Proximal Humerus FractureNCT04106674
Two- Part Proximal Humerus - Conservative vs Operative
A study testing Open reduction internal stabilisation (ORIF) in people with Proximal Humerus Fracture and 2 Part Fracture, run by University Hospital, Akershus at 1 site in Norway.
Trial summary
The proximal humerus fracture (PHFs) is the third most common fracture type in the elderly, and represents 5% of the overall fractures. The incidence is increasing. The purpose of the project is to compare surgical and conservative management of two- part PHFs in light of radiological, economical and clinical outcome. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 60 to 85 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Proximal Humerus Fracture, 2 Part Fracture
- What is being tested?
- Open reduction internal stabilisation (ORIF)
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 50 participants
- Where
- 1 siteNorway
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2020to 31 Oct 2034
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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 to 85 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients > 60 years and <85 years
- More than 50% displacement between head or shaft or 50⁰ angulation of the head against the shaft in Y-projection or more than 45 ˚ valgus or more than 30˚ varus of the Head Shaft Angle (HSA).
- Patient with tuberculum majus or minor fractures which displaced <5mm can be included as long as points 1 and 2 above are fulfilled.
Who cannot join
- Refusal to participate in the study
- Fracture more than 3 weeks old
- No contact btw head and shaft
- Ipsilateral damage that will influence the recovery and scoring systems
- Incapability to protect osteosynthesis, i.e. use of crutches because of injury to lower extremity. This is up to the treating surgeon to decide
- Pathological fracture or previous fracture of the same proximal humerus
Show all 19Show fewer
- Multitrauma or "multifractured patient"
- Neurovascular injury
- Open fracture
- Noncompliance, dementia and/ or institutionalized
- Congenital anomaly
- Ongoing infectious process around the incision site for osteosynthesis
- Systemic disease that may influence healing processes or scoring systems (in example Rheumatoid arthritis/Multiple sclerosis/ poorly controlled DM)
- Fracture dislocation
- Substance abuse
- Inability to read and understand Norwegian
- Patients not residing in our catchment area
- Patients with a diameter of the humerus to small for nailing, will be allocated to the Philos-group.
- Any medical condition that excludes surgical treatment, including patients with ASA 3 or 4 that are considered too ill to go through surgery.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Hendrik Fuglesang, MD, PhD contact
Norway1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Akershus University Hospital
Lørenskog, Oslo, 0587
Per-Henrik Randsborg, PhD MD, +4797040480, pran@ahus.no
Asbjørn Årøen, PhD MD, +4791587140, asbjorn.aroen@uio.no
About this study
Official title: Conservative Versus Operative Treatment of Two - Part Proximal Humerus Fractures
The proximal humerus fracture (PHFs) is the third most common fracture type in the elderly, and represents 5% of the overall fractures. The incidence is increasing. The purpose of the project is to compare surgical and conservative management of two- part PHFs in light of radiological, economical and clinical outcome. Do the participants between 60 and 85 years of age with displaced two-part PHFs fare better or worse after surgery compared to non-operative treatment?
Read the detailed description
The study-design is a single center single blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 2 arms. Patients admitted to Akershus University Hospital (Ahus) with a displaced two-part proximal humeral fracture of OTA/ AO group 11A2 or 11A3 in need of surgical treatment will be randomly allocated to two groups; conservative/ non-operative treatment or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).
All following aims evaluated at controls at 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. The 6 months and 1 year controls will additionally be conducted by independent physiotherapists. The other controls are conducted by the treating surgeons. The physiotherapists will be blinded of chosen treatment, the patients wearing a t-shirt covering the shoulder at the consultations, hence single blinded RCT.
Primary aim: Functional outcome as evaluated by the Quick DASH (Disability of the arm, shoulder and hand) score at controls.
Preoperative evaluation:
The project participants will supervise and evaluate the data. General history, including; mechanism of injury, occupation, pre-existing medical conditions and medication, smoking history, American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA classification), BMI, hand dominance. At inclusion, the patient will be asked to fill out quick-Dash, Visual Analog scale (VAS), EQ-5D to determine the baseline-characteristics.
Postoperative evaluation:
Evaluation of postoperative radiographs for reduction of fracture and possible errors of the operative technique by the project participants and a radiologist.
Secondary aims:
- Initial radiographic examination with standardized radiograph projections; true anterio-posterior projection and scapula projection pre- and post-operative. Registration of radiological complications defined by a reduction of Head-Shaft-Angle (HSA) of ≥10⁰ in frontal plane, screw penetration/cut-out, screw failure or failure of the osteosynthesis on radiographs. Evaluation of fracture healing/ non-union.
