Pelvic FractureNCT04744350
Conservative or Operative Therapy in Patients With a Fragility Fracture of the Pelvis
A study testing Treatment of FFP type IIb and IIc in people with Pelvic Fracture, run by Björn-Christian Link at 1 site in Switzerland.
Trial summary
In our society the population consists of more elderly patients. Medical treatment needs to be adjusted to this patient group. This research project focusses on patients with a fragility fracture of the pelvis. This results from a minor trauma and can cause a long immobilization period because of severe pain. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Pelvic Fracture
- What is being tested?
- Treatment of FFP type IIb and IIc
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 68 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSwitzerland
- Study dates
- 1 Nov 2022to 30 Dec 2025
- 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 Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Informed Consent as documented by signature
- The fracture must be a fragility fracture. This means absence of high energy trauma.
- Fragility fracture of the sacrum (FFP II b + c). Involvement of the ventral pelvic ring is not an exclusion criteria.
- Able to walk 4 meters before fracture
Who cannot join
- Patients who had a high energy trauma.
- FFP I or FFP III+IV were operative therapy is recommended
- Patient who are not operable according to the anaesthesiologist on call.
- Open fractures.
- Revision surgeries.
- Absent contact information
- Living abroad and cannot participate in follow-up visits.
- Withdrawal from the study.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Switzerland1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Luzerner Kantonsspital
Lucerne, 6000
Roelien Haveman, 0412057126, roelien.haveman@luks.ch
Björn-Christian Link, Dr.med., björn-christian.link@luks.ch
About this study
Official title: Conservative or Operative Therapy in Patients With a Fragility Fracture of the Pelvis: a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial
In our society the population consists of more elderly patients. Medical treatment needs to be adjusted to this patient group. This research project focusses on patients with a fragility fracture of the pelvis. This results from a minor trauma and can cause a long immobilization period because of severe pain. For FFP type II b and II c there is no consensus on the best treatment option. Either a surgical minimal invasive sacroiliac osteosynthesis or conservative treatment is a possibility. Of course, both treatment options have pros and cons. This research project will randomize all patients with a FFP IIb or IIc fracture in either surgical or conservative treatment. These treatments will be evaluated at the follow-ups, 4 weeks, 4 months and 1 year after trauma. This will be evaluated with the DEMMI, Accelerometer, EQ-5D (EuroQol Quality of Live Questionnaire), radiological results, range of motion, pain-levels and reporting any postoperative complications or adverse events. Patient will be included over a period of 18 months and will be followed for at least a year. This research project aim to answer the question which treatment option for FFP type IIb and IIc is the most adequate.
Read the detailed description
Background. Fragility fractures of the pelvis are increasing in incidence. These are osteoporotic fractures, who result from a minor trauma. Typically, the weak osteoporotic bone is fractured, an the ligaments remain intact resulting in an undisplaced or minimally displaced pelvic ring. Fragility fractures of the pelvis can be divided in type I, II, III and IV. For type I the treatment method of choice is conservative. For type III and IV a surgical treatment is necessary. Only the ideal treatment for type II remains unclear. There is no consensus in whether conservative treatment or surgical treatment will have the best outcomes. Surgical treatment mostly means a minimal invasive osteosynthesis. In our hospital we use percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation with augmentation. The screws used are perforated and fenestrated, allowing for a correct placement an cement augmentation. Preferably, this procedure is performed in our hybrid operation theatre. An intraoperative CT-scan can be performed. This treatment method has proven to be a safe method in literature. On the other hand, surgical treatment, can have complications and risks, especially in the elderly. Conservative treatment consist of mobilisation and physiotherapy. But conservative treatment can be limited because of uncontrolled pain, resulting in a long immobilisation period. Immobilisation in the elderly leads to several complications. This research project will focus on early operative intervention to reduce the immobilisation period and its negative consequences.
