclusion criteria (such as a lapidus fusion, dorsal cheilectomy and simple bunionectomy)
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
allocation is not concealed
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
permuted block randomisation
Query!
Masking / blinding
Open (masking not used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Not Applicable
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Efficacy
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
The primary endpoint is a 100 point visual analogue score for pain. Previous studies have shown that the minimal clinical important difference in a (VAS) pain is around 20 points. To be certain there was no significant difference in pain between the groups we designed the study to detect a treatment effect of 10 points. Using mean pain relief and standard deviations from a recent study of first ray surgery we designed the study with 80% power at the 5% significance level. which required data from 84 patients. To allow for 10% loss to follow up we aim to recruit 100 patients.
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Active, not recruiting
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
19/02/2016
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
22/06/2017
Query!
Actual
27/11/2017
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
13/06/2018
Query!
Actual
Query!
Sample size
Target
100
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
100
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
NSW
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
7240
0
North Shore Private Hospital - St Leonards
Query!
Recruitment hospital [2]
7241
0
Castlecrag Private Hospital - Castlecrag
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
15005
0
2065 - St Leonards
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [2]
15006
0
2068 - Castlecrag
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
295339
0
Self funded/Unfunded
Query!
Name [1]
295339
0
Dr Andrew P Wines
Query!
Address [1]
295339
0
Suite G02, Mater Clinic
3 Gillies Street
Wollstonecraft NSW 2065
Query!
Country [1]
295339
0
Australia
Query!
Primary sponsor type
Individual
Query!
Name
Dr Andrew P Wines
Query!
Address
Suite G02, Mater Clinic
3 Gillies Street
Wollstonecraft NSW 2065
Query!
Country
Australia
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
294164
0
None
Query!
Name [1]
294164
0
Query!
Address [1]
294164
0
Query!
Country [1]
294164
0
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
296635
0
North Shore Private Hospital Ethics Committee
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
296635
0
North Shore Private Hospital 3 Westbourne Street St Leonards NSW 2065
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
296635
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
296635
0
Query!
Approval date [1]
296635
0
02/11/2015
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
296635
0
NSPHEC 2015-015
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
The aim of this study is to assess whether in patients who have surgery of the first ray, a flat rigid soled shoe, when compared to a reverse camber offloading shoe is associated with the level of post operative pain, satisfaction and bony healing. (union and maintenance of correction.)
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
71574
0
Dr Andrew P Wines
Query!
Address
71574
0
North Sydney Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine Centre,
Mater clinic, 3 Gillies st,
Crows Nest NSW 2065
Query!
Country
71574
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
71574
0
+61 2 94090500
Query!
Fax
71574
0
Query!
Email
71574
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
71575
0
Frances Stewart
Query!
Address
71575
0
North Sydney Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine Centre,
Mater clinic, 3 Gillies st,
Crows Nest NSW 2065
Query!
Country
71575
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
71575
0
+61 2 94090500
Query!
Fax
71575
0
Query!
Email
71575
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
71576
0
Karen Fogarty
Query!
Address
71576
0
North Sydney Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine Centre,
Mater clinic, 3 Gillies st,
Crows Nest NSW 2065
Query!
Country
71576
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
71576
0
+61 2 94090500
Query!
Fax
71576
0
Query!
Email
71576
0
[email protected]
Query!
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
Source
Title
Year of Publication
DOI
Embase
Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Forefoot Offloading Versus Rigid Flat Shoes in Patients Undergoing Surgery of the First Ray.
2019
https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1071100719858621
N.B. These documents automatically identified may not have been verified by the study sponsor.
Download to PDF