Rotator Cuff Tear ArthropathyNCT03488433
Abduction Brace Versus Antirotation Sling for Immobilization Following Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty and Rotator Cuff Repair
A study testing Abduction brace and Antirotation sling in people with Rotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy and Rotator Cuff Tear, run by Milton S. Hershey Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
To compare the functional and anatomical outcomes, and patient satisfaction and compliance between two different postoperative immobilization methods - abduction shoulder brace versus simple arm sling - following 2 common shoulder surgical procedures - rotator cuff repair (RCR) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Rotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy, Rotator Cuff Tear
- What is being tested?
- Abduction brace and Antirotation sling
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 1 Nov 2019to 16 Dec 2019
- 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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- patients 18 years and above
- male or female Rotator cuff tear patients - adults with a small or medium-sized (less than 3 cm in the anteroposterior dimension) full-thickness tear of supraspinatus and/or infraspinatus tendon, diagnosed with MRI or ultrasound, unresponsive to conservative therapy for >3 months
- Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty patients - adults with rotator cuff arthropathy, glenohumeral joint arthritis with significant glenoid wear or retroversion requiring reverse arthroplasty or massive irreparable rotator cuff tear, functional deltoid, as demonstrated on x-rays, MRI, and physical exam. Failed conservative management for >3 months
Who cannot join
- younger than 18 years old
- chronic opiate use, fibromyalgia
- Rotator cuff repair patients - no previous rotator cuff repair surgery, no concomitant preoperative stiffness (definition: < 30 degree passive external rotation, < 100 degree passive forward elevation), no concomitant full-thickness subscapularis tear, no neurologic disorder affecting the ipsilateral upper extremity, no concomitant cervical pathology, partial thickness tear, large or massive tears (>3cm in the anteroposterior dimension), glenohumeral or rotator cuff arthropathy, history of rheumatoid arthritis.
- Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty patients -no concomitant preoperative stiffness (definition: < 30 degree passive external rotation, < 100 degree passive forward elevation), no concomitant neurologic disorder affecting the ipsilateral upper extremity, no concomitant cervical pathology.
- arthroplasty for fracture, revision surgery, insufficient bone stock requiring hemiarthroplasty, deltoid dysfunction, history of rheumatoid arthritis.
- prisoners
- non English speaking or unable to understand consent
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Abduction Shoulder Brace Versus Antirotation Sling for Postoperative Immobilization Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty and Rotator Cuff Repair
To compare the functional and anatomical outcomes, and patient satisfaction and compliance between two different postoperative immobilization methods - abduction shoulder brace versus simple arm sling - following 2 common shoulder surgical procedures - rotator cuff repair (RCR) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) through a prospective randomized clinical trial.
Read the detailed description
Scientific Background and Gaps Rotator cuff repair and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty are common procedures that aim to provide patients with less pain, better shoulder function, and overall improved quality of life. The number of these procedures performed annually has increased dramatically, and improved outcomes have been demonstrated for each intervention. Part of the success of these operations is dependent on postoperative rehabilitation and patient compliance. Shoulder immobilization versus early range of motion following each procedure has conflicting data, and recent studies have shown that the method of shoulder immobilization may not influence clinical outcomes. Previous studies, both clinical and biomechanical, have demonstrated that arm position following RCR impacts tension and stress placed on the repair, but few have shown whether this translates to improved patient outcomes. Some surgeons prefer simple arm slings for the above-named procedures, while others opt for the abduction brace. Multiple studies have shown the optimal shoulder position that places the least amount of tension on the RCR, or soft tissue envelope following RTSA, however there is no consensus as to the optimal postoperative immobilization technique that significantly affects patient outcomes. An antirotation sling is significantly cheaper than an abduction shoulder brace, and our anecdotal experience is that patients experience more difficulties with an abduction shoulder brace than an antirotation sling. Our study aims to determine whether patient outcomes are significantly affected by immobilization with an abduction brace or simple arm sling. Our hypothesis is that antirotation slings are no better or worse than shoulder abduction braces in regards to shoulder range of motion, satisfaction and compliance with the immobilization method, and pain.