- Evaluation of postoperative reduction: Reduction of tubercles, rotation of caput, re-establishment of medial support, position of calcar screws and distance from screws to cartilage in x-rays. Computer-tomographic scans are standard pre-operative practice at our institution. The problem of intra- and inter-observer reproducibility is a well-known confounder of fracture classification in proximal humeral fractures and CT scans will help clarify classification (19, 20) and fracture configuration. CT scan postoperatively will be taken within few days after surgery (Only in Stratum 1).
- Qualitative Computed Tomography (QCT) is an alternative method to measure Bone Marrow Density (BMD) using a Hydroxyapatite plate/ a phantom. This is a flat plate placed under the shoulder during ordinary CT scanning. Several studies have demonstrated an association between the QCT measurements and risk of fragility fractures, so BMD will be assessed.
- Functional outcome of surgical treatment as evaluated by Constant score by independent physiotherapists during follow-up. Measurement of strength according to recommendations given by the European Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons ESSSE (http://secec.org/).
- Functional outcome evaluated by Oxford Shoulder score, which is a validated patient-reported outcome measure. A shoulder-specific instrument designed to assess the outcome of all shoulder surgeries.
- EQ-5D, a generic measure of health status that provide a simple descriptive profile used in clinical evaluation of health care. EQ-5D is recommended for use in cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine and by the Washington panel of Pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research (ISPOR) task.
- Health economic registration; length of hospital-stay, sick leaves, use of physiotherapy, appointments at general practitioners, extra controls at in-patient orthopedic clinic, removal of plate or nail, extra surgeries.
- Monitoring complications such as deep or superficial infection, reoperations, avascular necrosis, non-union, nerve or vessel-damage.
In the literature, the following risk factors for failure of the osteosynthesis, Avascular necrosis (AVN) or chance of poor functional outcome are outlined; the factors will be examined as subgroups to see whether they are representative also for our population:
- A non-adequately reduced fracture. Evaluated in postoperative radiographs. Malalignment?
- Not adequately positioning of implant
- Degree of medial comminution and medial hinge (the amount of metaphyseal bone attached to the anatomic head fragment at trauma.
- Is sufficient medial support achieved in our patients, and if not, does the construction fail?
- Varus subsidence, measured as reduced Head shaft angle (HSA) (>10 degrees) during follow up
- Fixation in varus, HSA <120 or HSA <110 .
- Enough contact between head and shaft for healing?
- Age: Increasing age predisposes osteosynthesis failure and reduced function, probably because of decreasing bone density in proximal humerus in older age. The examiners want to examine whether there is a cut-off in age, in example 60, 65, 75, 80 or 85 years of age.
- Valgus >45 or Varus <30, which fracture is the worst?
Patients allocated to the conservative group may be offered surgical treatment if the fracture changes/ dislocates, in example no contact between the fracture ends if the patients activities of daily living (ADL) is greatly affected or pain is disproportionately
- Conditions
- Proximal Humerus Fracture, 2 Part Fracture
- Being tested
- Open reduction internal stabilisation (ORIF)
- Keywords
- Proximal humerus fracture, Non-operative versus operative treatment, Conservative versus surgical treatment, Surgical versus non-surgical treatment
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Open reduction internal stabilisation (ORIF)Procedure or surgery
Also called Surgery
Treatment allocated to surgical or non-surgical group. Implant choice pragmatic, surgeons choice.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Non-surgical | No intervention | No surgery |
| Surgical | Active comparator | Surgeons preference Receives: Procedure: Open reduction internal stabilisation (ORIF) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Quick Dash
Prom, The QuickDASH is scored in two components: the disability/symptom section (11 items, scored 1-5) and the optional high performance sport/music or work modules (four items, scored 1-5). This is a 100-points scale where 0 is perfect/ best and 100 is the worst possible outcome
Measured: 1 year
Secondary outcomes (5)
Constant-Murley score
A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder, a 100-points scale composed of a number of individual parameters.
>30 Poor 21-30 Fair 11-20 Good <11Excellent. These parameters define the level of pain and the ability to carry out the normal daily activities of the patient.
