AzTrials
AzTrials

Femoral Shaft FractureNCT00471913

Functional Outcome and MRI of Muscle Damage Following Nailing Procedure in Femur (Thigh) Fractures Using Different Entry Points

A study testing Femoral Nailing with Different Entry Points in people with Femoral Shaft Fracture, run by University of British Columbia at 1 site in Canada.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Study focus is femoral shaft (thigh bone) fractures (break) that require surgical treatment under anaesthetic to stabilize the femur fracture. This is usually done by placing a metal nail and screws inside the femur (thigh) bone. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 19 to 60 years
Conditions the study is for
Femoral Shaft Fracture
What is being tested?
Femoral Nailing with Different Entry Points
Type of treatment
Medical device
How many people
60 participants
Where
1 siteCanada
Study dates
Apr 2007to Apr 2011
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 19 to 60 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult

Who may be able to join

  • 19 to 60 years of age
  • Isolated closed femoral shaft fracture
  • Ability to take part in follow-up and functional testing

Who cannot join

  • Patients under 19 and over 60 years of age
  • Non - traumatic/pathological fractures
  • Ipsilateral acetabulum/pelvis fracture
  • Open femoral shaft fracture
  • Previous lower extremity surgery
  • Pre-existing disability
  • Presents for revision surgery
  • Mentally incompetent to consent

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Canada1 site
  • Vancouver General Hospital

    Vancouver, British Columbia

Other trials in Canada

About this study

Official title: Functional Outcome and MR Imaging of Abductor Damage Following Antegrade Femoral Nailing With Different Entry Points: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Study focus is femoral shaft (thigh bone) fractures (break) that require surgical treatment under anaesthetic to stabilize the femur fracture. This is usually done by placing a metal nail and screws inside the femur (thigh) bone.

This study has been designed to allow us to learn more about the effect of using a different starting point to insert the nail into the body in order to access the fracture and fix it. This question is important because to date, all entry points currently used do result in some muscle damage. In order to minimize this damage a lateral (side) entry nail has been developed and is currently in use at many centres. This nail is new but, the lateral entry technique for these types of fractures has been used extensively in the past, and this nail has been developed in order to better accommodate the technique.

It is believed that entering laterally instead of going deeper into the tissue to access the bone to fix it is going to result in less muscle damage which in turn will improve functional outcome.

Read the detailed description

Background:

This study has been designed to prospectively evaluate functional outcome and MR imaging of abductor damage following antegrade femoral nailing with different entry points

Recent developments in IM nailing of the femur have favoured the use of the greater trochanter as an entry site as opposed to using the "classical" piriformis fossa. With either technique, a persistent problem appears however to be the damage caused to muscle tissue during preparation of the femur and insertion of the nail. The recent development of femoral nails with an entry point lateral to both these sites offers the potential advantage of avoiding abductor muscle damage.

In several cadaver studies, authors state that a trochanteric entry point causes more damage than a piriformis entry, and that an even more lateral entry point causes even less damage to the abductor muscles compared to the classical piriformis fossa entry site. There is however, no prospective clinical study has specifically evaluated the condition of the abductor tendon and the amount of muscle damage after antegrade nailing in the treatment of femoral shaft fractures. The few clinical studies that have attempted to examine the functional outcome in patients undergoing IM nailing of femoral fractures have used general measurement tools (general functional clinical assessment, gross evaluation of gait) which do not reflect the state of the art at this time and which do not specifically assess gluteal muscle condition. To date, no published study has evaluated the integrity of the gluteus tendon, the damage to the surrounding tissues, and the functional outcome using validated scores. Moreover, no study has compared the "traditional" entry points to a lateral entry nail with this level of precision.

The standard of care for the treatment of femoral shaft fractures is the insertion of an intramedullary nail through the piriformis fossa. Following insertion of femoral IM nails, a number of studies have demonstrated excellent clinical and radiographic results with relatively few complications such as nonunion, malunion, or infection. Intraoperative difficulties with respect to rapid identification of the appropriate starting point have prompted the development of nails that use the greater trochanter as an entry site as opposed to using the "classical" piriformis fossa.

As stated earlier, with either technique, a persistent problem appears however to be the damage caused to muscle tissue during preparation of the femur and insertion of the nail. The recent development of femoral nails with an entry point lateral to both these sites offers the theoretical advantage of avoiding abductor muscle damage. There is so far a lack of prospective randomized trials which demonstrate radiological and clinical parameters of the different entry points.

Objective To determine the abductor tendon and muscle damage with MR-imaging according to the entry point of the femoral nail. Additionally, objective hip muscle function, general health status and functional outcome will be assessed using validated instruments.

We aim to correlate muscle damage due to the different entry points and correlate with the functional outcome. Further, to quantify the differences (advantages) of different IM nailing techniques of the femur, with respect to effect on the abductor musculature, muscle testing and gait, and patient-based functional outcome, to guide surgeons' decisions and future research.

Recent Related Work In a recently published report by Ricci et al. the use of the trochanteric entry point was associated with a low complication rate and good clinical results including the assessment of a gait video. In this admittedly small prospective study the superiority of either the trochanteric or the piriformis fossa entry point nail could not be established. Although gait was evaluated video (in 30% of the study population), this was limited to a subjective assessment of the presence of a Trendelenberg gait (absent, slight or present). There was no statement about the muscle status, and functional outcome assessment was limited to a Harris Hip Score.

