Telerehabilitation for Patients After ORIF for Ankle Fracture: A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial
Home-based telerehabilitation after ankle fixation achieved similar functional recovery to in-person therapy while lowering short-term costs.
*Noninferiority randomized controlled trial; Level 1b (OCEBM).
*Noninferiority randomized controlled trial; Level 1b (OCEBM).
Citation
Wu T, Wang R, Chen Y, et al. Telerehabilitation for Patients After Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Ankle Fracture: A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2026;107:703–714. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2025.10.024
Background
Rehabilitation after surgical fixation of an ankle fracture is important for regaining motion and function, but frequent clinic visits can be difficult. Remote, coached home programs may improve access and reduce costs.
Patients
468 adults (18–60 years) in China after surgery for an acute, isolated ankle fracture. Excluded: prior surgery on the injured ankle, severe muscle-and-bone disorders, or lower-limb malformations. Required regular access to a smart device.
Intervention
12-week home-based telerehabilitation with tablet video instruction and remote coaching.
Control
12-week standard face-to-face rehabilitation with a physical therapist.
Outcome
Ankle function, health-related quality of life, and 12-week costs per patient.
Follow-up Period
24 weeks after discharge (costs collected through 12 weeks).
Results
| Finding | Result |
|---|---|
| Total 12-week cost per patient | Telerehabilitation lower by 10,679 Chinese Yuan (57,378 vs 68,057); ~15% reduction |
| Quality-of-life index at 24 weeks | Higher with telerehabilitation: adjusted difference +0.016 (95% CI 0.005 to 0.026) |
| Self-rated health scale at 6 weeks | Lower with telerehabilitation: adjusted difference −0.541 (95% CI −0.864 to −0.219) |
Notes: “Quality-of-life index” was measured with the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level tool. Main ankle function score showed no meaningful differences at 6, 12, or 24 weeks.
Analyses included intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches; results were similar. This was a noninferiority trial.
Limitations
Single-center study in China and limited to patients comfortable with technology, which may reduce generalizability. Pre-injury health was recalled, risking bias. Costs were measured only to 12 weeks, so longer-term cost impact is uncertain.
Funding
Equipment support from a local clinic; no other funding reported.
Clinical Application
For eligible post-surgery ankle fracture patients, consider telerehabilitation to reduce costs without sacrificing recovery; monitor early perceived health and provide extra support as needed.
Journal Club
Discussion questions and an EBM quiz for this paper. How to run a journal club →
Discussion question (1)
In this open-label, assessor-blinded noninferiority RCT, telerehabilitation after ankle ORIF had similar 12-week OMAS vs face-to-face PT, adjusted difference -0.477, and 15% lower costs; should this change discharge rehab pathways, given the single-center China setting, tech-access requirements, and lack of participant/provider blinding?
EBM quiz (1 question)
1. In this randomized trial comparing telerehabilitation with face-to-face rehabilitation after ankle ORIF, why does randomization strengthen the inference that similar OMAS outcomes were due to the rehabilitation strategy rather than baseline patient differences?
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion.
Not sure of scale ranges for QOL and self rated health scale, so it’s hard to make sense of the point estimates. What were the prespecified non inferiority margins? 10,679 Chinese Yuan equals 1,566.98 United States Dollar