Measured: 1 year
EQ5D
EQ-5D is a standardized instrument for measuring generic health status. The descriptive system element of the EQ-5D questionnaire produces a 5-digit health state profile that represents the level of reported problems on each of the five dimensions in EQ5D. EQ-5D health states may subsequently be converted into a single summary number, which reflects how good or bad a health state is according to the preferences of the general population of a country/region. EQ-5D is designed for self-completion. Further info and List of available value sets for the EQ-5D-3L:
https://euroqol.org/docs/EQ-5D-3L-User-Guide.pdf
Measured: 1 year
Radiology
Radiographs and CT scan before and after surgery, Radiographs of opposite shoulder for comparison
Measured: 1 year
Number of patients with complications such as infection, Avascular necrosis, failure of osteosynthesis, screw cut out, nerve damage, deep vein thrombosis,
All complications registered; Infection, Avascular necrosis (AVN), osteosynthesis failure, screw cutout, varus of caput humeri, deep vein thrombosis
Measured: 1 year
Visual Analog scale (VAS score)
VAS score for pain, a score designed for self-completion. The pain VAS is a unidimensional measure of pain intensity. The pain VAS is a continuous scale comprised of a horizontal line, 10 centimeters in length, anchored by 2 verbal descriptors, one for each symptom extreme. The pain VAS is a single-item scale. "no pain" (score of 0) and "pain as bad as it could be" or "worst imaginable pain" (score of 100)
Measured: 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Sep 2019
- Study start1 Oct 2020
- Primary completion1 Oct 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Oct 2034 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Proximal Humerus FractureStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- Randomized controlled trial with 2 arms
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Akershus
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Hendrik Frolich Fuglesang, University Hospital, Akershus
- Investigators
- Asbjørn Aarøen, Professor, Study director, Akershus Universitetssykehus HF
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04106674
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2018/1583
- Status last verified
- Oct 2022
- First submitted
- 23 Sep 2019
- Last updated
- 25 Oct 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
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
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Oct 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Conservative Versus Operative Treatment of Two - Part Proximal Humerus Fractures
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04106674
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2018/1583
- Conditions
- Proximal Humerus Fracture, 2 Part Fracture
- Keywords
- Proximal humerus fracture, Non-operative versus operative treatment, Conservative versus surgical treatment, Surgical versus non-surgical treatment
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, AkershusUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Oct 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Oct 2034 (estimated)
- First posted
- 27 Sep 2019 (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.
The proximal humerus fracture (PHFs) is the third most common fracture type in the elderly, and represents 5% of the overall fractures. The incidence is increasing. The purpose of the project is to compare surgical and conservative management of two- part PHFs in light of radiological, economical and clinical outcome. Do the participants between 60 and 85 years of age with displaced two-part PHFs fare better or worse after surgery compared to non-operative treatment?
Detailed description
The study-design is a single center single blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 2 arms. Patients admitted to Akershus University Hospital (Ahus) with a displaced two-part proximal humeral fracture of OTA/ AO group 11A2 or 11A3 in need of surgical treatment will be randomly allocated to two groups; conservative/ non-operative treatment or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).
All following aims evaluated at controls at 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. The 6 months and 1 year controls will additionally be conducted by independent physiotherapists. The other controls are conducted by the treating surgeons. The physiotherapists will be blinded of chosen treatment, the patients wearing a t-shirt covering the shoulder at the consultations, hence single blinded RCT.
Primary aim: Functional outcome as evaluated by the Quick DASH (Disability of the arm, shoulder and hand) score at controls.
Preoperative evaluation:
The project participants will supervise and evaluate the data. General history, including; mechanism of injury, occupation, pre-existing medical conditions and medication, smoking history, American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA classification), BMI, hand dominance. At inclusion, the patient will be asked to fill out quick-Dash, Visual Analog scale (VAS), EQ-5D to determine the baseline-characteristics.
Postoperative evaluation:
Evaluation of postoperative radiographs for reduction of fracture and possible errors of the operative technique by the project participants and a radiologist.
Secondary aims:
- Initial radiographic examination with standardized radiograph projections; true anterio-posterior projection and scapula projection pre- and post-operative. Registration of radiological complications defined by a reduction of Head-Shaft-Angle (HSA) of ≥10⁰ in frontal plane, screw penetration/cut-out, screw failure or failure of the osteosynthesis on radiographs. Evaluation of fracture healing/ non-union.
- Evaluation of postoperative reduction: Reduction of tubercles, rotation of caput, re-establishment of medial support, position of calcar screws and distance from screws to cartilage in x-rays. Computer-tomographic scans are standard pre-operative practice at our institution. The problem of intra- and inter-observer reproducibility is a well-known confounder of fracture classification in proximal humeral fractures and CT scans will help clarify classification (19, 20) and fracture configuration. CT scan postoperatively will be taken within few days after surgery (Only in Stratum 1).
- Qualitative Computed Tomography (QCT) is an alternative method to measure Bone Marrow Density (BMD) using a Hydroxyapatite plate/ a phantom. This is a flat plate placed under the shoulder during ordinary CT scanning. Several studies have demonstrated an association between the QCT measurements and risk of fragility fractures, so BMD will be assessed.
- Functional outcome of surgical treatment as evaluated by Constant score by independent physiotherapists during follow-up. Measurement of strength according to recommendations given by the European Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons ESSSE (http://secec.org/).
- Functional outcome evaluated by Oxford Shoulder score, which is a validated patient-reported outcome measure. A shoulder-specific instrument designed to assess the outcome of all shoulder surgeries.