Study Rationale There is a lack of evidence regarding abduction braces versus simple arm slings for postoperative immobilization following rotator cuff repair and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. A better understanding of outcomes between each device will allow for more options available to the patient and surgeon, as well as a potential for decreased cost to the patient as there is a substantial difference in cost between the two devices.
- Conditions
- Rotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy, Rotator Cuff Tear
- Being tested
- Abduction brace, Antirotation sling
- Keywords
- Postoperative shoulder immobilization, Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, Neutral rotation shoulder brace, Antirotation sling
- Medical subject headings
- Rotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy, Rotator Cuff Injuries
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Abduction braceDevice
Donjoy Ultrasling IV
Antirotation slingDevice
Donjoy shoulder immobilizer
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Antirotation sling | Active comparator | Patients who undergo reverse shoulder arthroplasty or rotator cuff repair will be randomly assigned to this group. Receives: Device: Antirotation sling |
| abduction brace | Active comparator | Patients who undergo reverse shoulder arthroplasty or rotator cuff repair will be randomly assigned to this group. Receives: Device: Abduction brace |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Postoperative range of motion
Both active and passive range of motion will be measured in forward elevation, external rotation at the side, internal rotation at extension, external rotation at abduction, and internal rotation at abduction by the examiners using a handheld goniometer. Multiple time points are for assessing the changes in motion.
Measured: Measured at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 5 months, and 12 months following the index procedure.
Secondary outcomes (6)
Visual analog scale (VAS) pain score
Measures subjective pain; minimum 0, maximum 10 with 0 being a pain-free condition and 10 being the worst pain ever experienced
Measured: Measured at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 5 months, and 12 months after surgery
American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score
Measures patient's subjective shoulder function using a series of survey questions regarding subjective rating of range of motion, strength, use, and pain of the shoulder; minimum 0 to maximum 100 with 0 being the worst shoulder function and 100 being the best shoulder function
Measured: Assessed at 5 and 12 months after surgery
Patient compliance 5-point Likert-type scale
Measure compliance with their assigned immobilization method measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale (Question: Did you wear the sling as instructed in the protocol? Not at all, occasionally, about a half of the time, for the most part, yes definitely)
Measured: Assessed at 12 weeks after surgery
Patient satisfaction 5-point Likert-type scale
Measures overall patient satisfaction with their immobilization method using a 5-point Likert-type scale (Question: Are you satisfied with the immobilization method using the sling you wore? Not at all, not much, so-so, pretty much, yes definitely)
Measured: Measured at 12 weeks
Complications
Such as shoulder dislocations, wound healing issue, pain development at areas other than the operated shoulder due to the immobilization, etc
Measured: Assessed at 12 months after surgery
QuickDASH (Disability of arm, shoulder, and hand) score system
Measures the extent of subjective disability of upper extremity; consisted of survey questions regarding subjective pain and function of the upper extremity; Minimum 0, maximum 100 with 0 being no disability and 100 being most severe disability)
Measured: Assessed at 5 and 12 months after surgery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Apr 2018
- Study start1 Nov 2019
- Primary completion16 Dec 2019
- Study completion16 Dec 2019
Why it stopped: PI institutional transition prior to enrollment
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Rotator Cuff Tear ArthropathyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Milton S. Hershey Medical CenterThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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
- Model description
- Patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty or rotator cuff repair will be randomly assigned to two groups of immobilization method groups, namely abduction brace group and antirotation sling group.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, H Mike Kim, University of Missouri-Columbia
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03488433
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- STUDY00008723
- Status last verified
- Dec 2019
- First submitted
- 21 Dec 2017
- Last updated
- 19 Dec 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Kiet TK, Feeley BT, Naimark M, Gajiu T, Hall SL, Chung TT, Ma CB. Outcomes after shoulder replacement: comparison between reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Feb;24(2):179-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.06.039. Epub 2014 Sep 9.