Abductor tendon condition and muscle damage has previously been assessed with MR-imaging by the group of Pfirrmann et al. in patients with total hip arthroplasty through a transgluteal approach. This study showed a high correlation between damage and clinical outcome.

The co-applicant's research group has previously carried out many clinical studies including its part in a multi-centre randomized trial in femur fractures. It also specifically has carried out a functional assessment of patients following femur fractures which included: objective muscle testing of isokinetic force using a KinCom® dynamometer, formal gait lab analysis using an eight camera real-time motion capture system in conjunction with a force-plate walking platform, and as part of the same study, the administration of validated self-assessment outcome questionnaires.

So far no prospective randomized trial has investigated, as we have planned to do, the radiological (MR), functional, and clinical outcome after insertion of a femoral nail through two different entry points.

Method Patients will be assigned randomly (via computer generated randomization) to one of two groups. The two groups will undergo standard treatment of IM nailing for the femoral shaft fracture differing only in entry point of the nail: piriformis fossa entry point versus lateral entry point.

Design Patients between 19 and 60 years of age presenting with an isolated femoral shaft fracture that requires IM nailing will be asked to participate in this study. Informed consent for participation in the study will be obtained by either a member of the health care team or by a research nurse.

Consenting patients who meet the inclusion criteria will be randomized to either piriformis fossa or lateral entry femoral nailing. Preoperative, Intraoperative, and follow-up data will be obtained. Data will detail clinical assessment, MRI results, objective muscle testing, and gait analysis.

Power analysis In a published report from Pfirrmann et al. distinct conclusions could be made in a collective of 54 patients. We plan to recruit 60 patients (30 per group) with a projected drop-out rate of 10%. As this is a pilot study, without previous reference, a similarity in expected findings and required sample size must be inferred. Cases will be randomized using a web-based allocation tool.

Outcome Variables:

Variables for collection and analysis are:

  1. Preoperative:
  2. Demographics ii) ISS (Injury Severity Score) iii) AO Fracture Classification
  3. Intraoperative:
  4. Elapsed time from injury to operative treatment ii) Fluoroscopy time iii) Incision length iv) Blood loss
  5. Postoperative:
  6. VAS pain scores ii) Morphine requirements q 24hrs iii) Change in hemoglobin q 24hrs iv) Hospital Length of Stay v) Clinical and Radiological follow-up at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months vi) MRI at 12 months vii) Self-administered validated outcome tools at 6 and 12 months (SF-36, SMFA, Harris Hip Score, Merle d'Aubigne score) although last two are not validated they would allow for comparison with widely published scores in established literature Study Specific Measures: Postoperative follow-up: All patients will be reviewed clinically in the fracture clinic at two, six, twelve weeks, and six and twelve months postoperatively. Study data will be acquired at the six and 12 month appointments. Clinical assessment: Bilateral measurements will be recorded so that the results from the unaffected limb are used as a control for the injured limb. Both the raw data and the side to side differences will be used in the analysis. Physical examination to document any limb length discrepancy, Trendelenberg sign, rotational malalignment, and the ranges of motion of the hip and knee. Questionnaires: A study specific questionnaire will be administered to determine the extent and location of any persistent pain in the affected limb, ability to return to their usual occupation and recreational activities. Functional outcome scores (SF-36, SMFA, Harris Hip Score, Merle d'Aubigne score) will be collected at 6 and 12 months. All of these outcomes tools are widely referenced in the literature and can be used for comparison purposes. MR Imaging: An MRI will be administered at 12 months and will include evaluation of abductor tendon defects, diameter, signal intensity, ossification, and bursal fluid collections. The abductor muscles will be evaluated by MRI for fatty atrophy. Muscle strength testing and gait analysis: Muscle strength testing will take place at 12 months and will utilize the KinCom Dynamometer (a widely used, standard research protocol and specifically-designed instrument for use in muscle strength testing) to evaluate muscle strength: Peak isokinetic force measurement: maximum strength (nm/kg), and work (J/min) of hip abductors, hip extensors, and knee extensors. Gait analysis will take place at 12 months and will employ a standard eight camera real-time motion capture system in conjunction with a force-plate walking platform to collect and evaluate pelvic obliquity, hip abductor movement, single leg support time, and step length. Data Analysis: The side-to-side differences will be summarized and compared across treatment groups. Additionally, aggregated raw data by treatment group will be summarized and compared, using t-test for the comparison of continuous variables' means, and Chi-square for categorical data.
Being tested
Femoral Nailing with Different Entry Points
Keywords
Femur, Fracture, Antegrade, Nailing, Shaft, Abductor
Medical subject headings
Fractures, Bone

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Femoral Nailing with Different Entry PointsDevice

    See Detailed Description.

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. 12 month functional outcome and determination of muscle and tendon damage with MR Imaging

    Measured: 12 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted10 May 2007 (estimated)
  2. Study startApr 2007
  3. Primary completionApr 2011
  4. Study completionApr 2011

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
60 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00471913
Sponsor's protocol ID
H06-03242
Status last verified
Apr 2011
First submitted
8 May 2007
Last updated
15 Apr 2011
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Femoral Nailing with Different Entry Points in people with Femoral Shaft Fracture, run by University of British Columbia at 1 site in Canada.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 Apr 2011. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

12 month functional outcome and determination of muscle and tendon damage with MR Imaging (time frame: 12 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 Apr 2011.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in