- EQ-5D, a generic measure of health status that provide a simple descriptive profile used in clinical evaluation of health care. EQ-5D is recommended for use in cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine and by the Washington panel of Pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research (ISPOR) task.
- Health economic registration; length of hospital-stay, sick leaves, use of physiotherapy, appointments at general practitioners, extra controls at in-patient orthopedic clinic, removal of plate or nail, extra surgeries.
- Monitoring complications such as deep or superficial infection, reoperations, avascular necrosis, non-union, nerve or vessel-damage.
In the literature, the following risk factors for failure of the osteosynthesis, Avascular necrosis (AVN) or chance of poor functional outcome are outlined; the factors will be examined as subgroups to see whether they are representative also for our population:
- A non-adequately reduced fracture. Evaluated in postoperative radiographs. Malalignment?
- Not adequately positioning of implant
- Degree of medial comminution and medial hinge (the amount of metaphyseal bone attached to the anatomic head fragment at trauma.
- Is sufficient medial support achieved in our patients, and if not, does the construction fail?
- Varus subsidence, measured as reduced Head shaft angle (HSA) (>10 degrees) during follow up
- Fixation in varus, HSA <120 or HSA <110 .
- Enough contact between head and shaft for healing?
- Age: Increasing age predisposes osteosynthesis failure and reduced function, probably because of decreasing bone density in proximal humerus in older age. The examiners want to examine whether there is a cut-off in age, in example 60, 65, 75, 80 or 85 years of age.
- Valgus >45 or Varus <30, which fracture is the worst?
Patients allocated to the conservative group may be offered surgical treatment if the fracture changes/ dislocates, in example no contact between the fracture ends if the patients activities of daily living (ADL) is greatly affected or pain is disproportionately
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Randomized controlled trial with 2 arms
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Non-surgical | No intervention | –No surgery |
| Surgical | Active comparator | Procedure: Open reduction internal stabilisation (ORIF)Surgeons preference |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 60 to 85 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients > 60 years and <85 years
- More than 50% displacement between head or shaft or 50⁰ angulation of the head against the shaft in Y-projection or more than 45 ˚ valgus or more than 30˚ varus of the Head Shaft Angle (HSA).
- Patient with tuberculum majus or minor fractures which displaced <5mm can be included as long as points 1 and 2 above are fulfilled.
Key exclusion criteria (19 listed)
- Refusal to participate in the study
- Fracture more than 3 weeks old
- No contact btw head and shaft
- Ipsilateral damage that will influence the recovery and scoring systems
- Incapability to protect osteosynthesis, i.e. use of crutches because of injury to lower extremity. This is up to the treating surgeon to decide
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Open reduction internal stabilisation (ORIF)Also: SurgeryTreatment allocated to surgical or non-surgical group. Implant choice pragmatic, surgeons choice. | Procedure or surgery | Surgical |
Primary outcome
Quick Dash
Time frame: 1 year
Prom, The QuickDASH is scored in two components: the disability/symptom section (11 items, scored 1-5) and the optional high performance sport/music or work modules (four items, scored 1-5). This is a 100-points scale where 0 is perfect/ best and 100 is the worst possible outcome
5 secondary outcomes
Constant-Murley score
Time frame: 1 year
EQ5D
Time frame: 1 year
Radiology
Time frame: 1 year
Number of patients with complications such as infection, Avascular necrosis, failure of osteosynthesis, screw cut out, nerve damage, deep vein thrombosis,
Time frame: 1 year
Visual Analog scale (VAS score)
Time frame: 1 year
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Oct 2022.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 35727196Handoll 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.
Related trials for Proximal Humerus Fracture
Not yet recruiting
Study on Outcomes of Proximal Humerus Fractures
Proximal Humerus Fracture
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Affixus Natural Nail System Humeral Nail PMCF
Humeral Fractures, Proximal, Humeral Fractures
Not yet recruiting
X-BS Ortho Bone Graft Study
Orthopedic Disorder, Trauma Injury
Recruiting
Cervical Erector Spinae Plane Block in Proximal Humeral Fracture Surgery, A Motor-Sparing Block
Cervical, Erector Spinae Plane Block
RecruitingObservational study
Exactech Proximal Humerus Fracture Plate System Post Market Clinical Follow-up
Proximal Humeral Fracture, Fracture Dislocation
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.
Hendrik Fuglesang, MD, PhD contact
Asbjørn Aarøen, Professor study director
Akershus Universitetssykehus HF
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Open reduction internal stabilisation (ORIF) in people with Proximal Humerus Fracture and 2 Part Fracture, run by University Hospital, Akershus at 1 site in Norway.
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 19 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Oct 2022. 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 Norway. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Annette Konstanse Bordewich Wikerøy, MD (004799717481, awikeroy@hotmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Quick Dash (time frame: 1 year). 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 NCT04106674, 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 25 Oct 2022.