AzTrials
AzTrials

TraumaNCT02963233

Type II Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fracture Management and Outcomes: A Prospective Multi-centre Cohort Study

An observational study of Trauma and Fracture;Elbow, run by British Columbia Children's Hospital at 13 sites in Canada.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The treatment of pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures is controversial, but despite the injury's high incidence there is a lack of high level evidence to guide operative versus non-operative decision making for displaced fractures with an intact posterior cortex (Gartland Type II). Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 2 to 12 years
Conditions the study is for
Trauma, Fracture;Elbow
What is being tested?
Closed reduction and percutaneous pinning and immobilization and Non-operative reduction and immobilization
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
How many people
60 participants
Where
13 sitesCanada
Study dates
Jul 2015to Jul 2018
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 2 to 12 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child

Study population: Patients identified with a closed, isolated Gartland Type II extension-type supracondylar humerus fracture between 2-12 years, recruited within their acute treatment phase between initial injury presentation either to the emergency department or the orthopaedic clinic and 6 weeks post-injury.

Who may be able to join

  • Age 2-12 years
  • Isolated supracondylar humerus fracture
  • Gartland Type II extension-type fracture
  • Closed injury

Who cannot join

  • Neurovascular compromise
  • Underlying musculoskeletal disorder

Trial locations and contacts

13 sites in 1 country.