PubMed 25213827Lambers Heerspink FO, van Raay JJ, Koorevaar RC, van Eerden PJ, Westerbeek RE, van 't Riet E, van den Akker-Scheek I, Diercks RL. Comparing surgical repair with conservative treatment for degenerative rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Aug;24(8):1274-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.040.
PubMed 26189808Hollman F, Wolterbeek N, Zijl JAC, van Egeraat SPM, Wessel RN. Abduction Brace Versus Antirotation Sling After Arthroscopic Cuff Repair: The Effects on Pain and Function. Arthroscopy. 2017 Sep;33(9):1618-1626. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.02.010. Epub 2017 Apr 17.
PubMed 28427872Zuckerman JD, Leblanc JM, Choueka J, Kummer F. The effect of arm position and capsular release on rotator cuff repair. A biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991 May;73(3):402-5. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.73B3.1670437.
PubMed 1670437Conti M, Garofalo R, Castagna A. Does a brace influence clinical outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? Musculoskelet Surg. 2015 Sep;99 Suppl 1:S31-5. doi: 10.1007/s12306-015-0357-0. Epub 2015 May 10.
PubMed 25957544Jackson M, Tetreault P, Allard P, Begon M. Optimal shoulder immobilization postures following surgical repair of rotator cuff tears: a simulation analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Aug;22(8):1011-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.10.042. Epub 2013 Jan 24.
PubMed 23352183Pedowitz RA, Yamaguchi K, Ahmad CS, Burks RT, Flatow EL, Green A, Iannotti JP, Miller BS, Tashjian RZ, Watters WC 3rd, Weber K, Turkelson CM, Wies JL, Anderson S, St Andre J, Boyer K, Raymond L, Sluka P, McGowan R; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Optimizing the management of rotator cuff problems. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011 Jun;19(6):368-79. doi: 10.5435/00124635-201106000-00007.
PubMed 21628648Hatakeyama Y, Itoi E, Pradhan RL, Urayama M, Sato K. Effect of arm elevation and rotation on the strain in the repaired rotator cuff tendon. A cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2001 Nov-Dec;29(6):788-94. doi: 10.1177/03635465010290061901.
PubMed 11734494Mall NA, Tanaka MJ, Choi LS, Paletta GA Jr. Factors affecting rotator cuff healing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 May 7;96(9):778-88. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00583.
PubMed 24806015
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Dec 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Abduction Shoulder Brace Versus Antirotation Sling for Postoperative Immobilization Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty and Rotator Cuff Repair
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03488433
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- STUDY00008723
- Conditions
- Rotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy, Rotator Cuff Tear
- Keywords
- Postoperative shoulder immobilization, Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, Neutral rotation shoulder brace, Antirotation sling
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: PI institutional transition prior to enrollment
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Milton S. Hershey Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Nov 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 16 Dec 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 16 Dec 2019 (actual)
- First posted
- 5 Apr 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
To compare the functional and anatomical outcomes, and patient satisfaction and compliance between two different postoperative immobilization methods - abduction shoulder brace versus simple arm sling - following 2 common shoulder surgical procedures - rotator cuff repair (RCR) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) through a prospective randomized clinical trial.
Detailed description
Scientific Background and Gaps Rotator cuff repair and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty are common procedures that aim to provide patients with less pain, better shoulder function, and overall improved quality of life. The number of these procedures performed annually has increased dramatically, and improved outcomes have been demonstrated for each intervention. Part of the success of these operations is dependent on postoperative rehabilitation and patient compliance. Shoulder immobilization versus early range of motion following each procedure has conflicting data, and recent studies have shown that the method of shoulder immobilization may not influence clinical outcomes. Previous studies, both clinical and biomechanical, have demonstrated that arm position following RCR impacts tension and stress placed on the repair, but few have shown whether this translates to improved patient outcomes. Some surgeons prefer simple arm slings for the above-named procedures, while others opt for the abduction brace. Multiple studies have shown the optimal shoulder position that places the least amount of tension on the RCR, or soft tissue envelope following RTSA, however there is no consensus as to the optimal postoperative immobilization technique that significantly affects patient outcomes. An antirotation sling is significantly cheaper than an abduction shoulder brace, and our anecdotal experience is that patients experience more difficulties with an abduction shoulder brace than an antirotation sling. Our study aims to determine whether patient outcomes are significantly affected by immobilization with an abduction brace or simple arm sling. Our hypothesis is that antirotation slings are no better or worse than shoulder abduction braces in regards to shoulder range of motion, satisfaction and compliance with the immobilization method, and pain.
