Date: 15 July 2016
I had a serious fracture affecting both sides of my ankle. In the days after my injury, I was asked if I wanted to participate in the AIM trial.
My allocation was to have surgery, and at the time I believed that surgery was the best option. Although the period of shock and pain after the injury was not an ideal time to make decisions, I accepted that a decision had to be made so that I could get on with treatment.
My ankle injury healed well after the surgery although it was a long process - taking 5 to 6 months in plaster and a boot. In terms of help after coming home from hospital, I had to have care at home for a week, as I was living alone. After that, I had help with tasks such as shopping. I had rehabilitation physiotherapy in a local hospital, for 6 half hour sessions. I found these helpful, as well as being very motivated to do the exercises in order to get walking again.
Overall, I found the care to be of a very high standard, and there was not much that could have been improved, either in the trial or in regular practice.
My one recommendation for improvement was that follow up should continue to five years, both in the trial and in practice. This was because after the trial, I developed chronic venous insufficiency around my ankle scar. I wanted to know how many other patients developed this condition after surgery. In light of the possible complication, in retrospect I wished that I had received the close contact casting option.
Ros had a serious ankle fracture and decided to take part in the AIM trial.