Emily Schaeffer, PhD contact

6048752359

Emily.Schaeffer@cw.bc.ca

13 sites in 1 country

Canada13 sites, 13 recruiting
  • Alberta Children's Hospital

    Calgary, Alberta, T3B 6A8

    Elaine Joughin, MD, joughin@ucalgary.ca

    Elaine Joughin, MD

    Not yet recruiting
  • University of Alberta

    Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2R3

    Sukhdeep Dulai, MD, MHSc(Epi), FRCSC

    Sukhdeep Dulai, MD, MHSc(Epi), FRCSC

    Not yet recruiting
  • IWK Health Centre

    Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3K 6R8

    Ron El-Hawary, MD, MSc, FRCSC, Ron.El-Hawary@iwk.nshealth.ca

    Ron El-Hawary, MD, MSc, FRCSC

    Not yet recruiting
  • Children's Hospital at London Health Sciences Centre

    London, Ontario, N6A 5W9

    Debra Bartley, HBSc, MD, FRCSC, Debra.Bartley@lhsc.on.ca

    Debra Bartley, HBSc, MD, FRCSC

    Not yet recruiting
  • CHU Sainte-Justine

    Montreal, Quebec, H3T 1C5

    Mathilde Hupin, MD, mathildehupin1@gmail.com

    Mathilde Hupin, MD

    Not yet recruiting
  • Montreal Children's Hospital

    Montreal, Quebec, H4A 3J1

    Thierry Benaroch, MD, MSc FRCSC, thierrybenaroch@gmail.com

    Thierry Benaroch, MD, MSc FRCSC

    Not yet recruiting
  • Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario

    Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L1

    Sasha Carsen, MD, MBA, FRCSC, 6137377600, SCarsen@cheo.on.ca

    Sasha Carsen, MD, MBA, FRCSC

    Recruiting
  • Prince George Surgery Centre

    Prince George, British Columbia, V2L 2J9

    David Nelson, MD, daveynelson@gmail.com

    David Nelson, MD

    Not yet recruiting
  • La Cité Médical Québec

    Québec, Quebec, G1V 4T3

    Caroline Forsythe, MD, forsythecaroline@hotmail.com

    Caroline Forsythe, MD

    Not yet recruiting
  • Royal University Hospital

    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 0W8

    Ann Dzus, MD, FRCSC, anne.dzus@usask.ca

    Ann Dzus, MD, FRCSC

    Not yet recruiting
  • Janeway Children's Hospital

    St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, A1B 3V6

    Heather Jackman, MD, hrjackman@gmail.com

    Heather Jackman, MD

    Not yet recruiting
  • British Columbia Children's Hospital

    Vancouver, British Columbia, V6H 3V4

    Tammie Teo, 6048752359, Tammie.Teo@cw.bc.ca

    Emily Schaeffer, PhD, 6048752359, Emily.Schaeffer@cw.bc.ca

    Recruiting
  • University of Manitoba

    Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2

    Patricia Larouche, MD, MHSc(Epi), FRCSC, plarouche@exchange.hsc.mb.ca

    Patricia Larouche, MD, MHSc(Epi), FRCSC

    Not yet recruiting

Other trials in Canada

About this study

The treatment of pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures is controversial, but despite the injury's high incidence there is a lack of high level evidence to guide operative versus non-operative decision making for displaced fractures with an intact posterior cortex (Gartland Type II). This study aims to prospectively compare clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes between operatively and non-operatively treated patients using a prospective multi-centre cohort design.

Read the detailed description

Purpose:

The purpose of this prospective multi-center observational study is to compare the clinical, functional, and radiographic parameters and outcomes between operatively and non-operatively treated Type II supracondylar humerus fractures in skeletally immature patients. The secondary aim of the study is to develop and deploy an effective pediatric orthopaedic elbow trauma database as part of the Canadian Pediatric Orthopaedic Group (CPOG) that can be used to prospectively collect multi-center anonymized patient data and functional outcomes.

Hypothesis:

We hypothesize that non-operative treatment will be non-inferior to operative treatment.

Justification:

The extension-type pediatric supracondylar humerus fracture is the most common fracture about the elbow in the skeletally immature population and among the most common fractures requiring operative intervention in children (Carson 2006, Abzug 2012). Despite being the subject of extensive study, there are few prospective studies and none that look specifically at the Gartland Type II extension-type fracture and that compare operative and non-operative treatment protocols (AAOS CPG 2011). The current evidence for the treatment of these fracture sub-types is low, but clinical opinions regarding treatment method are strong. This has led to a clinical practice vs. evidence mismatch.

The existing level of evidence does not support the strong clinical opinions on the treatment of this fracture pattern, and given its significant prevalence this is an area that requires objective prospective study. A finding of a significant clinical effect difference would guide future treatment of this common entity, while a finding of clinical equipoise could allow for the development of a well designed and focused prospective randomized controlled trial.

Research Methods:

The study is designed as a multi-center, observational, cohort protocol with an initial focus on the comparison of outcomes between several Canadian pediatric academic centers with contrasting (operative and non-operative) general approaches to the management of isolated closed extension-type Gartland Type II supracondylar humerus fractures.

Patients treated within the non-operative group will be treated with gentle reduction by the orthopaedic surgery team in the emergency department under procedural sedation. Immobilization and maintenance of reduction will be obtained through either taping of the elbow in a flexed (100-110 degree) and pronated position or through long-arm casting at 90 degrees of flexion. Immobilization type and position will be noted. Patients treated surgically will be largely treated with closed reduction and percutaneous pinning with 2-3 laterally-based k-wires, followed by long-arm immobilization. Continued care and follow-up practices will be the same across treatment groups, as outlined below under "Study Visits".

The null hypothesis is that non-operative treatment of Type II supracondylar humerus fractures is inferior to closed reduction and percutaneous pinning.

Evaluation of Outcomes and Variables:

Demographics such as age, sex, handedness, and mechanism of injury will be recorded. Radiographic parameters measured will include stratification into Type IIA vs IIB fractures, and angular deformity and displacement through the lateral humeral capitellar angle (LHCA) and Baumann's angle. These will be captured at each clinical visit, including pre- and post-reduction. On the lateral radiograph, the LHCA is measured as the angle between the anterior humeral line and a line perpendicular to the capitellar physis (ie. a line through the long axis of the capitellar ossific nucleus). A lateral humeral capitellar angle less than 20 degrees or a change of greater than 10 degrees over time will be considered significant. A Baumann's angle outside the accepted norm of 9-26 degrees, or a change over time of greater than 6 degrees will be considered significant. In addition, the pre-reduction and post-reduction Gordon index (a radiographic measure of lateral rotation through the fracture site on the lateral radiograph) will be measured, as will the Griffet index which expands upon the same concept using also the AP radiograph (Griffet 2004). De-identified radiographs will also be uploaded where techinically feasible to the central database, where radiographic parameters can be re-assessed by a blinded third party. Clinical outcomes will be judged based on healing, return to activities, and range of motion. Any complications encountered will be recorded. Functional outcomes will be judged via the Flynn criteria for both functional and cosmetic outcome (Flynn 1974, Cheng 1995). The PODCI upper extremity score (Daltroy 1998) and the QuickDASH (Kennedy 2011) will also be used.