Study design. Recruitment of patients will find place in our emergency department and our outpatient clinic. A lot of patients with a FFP type IIb and IIc present themselves at our emergency department due to immobilising pain. All the elderly patient who complain about sacroiliac pain will receive an CT-scan. Literature showed that an conventional x-ray is not sufficient to detect sacroiliac fractures. On the other hand a lot of patient are referred to our outpatient clinic by other hospitals in our region or even general practioners. All these patients, who meet our inclusion criteria, will be asked for informed consent. After informed consent has been collected, patients will be randomised to on of the groups. The first group will receive surgical treatment and the second group will receive conservative treatment. Randomisation is performed with a vending machine. Depending on which soda can comes out, patients are assigned to the groups.
Study intervention. As stated before the are two groups in this research project. Both treatment are standard treatments. Both groups will receive a standard set of co-interventions, such as adequate analgesics and intensive physiotherapy. At our hospital a geriatric trauma centre is established. After discharge or 4 weeks after trauma a first follow-up is planned. This is primary for the treatment evaluation. Then after 4 months are second follow-up is planned with a traumatologist, physiotherapist and a geriatric specialist. At this follow-up several benchmark test are performed, such as the DEMMI, EQ 5D and an accelerometer is explained and given out. Especially this accelerometer will tell us more about the amount of mobilisation or immobilisation at home. The last follow-up will be 1 year after trauma. At all follow-ups radiological controls are performed. These will be conventional x-rays. Only in specific cases, for example prolonged pain, an CT-scan will be performed.
Data and data management. The sample size was based on the expected difference between treatment groups in improvement on the DEMMI score between baseline and 4 months follow-up. Previous studies show that the minimal clinical important difference of the DEMMI score is 10 points. This results in a sample size of 68 patients, accounted for 10% loss to follow-up.
The statistical planned analyses are primary a pearson chi-squared or fishers exact test for categorical variables or a students t or mann-whitney test. However the primary outcome will be analysed using mixed linear models with random effects. The models will be compared usin Akaike information criterium. Missing data will be imputed using multiple imputation. All analyses will be performed using SPSS version 19 or higher. A p value <0.05 is regarded as being statistically significant.
Data is stored on the protected server systems of Hospital of Lucerne. Files containing anonymous data can also be stored on the personal computers of the investigators. Data is recorded on paper and digitally. Questionnaires are on paper, but all the measurements, as the DEMMI score of range of motion will be digitally. Participants can not be identified in the CRF (Case report form). Appropriate corresponding codes are only known and accessible for the investigators.
Upon simple request by the patient, he or she will immediately be withdrawn from the study and no further date will be recorded in the study. It is guaranteed that further treatment will be equal to standard care.
- Conditions
- Pelvic Fracture
- Being tested
- Treatment of FFP type IIb and IIc
- Medical subject headings
- Hip Fractures
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Treatment of FFP type IIb and IIcProcedure or surgery
Patients will either be randomized in the surgical or conservative group.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Surgical | Active comparator | Surgical treatment using a minimal invasive surgical method. At our hospital we perform a percutaneous sacroiliac osteosynthesis using cannulated, perforated and fenestrated screws. This procedure is preferably performed in our hybrid operation theatre, which allows for correct placement using an intraoperative CT-scan. Receives: Procedure: Treatment of FFP type IIb and IIc |
| Conservative | Active comparator | Patients will receive individually tailored physiotherapy and analgesics if necessary. Receives: Procedure: Treatment of FFP type IIb and IIc |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Mobility level
DEMMI (0-100, 100 is maximal mobility)
Measured: 1 year
Secondary outcomes (17)
Pain levels
VAS (visual analogue scale, 0-10, 0 means no pain)
Measured: 1 year
Clinical characteristics
Age
Measured: Baseline
Clinical characteristics
Gender
Measured: Baseline
Clinical characteristics
ASA-Score (1-6, 1 is a healthy patient)
Measured: Baseline
Clinical characteristics
BMI