Study Rationale There is a lack of evidence regarding abduction braces versus simple arm slings for postoperative immobilization following rotator cuff repair and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. A better understanding of outcomes between each device will allow for more options available to the patient and surgeon, as well as a potential for decreased cost to the patient as there is a substantial difference in cost between the two devices.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty or rotator cuff repair will be randomly assigned to two groups of immobilization method groups, namely abduction brace group and antirotation sling group.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Antirotation sling | Active comparator | Device: Antirotation slingPatients who undergo reverse shoulder arthroplasty or rotator cuff repair will be randomly assigned to this group. |
| abduction brace | Active comparator | Device: Abduction bracePatients who undergo reverse shoulder arthroplasty or rotator cuff repair will be randomly assigned to this group. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- patients 18 years and above
- male or female Rotator cuff tear patients - adults with a small or medium-sized (less than 3 cm in the anteroposterior dimension) full-thickness tear of supraspinatus and/or infraspinatus tendon, diagnosed with MRI or ultrasound, unresponsive to conservative therapy for >3 months
- Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty patients - adults with rotator cuff arthropathy, glenohumeral joint arthritis with significant glenoid wear or retroversion requiring reverse arthroplasty or massive irreparable rotator cuff tear, functional deltoid, as demonstrated on x-rays, MRI, and physical exam. Failed conservative management for >3 months
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- younger than 18 years old
- chronic opiate use, fibromyalgia
- Rotator cuff repair patients - no previous rotator cuff repair surgery, no concomitant preoperative stiffness (definition: < 30 degree passive external rotation, < 100 degree passive forward elevation), no concomitant full-thickness subscapularis tear, no neurologic disorder affecting the ipsilateral upper extremity, no concomitant cervical pathology, partial thickness tear, large or massive tears (>3cm in the anteroposterior dimension), glenohumeral or rotator cuff arthropathy, history of rheumatoid arthritis.
- Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty patients -no concomitant preoperative stiffness (definition: < 30 degree passive external rotation, < 100 degree passive forward elevation), no concomitant neurologic disorder affecting the ipsilateral upper extremity, no concomitant cervical pathology.
- arthroplasty for fracture, revision surgery, insufficient bone stock requiring hemiarthroplasty, deltoid dysfunction, history of rheumatoid arthritis.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Abduction braceDonjoy Ultrasling IV | Device | abduction brace |
| Antirotation slingDonjoy shoulder immobilizer | Device | Antirotation sling |
Primary outcome
Postoperative range of motion
Time frame: Measured at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 5 months, and 12 months following the index procedure.
Both active and passive range of motion will be measured in forward elevation, external rotation at the side, internal rotation at extension, external rotation at abduction, and internal rotation at abduction by the examiners using a handheld goniometer. Multiple time points are for assessing the changes in motion.
6 secondary outcomes
Visual analog scale (VAS) pain score
Time frame: Measured at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 5 months, and 12 months after surgery
American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score
Time frame: Assessed at 5 and 12 months after surgery
Patient compliance 5-point Likert-type scale
Time frame: Assessed at 12 weeks after surgery
Patient satisfaction 5-point Likert-type scale
Time frame: Measured at 12 weeks
Complications
Time frame: Assessed at 12 months after surgery
QuickDASH (Disability of arm, shoulder, and hand) score system
Time frame: Assessed at 5 and 12 months after surgery
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Dec 2019.