Primary Outcome: Change in Lateral Humerocapitellar Angle (LHCA) Change in the LHCA over the period of immobilization is the primary outcome being measured in this study, and will be measured on all radiographs. Maintenance of fracture reduction is assessed by the change in the LHCA between these two radiographs. This angle primarily assesses the reduction in the sagittal plane and thus is most sensitive to flexion and extension. The normal LHCA is considered to be 30 degrees of anterior angulation. It has been shown that with changes of less than 10 degrees, good elbow function can still be expected. Using a single measurement of the LHCA at the completion of treatment would fail to account for the quality of the initial reduction but using a change in the LHCA controls for this additional variability. Also, using clinical measures would require waiting until maximum range of motion of the elbow is regained and this would introduce the variability associated with remodeling and rehabilitation and would not accurately reflect the efficacy of the immobilization method itself. Although a standardized method for obtaining the lateral radiograph will be employed in all study patients, it has been noted that the LHCA can vary significantly if there is humeral rotation on the radiograph. For this reason, the quality of the radiograph will also be recorded after assessing the superimposition of the posterior supracondylar ridges. Perfect superimposition of the supracondylar ridges indicates a true lateral of the distal humerus.

Secondary Endpoints: Baumann's Angle, Flynn's Elbow Score, Conversion to Operative treatment, Revision Operation, Complications Baumann's angle is that formed between the physeal line of the lateral condyle and a line perpendicular to the long axis of the humerus as seen on anteroposterior radiographs of the elbow. Change in the angle over time will be measured. This angle can be used to detect varus angulation of the distal part of the humerus. A normal angle is in the range of 9° to 26°. The Baumann angle has been shown to vary 6° for every 10° of humeral rotation on the anteroposterior radiograph. Thus a difference of 6° between the post-reduction and final Baumann angles has been empirically chosen to represent a meaningful change. This allows for minor variations in arm positioning during the radiographic evaluation as well as measurement variability.

Flynn's elbow score accounts for both elbow function and cosmesis. Elbow function is measured in degrees of lost flexion and/or extension compared to the opposite elbow. Elbow cosmesis is measured by the change in carrying angle compared to the opposite elbow. These are rated as excellent (0-5°), good (6-10°), fair (11-15°) and poor (>15°). Overall results are determined by the worst grade in functional and cosmetic ratings.

Patients requiring operative intervention after failing non-operative treatment, as well as those requiring revision operation, will have such results and their clinical contexts recorded. Complications, both objectively observed by the clinical team as well as those subjectively experienced by patients and families will likewise be assessed and recorded.

Statistical Analysis:

It is estimated based on a power analysis and sample size calculation assessing for non-inferiority of non-operative management that a minimum total of 36 (18 patients in each cohort) patients will be needed for this study. This sample size is based on a one-tailed t-test for independent means, with α=0.05, β=0.1 (power of 0.90). A significant difference is considered to be within 6 degrees of change in the LHCA (Lateral Humeral Capitellar Angle) between the operative and non-operative groups, as differences of 5 degrees or less on elbow radiographs are considered to be within measurement error. The measurement error is expected to be the same in both groups. Estimations of means and standard deviations of LHCA were based on recent local research (Roberts 2014) . Using an online institutional power and sample size calculator (Brant 2014) which is based on standard two-sample inference estimation of sample size and power for comparing two means, the investigators developed a table with various iterations of possible calculations. Erring on the conservative, the investigators have chosen to accept a sample size of 18 patients in each group.

