AzTrials
AzTrials

Humeral FracturesSRCNCT00772850

Rotator Cuff Injury in Antegrade Locked Nailing for Humeral Fractures

An observational study of Humeral Fractures, run by National Taiwan University Hospital at 1 site in Taiwan.

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

The purpose of this study is to investigate the potential insults of rotator cuff muscle and the functional recovery of upper extremity function after antegrade nailing of humeral fractures. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 15 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Humeral Fractures
How many people
50 participants
Where
1 siteTaiwan
Study dates
Oct 2008to Jun 2010
Phase
Observational
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 15 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Study population: Patients operated in National Taiwan University hospital

Who may be able to join

  • subjects must sign and date informed consent
  • subjects must be over fifteen years old, of either sex
  • subjects suffered from acute humeral fractures or non-unions
  • subjects were treated by antegrade H-L nailing (United, Taipei, Taiwan)
  • subjects had solid union of fractures
  • postoperative time was at least 12 months subjects were operated between 2003 and 2006.

Who cannot join

  • subjects refusing to take the examinations
  • subjects lost to follow up
  • subjected with pre-existing shoulder problems.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Taiwan1 site
  • Department of Orthopedic Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital

    Taipei, 100

Other trials in Taiwan

About this study

Official title: Sonographic Evaluation of Rotator Cuff Injury in Antegrade Locked Nailing for Humeral Fractures

The purpose of this study is to investigate the potential insults of rotator cuff muscle and the functional recovery of upper extremity function after antegrade nailing of humeral fractures.

Read the detailed description

Background:

With improved implant design and surgical technique, operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures increasingly has become accepted. Such treatment offers several advantages. The rigidly fixed, fractured limb can be used early without external support, and the patient can sleep, as normal, in the supine position. In addition, the angular deformity often seen with conservative treatment effectively is prevented. Although plate osteosynthesis can afford a rigid fixation and good functional recovery, its disadvantages have been reported. By comparison, locked nailing, which provides sufficient fixation stability and prevents slipout of the nail, offers the advantages of less soft tissue injury, a lower infection rate, and no need for radial nerve extrication. Locked nailing is preferred especially for open fractures, comminuted fractures, pathologic fractures, and fractures associated with osteoporosis. The use of Seidel locked nails with spreading fins can be complicated by inadequate fixation, intraoperative bone comminution, and unsatisfactory recovery of shoulder function. Biomechanically, locked nails with transfixing locking screws allow much better rotational control of the distal fragment than do Seidel nails. Most rigid humeral nails are inserted antegrade, but a disadvantage to antegrade nailing has been the risk of shoulder function impairment, which partially negates the advantages of closed nailing and of loadsharing mechanical properties. The disadvantages of retrograde nailing are potential risk of elbow joint injury and nonlinear entry portal of nailing.

Gaullier O et al did a study of 23 cases with rotator cuff evaluation in 1999. Only humeral diaphyseal fractures were enrolled. Fracture type classification was according to AO. Clinical shoulder assessment was carried out using the Constant score. Treatment was Seidel intramedullary locked nailing.

Seidel intramedullary locked nailing was too big for patients in Taiwan. Compared to patients in western countries, our patients had small stature. The humeral locked nail, invented by Jinn Lin, provided a proper treatment option for humeral fractures in Asian people.

Although H-L nail has the advantages of minimal tissue trauma, it still has the possibility of rotator cuff injury. The purpose of our study is to evaluate rotator cuff injury in antegrade humeral locked nailing for humeral fractures by means of sonographic evaluation and shoulder functional examination.

Materials and methods:

  1. Implant design:

The Humeral Locked nail is a uniform closed cylindrical tube with a 5° bend at 70 mm from the threaded end. It is manufactured from 316L stainless steel (Carpenter Technology Corporation, Indianapolis, IN) in 4 sizes: 7 (diameter) x 190 (length) mm, 7 x 210 mm, 8 x 210 mm, and 8 x 230 mm. The thickness of the nail wall is 1.5 mm for 8 mm nails and 1 mm for 7 mm nails. There are 3 parallel screw holes (the 2 outermost holes usually are used) at the threaded end, 45° oblique to the axis of the nail, and 2 transverse screw holes at the other end. Cortical screws are used as locking screws that are inserted under the guide of an L shaped, nail mounted targeting device.

II. Patient selection:

The inclusion criteria for patients in the present study were listed as follows: (1) subjects must sign and date informed consent; (2) subjects must be over fifteen years old, of either sex; (3) subjects suffered from acute humeral fractures or non-unions; (4) subjects were treated by antegrade H-L nailing (United, Taipei, Taiwan); 5) subjects had solid union of fractures; 6) postoperative time was at least 12 months; 7) subjects were operated between 2003 and 2006. The exclusion criteria for patients in the present study were listed as follows: (1) subjects refusing to take the examinations, (2) subjects lost to follow up, (3) subjected with pre-existing shoulder problems.

III. Study design:

Our study design is a retrospective, cross-sectional study. Patients with acute humeral fractures or nonunions treated by antegrade H-L nailing were recruited and studied. Sonographic evaluation of rotator cuff was done by an experienced orthopedist and shoulder functional scores such as Neer score, Constant score and QuickDASH score was assessed at the same time.