- Background: PubMed 25213827Kiet TK, Feeley BT, Naimark M, Gajiu T, Hall SL, Chung TT, Ma CB. Outcomes after shoulder replacement: comparison between reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Feb;24(2):179-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.06.039. Epub 2014 Sep 9.
- Background: PubMed 26189808Lambers Heerspink FO, van Raay JJ, Koorevaar RC, van Eerden PJ, Westerbeek RE, van 't Riet E, van den Akker-Scheek I, Diercks RL. Comparing surgical repair with conservative treatment for degenerative rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Aug;24(8):1274-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.040.
- Background: PubMed 28427872Hollman F, Wolterbeek N, Zijl JAC, van Egeraat SPM, Wessel RN. Abduction Brace Versus Antirotation Sling After Arthroscopic Cuff Repair: The Effects on Pain and Function. Arthroscopy. 2017 Sep;33(9):1618-1626. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.02.010. Epub 2017 Apr 17.
- Background: PubMed 1670437Zuckerman JD, Leblanc JM, Choueka J, Kummer F. The effect of arm position and capsular release on rotator cuff repair. A biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991 May;73(3):402-5. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.73B3.1670437.
- Background: PubMed 25957544Conti M, Garofalo R, Castagna A. Does a brace influence clinical outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? Musculoskelet Surg. 2015 Sep;99 Suppl 1:S31-5. doi: 10.1007/s12306-015-0357-0. Epub 2015 May 10.
- Background: PubMed 23352183Jackson M, Tetreault P, Allard P, Begon M. Optimal shoulder immobilization postures following surgical repair of rotator cuff tears: a simulation analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Aug;22(8):1011-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.10.042. Epub 2013 Jan 24.
- Background: PubMed 21628648Pedowitz RA, Yamaguchi K, Ahmad CS, Burks RT, Flatow EL, Green A, Iannotti JP, Miller BS, Tashjian RZ, Watters WC 3rd, Weber K, Turkelson CM, Wies JL, Anderson S, St Andre J, Boyer K, Raymond L, Sluka P, McGowan R; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Optimizing the management of rotator cuff problems. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011 Jun;19(6):368-79. doi: 10.5435/00124635-201106000-00007.
- Background: PubMed 11734494Hatakeyama Y, Itoi E, Pradhan RL, Urayama M, Sato K. Effect of arm elevation and rotation on the strain in the repaired rotator cuff tendon. A cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2001 Nov-Dec;29(6):788-94. doi: 10.1177/03635465010290061901.
- Background: PubMed 24806015Mall NA, Tanaka MJ, Choi LS, Paletta GA Jr. Factors affecting rotator cuff healing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 May 7;96(9):778-88. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00583.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Rotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy
Recruiting
Effects of Cervicothoracic Mobilization in Patients With Supraspinatus Tendinitis
Rotator Cuff Tendonitis
Recruiting
SMR Stemless Reverse vs SMR Reverse Shoulder System
Arthroplasty, Replacement
Active, not recruiting
Lyophilized Platelet-Rich Plasma Lysate vs Dextrose Prolotherapy for Partial Rotator Cuff Tears
Rotator Cuff Tear, Rotator Cuff Syndrome
Active, not recruiting
Efficacy and Safety of Digital Therapeutics for Improving Shoulder Function After Rotator Cuff Repair
Rotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy, Repair of a Cuff Tear
RecruitingObservational study
Evaluating Hemidiaphragmatic Paralysis With Prolonged Neural Blockade From an Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block
Shoulder Surgery, Shoulder Pain
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Abduction brace and Antirotation sling in people with Rotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy and Rotator Cuff Tear, run by Milton S. Hershey Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
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 7 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: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Dec 2019. 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 United States. 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 was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
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?
Postoperative range of motion (time frame: Measured at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 5 months, and 12 months following the index procedure.). 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 NCT03488433, which also lists 9 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 19 Dec 2019.