Baseline demographics and characteristics will be summarized using standard summary statistics. Continuous variables will be expressed in terms of means and standard deviations, and categorical variables will be summarized in terms of frequency and percentages. A one-sided student's t-test will be used for comparison between primary outcomes of the study cohorts, for non-inferiority. All statistical tests will be performed at an α-level of 0.05. Multi-variate regression analyses will be performed to assess for other variables affecting outcomes. Sub-group analyses will be undertaken to assess for within group differences.

Based on our power analysis and sample size calculations, and a conservative projected drop out rate of 20%, the investigators conclude that a minimum of 23 patients per treatment group (18 subjects divided by 0.8 to account for projected drop out) need to be recruited to effectively prove non-inferiority. That said, given that the investigators plan to also pursue as secondary measures multi-variate analyses and sub-group analyses, the plan is to improve our likelihood of obtaining significance by aiming for a minimum recruitment of 30 patients per cohort, for a total minimum number of patients of 60.

By using a multi-centre methodology, the investigators hope to be able to not only meet but also significantly exceed our minimum recruitment requirements. This should serve the dual purpose of adding variability in care environments and providers and therefore improve generalizability of results, as well as strengthen our statistical significance particularly with our secondary outcomes.

Being tested
Closed reduction and percutaneous pinning and immobilization, Non-operative reduction and immobilization
Medical subject headings
Wounds and Injuries, Elbow Fractures

What participants receive

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

  • Closed reduction and percutaneous pinning and immobilizationProcedure or surgery

  • Non-operative reduction and immobilizationProcedure or surgery

Study groups in NCT02963233
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Non-operative GroupPatients treated within the non-operative group will be treated with gentle reduction by the orthopaedic surgery team in the emergency department under procedural sedation. Immobilization and maintenance of reduction will be obtained through either taping of the elbow in a flexed (100-110 degree) and pronated position or through long-arm casting at 90 degrees of flexion. Immobilization type and position will be noted.
Receives: Procedure: Non-operative reduction and immobilization
Operative GroupPatients treated operatively will be largely treated with closed reduction and percutaneous pinning with 2-3 laterally-based k-wires, followed by long-arm immobilization. Immobilization type and position will be noted.
Receives: Procedure: Closed reduction and percutaneous pinning and immobilization

What is being measured

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

  1. Change in Lateral Humerocapitellar Angle

    Change in the LHCA over the period of immobilization is the primary outcome being measured in this study, and will be measured on all radiographs. Maintenance of fracture reduction is assessed by the change in the LHCA between these two radiographs. This angle primarily assesses the reduction in the sagittal plane and thus is most sensitive to flexion and extension. The normal LHCA is considered to be 30 degrees of anterior angulation. It has been shown that with changes of less than 10 degrees, good elbow function can still be expected.

    Measured: 3 months

Secondary outcomes (2)
  1. Baumann's Angle

    Baumann's angle is that formed between the physeal line of the lateral condyle and a line perpendicular to the long axis of the humerus as seen on anteroposterior radiographs of the elbow. Change in the angle over time will be measured. This angle can be used to detect varus angulation of the distal part of the humerus. A normal angle is in the range of 9° to 26°. The Baumann's angle has been shown to vary 6° for every 10° of humeral rotation on the anteroposterior radiograph. Thus a difference of 6° between the post-reduction and final Baumann angles has been empirically chosen to represent a meaningful change. This allows for minor variations in arm positioning during the radiographic evaluation as well as measurement variability.

    Measured: 3 months

  2. Flynn's Elbow Score

    Flynn's elbow score accounts for both elbow function and cosmesis. Elbow function is measured in degrees of lost flexion and/or extension compared to the opposite elbow. Elbow cosmesis is measured by the change in carrying angle compared to the opposite elbow. These are rated as excellent (0-5°), good (6-10°), fair (11-15°) and poor (>15°). Overall results are determined by the worst grade in functional and cosmetic ratings.

    Measured: 1 year

Timeline

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

  1. First posted15 Nov 2016 (estimated)
  2. Study startJul 2015
  3. Primary completionJul 2018 (estimated)

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
Prospective
Enrolment
60 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02963233
Sponsor's protocol ID
H15-00835
Status last verified
Nov 2016
First submitted
8 Nov 2016
Last updated
15 Nov 2016
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Mulpuri K, Hosalkar H, Howard A. AAOS clinical practice guideline: the treatment of pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012 May;20(5):328-30. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-20-05-328. No abstract available.

