AzTrials
AzTrials

Humerus FracturesNCT02784522

Minimally Invasive of Proximal Humerus Fractures With Internal Fixation Improves Shoulder Function in Older Patients

A study testing locking compression plate group and conventional locking plate group in people with Humerus Fractures, run by Qinghai University.

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

This study protocol represents an attempt to objectively choose appropriate methods for internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures in older patients by comparing locking compression plate with conventional steel plate fixation to improve shoulder function. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 60 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Humerus Fractures
What is being tested?
locking compression plate group and conventional locking plate group
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
82 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
May 2014to Dec 2015
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 60 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Neer II or III fractures as shown by X-ray examination
  • Presentation with soft tissue swelling of the shoulder, limited mobility, tenderness, unusual activity, or a palpable sense of bone rubbing
  • Unilateral traumatic fracture
  • Over 60 years of age
  • Admission to the hospital within 6 hours after injury
  • Informed consent from patients or their relatives

Who cannot join

  • Concomitant injuries involving pathological fracture, blood vessel injury, or nerve injury
  • Head-split humerus fractures
  • Severe comminuted proximal humerus fractures involving > 40% of the articular surface of the humeral head
  • Disturbance of consciousness, cerebral infarction, cancer, severe medical complications (such as heart, lung, or kidney failure; severe hypertension; diabetes; or blood diseases)
  • History of shoulder or elbow dysfunction

About this study

Official title: Minimally Invasive Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures With Locking Compression Plate Improves Shoulder Function in Older Patients: Study Protocol for a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

This study protocol represents an attempt to objectively choose appropriate methods for internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures in older patients by comparing locking compression plate with conventional steel plate fixation to improve shoulder function.

Read the detailed description

Treatment for proximal humerus fractures emphasizes the restoration of shoulder function. Older patients, because of the loss of bodily functions, face enormous difficulties in fracture healing and shoulder functional recovery after sustaining proximal humerus fractures. As previously reported, open reduction with conventional locking plate fixation achieved fair outcomes in 48 cases of proximal humerus fractures in older patients, with an excellent rate of 85.4% according to the Neer classification system. The investigators' clinical experience, however, has shown that the stability of internal fixation is inadequate and must be enhanced. Consequently, the investigators design a microsurgical implantation using a locking compression plate (LCP) to treat proximal humerus fractures in older patients.

In a search of the Web of Science database, the investigators found a randomized controlled trial reported by Wang et al. in which LCP fixation using microsurgical techniques had better outcomes in 20 cases of proximal humerus fractures in older patients. However, the limitation created by the small sample size had profound effects on the reliability of their study.

No relevant articles were retrieved from the Chinese Clinical Trial Register, and only one similar article was found on ClinicalTrials.gov: "Proximal Humerus Fractures: Randomized Study Between Locking Nails and Locking Plates for Neer 2 and 3 Parts" (identifier: NCT01984112). In this clinical trial, Constant-Murley scores were considered the primary outcome, and the follow-up period was 12 months. Importantly, the inclusion criteria and study arms were distinctly different from those in the investigators' study protocol.

The main principle of minimally invasive techniques in orthopedics is to implant a specific bony plate, which is fixed across a transverse fracture, via small incisions of the periosteum, skin, and muscle. These implantation devices include less invasive stabilization systems, dynamic compression plate systems, and LCP systems. Internal fixation with the LCP system involves two completely different fixation techniques and two opposing osteosynthesis principles, namely conventional plate and bridging plate osteosyntheses characterized by direct anatomical reduction. Because of its special design, the LCP can be used as a dynamic compression plate, as a pure internal fixator using locking head screws, or as both combined, thus providing a variety of therapeutic options for surgeons. Moreover, the LCP has good stability and induces less damage to the periosteum; it is therefore beneficial for bone healing and functional recovery. Given these characteristics, the LCP is likely to have stronger stability than the conventional locking plate for internal fixation of fractures. Therefore, the investigators design a study protocol that compares the LCP and conventional locking plate using minimally invasive techniques for internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures in older patients. The investigators hypothesize that the LCP will be more effective than the conventional locking plate in promoting shoulder function recovery with a higher excellent rate according to the Neer classification system for proximal humerus fractures.