Real-time sonography was performed with a Sonoline Sienna scanner (HDI-5000, Philips, USA) equipped with a 5.5-9.4-MHz linear-array transducer. The patient was seated on a stool with the examiner sitting in front of him. Lateral transverse view and lateral longitudinal view were acquired. For these two views, the arm of the examined patient was placed in adduction and internal rotation, which gave a better exposure of the supraspinatus tendon under the acromion. Criteria for full-thickness rotator cuff tears were nonvisualization of the rotator cuff and hypoechoic or anechoic discontinuity. Besides, criteria for partial- thickness rotator cuff tears included focal heterogenous hypoechogenecity and incomplete hypoechoic cleft. Measurement of rotator cuff tears was done on lateral transverse and longitudinal views. The width of rotator cuff tears was measured on lateral transverse view, while the height of rotator cuff tears was measured on lateral transverse view. Moreover, the length of rotator cuff tears was measured on lateral longitudinal view. The thickness of rotator cuff at the dome of humeral head was measured on lateral transverse and compared between the operative and sound sides. We calculate the ratio of the thickness of supraspinatus on the operative side to that on the sound side.

  1. Thickness rotator cuff tear:

Size (full or partial):

  1. width (mm) ii. height (mm) iii. length (mm)
  2. visualization of nail
  3. scar: nature and size
  4. supraspinatus thickness(mm) :

IV. Baseline variables and primary endpoints:

We included patient's age and gender, fracture location, fracture cause, presence of nail removal, post-operative period and comorbidity or associated disease as independent variables. Fracture location was either humeral neck or humeral shaft. Humeral neck fractures were defined as fractures above surgical neck of the humerus. Humeral neck fractures were further categorized into three groups: two-part, three-parts or four-parts, according to Neer classification. Meanwhile, humeral shaft fractures were defined as fractures below surgical neck of the humerus and 5 cm above the olecarnon fossa. Humeral shaft fractures were separated into three groups: proximal third shaft fractures, middle third shaft fractures and distal third shaft fractures. Fracture causes included simple falls and traffic accidents. We calculate post-operative period according to the latest operation involving rotator cuff injury, which included antegrade H-L nailing and nail removal. For example, if patient X was treated by antegrade H-L nailing two years ago and received nail removal one year ago, his (or her) post-operative period was twelve months rather than twenty-four months.

The primary endpoints of the present study were functional scores and sonographic findings. As to functional scores, we chose Neer score, Constant score and QuickDASH score as our endpoints. Neer score consists of pain component, function component, range of motion component and anatomy component. The interpretation of Neer score are listed as follows: excellent when Neer score is above 89 units, satisfactory when Neer score is between 80 to 89 units, unsatisfactory when Neer score is between 70 to 79 units, failure when Neer score is below 70 units. Constant score consist of pain, activity level, arm positioning, strength of abduction and range of motion. We examined Constant score of affected and healthy shoulder and calculated the difference of Constant scores between two shoulders. The interpretation is according to the difference of Constant scores: excellent (0~5 points), very good (6~10 points), good (11~20 points), fair (21~30 points) and poor (above 30 points). The QuickDASH outcome measure is a questionnaire which asks about a patient's symptoms as well as his (or her) ability to perform certain activities. Patients should answer this questionnaire based on their conditions in the last week.

  1. Statistics:

We include age, gender, fracture location, fracture cause, the presence of nail removal, post-operative period and comorbidity as independent variables. We use Neer score, Constant score, QuickDASH score, the presence of full-thickness rotator cuff tear, partial-thickness rotator cuff tear and scar , supraspinatus thickness ratio as dependent variables. Univariate analyses were conducted with Student's t tests for continuous variables and Chi square tests for binary variables. We also do multivariate regression analyses to adjust the confounding factors. The difference is considered statistically significant when p value is under 0.05.

VI. Sample size calculations (power analysis):

Neer score:

The primary endpoint is used for calculation of sample size. We assume that the standard deviation of Neer score in our patients is 12 points. How many patients are required to have a 80% power of detecting a 10-point difference in the mean of functional score between the two groups at the 5% level of significance? The required sample size is 48 patients (24 patients for each group).

Keywords
Humeral fracture; Antegrade nailing; Rotator cuff
Medical subject headings
Humeral Fractures

What participants receive

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

Study groups in NCT00772850
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Antegrade nailing, humeral fracturesWe included patient's age and gender, fracture location, fracture cause, presence of nail removal, post-operative period and comorbidity or associated disease as independent variables. Fracture location was either humeral neck or humeral shaft. Humeral neck fractures were defined as fractures above surgical neck of the humerus. Meanwhile, humeral shaft fractures were defined as fractures below surgical neck of the humerus and 5 cm above the olecarnon fossa. Humeral shaft fractures were separated into three groups: proximal third shaft fractures, middle third shaft fractures and distal third shaft fractures. Fracture causes included simple falls and traffic accidents.

What is being measured

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

  1. Sonographic finding, functional recovery

    Measured: at least 12 months

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Radiographical finding

    Measured: at least 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 posted15 Oct 2008 (estimated)
  2. Study startOct 2008
  3. Primary completionJun 2010
  4. Study completionJun 2010

Resources

More details

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

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrolment
50 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00772850
Sponsor's protocol ID
200804007R
Acronym
SRC
Status last verified
Jul 2010
First submitted
14 Oct 2008
Last updated
15 Jul 2010
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes

Publications

  • Lin J, Hou SM. Antegrade locked nailing for humeral shaft fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Aug;(365):201-10. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199908000-00025.

    PubMed 10627704
  • Lin J, Hou SM, Hang YS. Locked nailing for displaced surgical neck fractures of the humerus. J Trauma. 1998 Dec;45(6):1051-7. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199812000-00013.

    PubMed 9867047
  • Lin J. Treatment of humeral shaft fractures with humeral locked nail and comparison with plate fixation. J Trauma. 1998 May;44(5):859-64. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199805000-00019.

    PubMed 9603089

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Humeral Fractures, run by National Taiwan University Hospital at 1 site in Taiwan.

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 6 inclusion and 3 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 Jul 2010. 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 Taiwan. 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?

Sonographic finding, functional recovery (time frame: at least 12 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00772850, which also lists 3 linked publications.

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 Jul 2010.

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