    PubMed 22553105
  • Abzug JM, Herman MJ. Management of supracondylar humerus fractures in children: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012 Feb;20(2):69-77. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-20-02-069.

    PubMed 22302444
  • Bashyal RK, Chu JY, Schoenecker PL, Dobbs MB, Luhmann SJ, Gordon JE. Complications after pinning of supracondylar distal humerus fractures. J Pediatr Orthop. 2009 Oct-Nov;29(7):704-8. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181b768ac.

    PubMed 20104149
  • Blasier RD. Gartland type-II supracondylar humeral fractures in children: commentary on an article by Luis Moraleda, MD, et al.: "Natural history of unreduced Gartland type-II supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. a two to thirteen-year follow-up study". J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jan 2;95(1):e7. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.l.01324. No abstract available.

    PubMed 23405412
  • Carson S, Woolridge DP, Colletti J, Kilgore K. Pediatric upper extremity injuries. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2006 Feb;53(1):41-67, v. doi: 10.1016/j.pcl.2005.10.003.

    PubMed 16487784
  • Cheng JC, Lam TP, Shen WY. Closed reduction and percutaneous pinning for type III displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. J Orthop Trauma. 1995;9(6):511-5. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199509060-00009.

    PubMed 8592265
  • Daltroy LH, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Goldberg MJ. The POSNA pediatric musculoskeletal functional health questionnaire: report on reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Pediatric Outcomes Instrument Development Group. Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America. J Pediatr Orthop. 1998 Sep-Oct;18(5):561-71. doi: 10.1097/00004694-199809000-00001.

    PubMed 9746401
  • Fitzgibbons PG, Bruce B, Got C, Reinert S, Solga P, Katarincic J, Eberson C. Predictors of failure of nonoperative treatment for type-2 supracondylar humerus fractures. J Pediatr Orthop. 2011 Jun;31(4):372-6. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e31821adca9.

    PubMed 21572273
  • Flynn JC, Matthews JG, Benoit RL. Blind pinning of displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. Sixteen years' experience with long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974 Mar;56(2):263-72. No abstract available.

    PubMed 4375679
  • Hadlow AT, Devane P, Nicol RO. A selective treatment approach to supracondylar fracture of the humerus in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 1996 Jan-Feb;16(1):104-6. doi: 10.1097/00004694-199601000-00021.

    PubMed 8747365
  • Lins RE, Simovitch RW, Waters PM. Pediatric elbow trauma. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999 Jan;30(1):119-32. doi: 10.1016/s0030-5898(05)70066-3.

    PubMed 9882730
  • Moraleda L, Valencia M, Barco R, Gonzalez-Moran G. Natural history of unreduced Gartland type-II supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children: a two to thirteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jan 2;95(1):28-34. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.l.00132.

    PubMed 23405411
  • Omid R, Choi PD, Skaggs DL. Supracondylar humeral fractures in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 May;90(5):1121-32. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.01354.

    PubMed 18451407
  • O'Hara LJ, Barlow JW, Clarke NM. Displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. Audit changes practice. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 Mar;82(2):204-10.

    PubMed 10755427
  • Parikh SN, Wall EJ, Foad S, Wiersema B, Nolte B. Displaced type II extension supracondylar humerus fractures: do they all need pinning? J Pediatr Orthop. 2004 Jul-Aug;24(4):380-4. doi: 10.1097/00004694-200407000-00007.

    PubMed 15205619

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Trauma and Fracture;Elbow, run by British Columbia Children's Hospital at 13 sites 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 4 inclusion and 2 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 Nov 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 13 sites 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?

Results are not available in the source record.

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

Contact Tammie Teo (6048752359, Tammie.Teo@cw.bc.ca), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Change in Lateral Humerocapitellar Angle (time frame: 3 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 NCT02963233, which also lists 18 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 Nov 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