Data collection, management, analysis, and open access

  • Data collection: All data, including demographic information, disease diagnosis, concomitant diseases, allergic history (drug allergy), and adverse reactions, will be collected on a case report form and summarized in one form. These data will be recorded electronically using a double-data entry strategy by EpiData software.
  • Data management: Only the project manager will have the right to query the database, and changes will not be allowed. All data relevant to this clinical trial will be preserved by the Affiliated Hospital of Qinghai University.
  • Data analysis: All data will be statistically analyzed by professional statisticians. The statistical report by the statisticians will be given to the project manager responsible for writing the research report. An independent data monitoring committee will be in charge of data monitoring and management throughout the entire trial to ensure scientific accuracy, authenticity, and integrity.
  • Open data: Published data will be released at www.figshare.com.

Statistical analysis The statistical analysis will be completed by statisticians using the SPSS 19.0 statistical software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) in line with the intention-to-treat principle. Intergroup comparison for the excellent rate according to the Neer classification system will be performed using the chi-square test. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, fracture healing time, visual analogue scale scores, and SF-36 scores will be compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. A value of P < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.

Adverse events

  • Predicted and unanticipated adverse events will be recorded during the trial.
  • Adverse events including dizziness, fever, infection, subacromial impingement, humeral head necrosis, malunion, and severe pain will be detected.
  • All serious adverse events will be recorded in detail, including the date of occurrence, type of event, and treatments, all of which will be reported to the project manager and institution review board within 24 hours.
Being tested
locking compression plate group, conventional locking plate group
Medical subject headings
Humeral Fractures

What participants receive

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

  • locking compression plate groupDevice

    Closed reduction via shoulder lateral approach followed by locking compression plate fixation using minimally invasive technique

  • conventional locking plate groupDevice

    Closed reduction via shoulder lateral approach followed by conventional locking plate fixation using minimally invasive technique

Study groups in NCT02784522
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
locking compression plate groupExperimentalIn the experimental group, patients will undergo closed reduction via a lateral approach to the shoulder followed by locking compression plate fixation using a minimally invasive technique.The locking compression plate is purchased from Xiamen Dabo Yingjing Medical Devices Co., Ltd., Xiamen, China.
Receives: Device: locking compression plate group
conventional locking plate groupActive comparatorPatients in the control group will be subjected to closed reduction via a lateral approach to the shoulder followed by conventional steel plate fixation using a minimally invasive technique. The conventional locking plate is purchased from Xiamen Dabo Yingjing Medical Devices Co., Ltd., Xiamen, China.
Receives: Device: conventional locking plate group

What is being measured

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

  1. Neer classification system score

    Clinical outcome scores according to the Neer classification system will be used to assess shoulder function recovery.

    Measured: month 6 after surgery

Secondary outcomes (3)
  1. change of visual analogue scale score

    Visual analogue scale scores assess postoperative pain relief.

    Measured: day 1, day 3 and week 1, week 2 after surgery

  2. change of X-ray examinations

    Disappearance of the fracture line shown on X-ray examination indicates fracture healing.

    Measured: month 0.5, month 1, month 3, and month 6 after surgery

  3. Change of Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Score

    Measured: month 0.5, month 1, month 3, and month 6 after surgery

Timeline

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

  1. First posted27 May 2016 (estimated)
  2. Study startMay 2014
  3. Primary completionAug 2015
  4. Study completionDec 2015

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
Parallel groups
Masking
Double blind
Who is masked
Participant, Investigator
Enrolment
82 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02784522
Sponsor's protocol ID
QinghaiUH_001
Status last verified
May 2016
First submitted
19 May 2016
Last updated
27 May 2016
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
Undecided

Publications

  • Handoll HH, Elliott J, Thillemann TM, Aluko P, Brorson S. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jun 21;6(6):CD000434. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub5.

    PubMed 35727196

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing locking compression plate group and conventional locking plate group in people with Humerus Fractures, run by Qinghai University.

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 5 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 27 May 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

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?

Neer classification system score (time frame: month 6 after surgery). 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 NCT02784522, which also lists 1 linked publication.

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 27 May 2016.

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