Measured: Baseline, 1 year
Clinical characteristics
Osteoporosis treatment (yes or no)
Measured: Baseline
Medication
Reporting what kind of medications all patients take (including steroids, anticoagulation, pain killers, et cetera)
Measured: Baseline, 1 year
Clinical characteristics
Surgical related complications
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Clinical characteristics
Length of hospital stay after first admission
Measured: after discharge
Clinical characteristics
Fracture classification (FFP I - IV)
Measured: Baseline
Clinical characteristics
FES-1 (falls efficacy scale, 16-64, 16 means no fear of falling, 64 is the maximum)
Measured: 1 year
Clinical characteristics
EQ-5D (0-100, 100 is the best possible health status)
Measured: 1 year
Clinical characteristics
SPPB (short physical performance battery, 0-12, 12 is the best function)
Measured: 1 year
Mobility level
Barthel Index (0-100, 100 is completely independent)
Measured: 1 year
Mobility level
Accelerometer (this is a device that continously measures the activity level of an patient. It comes in the form of a bracelet)
Measured: During 1 week after 4 Months
Mobility level
TUG (time up and go test)
Measured: 1 year
Mobility level
5 Chair rise
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 posted8 Feb 2021
- Study start1 Nov 2022
- Primary completion30 Dec 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Dec 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (18)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Pelvic 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
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 68 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Björn-Christian Link
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Björn-Christian Link, Luzerner Kantonsspital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04744350
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- FFP1
- Status last verified
- Oct 2023
- First submitted
- 10 Dec 2020
- Last updated
- 3 Oct 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Oberkircher L, Ruchholtz S, Rommens PM, Hofmann A, Bucking B, Kruger A. Osteoporotic Pelvic Fractures. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018 Feb 2;115(5):70-80. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0070.
PubMed 29439771Fuchs T, Rottbeck U, Hofbauer V, Raschke M, Stange R. [Pelvic ring fractures in the elderly. Underestimated osteoporotic fracture]. Unfallchirurg. 2011 Aug;114(8):663-70. doi: 10.1007/s00113-011-2020-z. German.
PubMed 21800137Rommens PM, Wagner D, Hofmann A. [Osteoporotic fractures of the pelvic ring]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2012 Jun;150(3):e107-18; quiz e119-20. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1314948. Epub 2012 Jun 21. German.
PubMed 22723074Rommens PM, Hofmann A. Comprehensive classification of fragility fractures of the pelvic ring: Recommendations for surgical treatment. Injury. 2013 Dec;44(12):1733-44. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.06.023. Epub 2013 Jul 18.
PubMed 23871193Matta JM, Saucedo T. Internal fixation of pelvic ring fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 May;(242):83-97.
PubMed 2706863Rommens PM, Wagner D, Hofmann A. Minimal Invasive Surgical Treatment of Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2017 Sept-Oct;112(5):524-537. doi: 10.21614/chirurgia.112.5.524.
PubMed 29088552Richter PH, Gebhard F, Dehner C, Scola A. Accuracy of computer-assisted iliosacral screw placement using a hybrid operating room. Injury. 2016 Feb;47(2):402-7. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.11.023. Epub 2015 Dec 12.
PubMed 26708797Wahnert D, Raschke MJ, Fuchs T. Cement augmentation of the navigated iliosacral screw in the treatment of insufficiency fractures of the sacrum: a new method using modified implants. Int Orthop. 2013 Jun;37(6):1147-50. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-1875-8. Epub 2013 Apr 4.
PubMed 23553117Routt ML Jr, Simonian PT, Mills WJ. Iliosacral screw fixation: early complications of the percutaneous technique. J Orthop Trauma. 1997 Nov;11(8):584-9. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199711000-00007.
PubMed 9415865Konig MA, Hediger S, Schmitt JW, Jentzsch T, Sprengel K, Werner CML. In-screw cement augmentation for iliosacral screw fixation in posterior ring pathologies with insufficient bone stock. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018 Apr;44(2):203-210. doi: 10.1007/s00068-016-0681-6. Epub 2016 May 11.
PubMed 27167237Wagner D, Ossendorf C, Gruszka D, Hofmann A, Rommens PM. Fragility fractures of the sacrum: how to identify and when to treat surgically? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015 Aug;41(4):349-62. doi: 10.1007/s00068-015-0530-z. Epub 2015 Apr 18.
PubMed 26038048Hopf JC, Krieglstein CF, Muller LP, Koslowsky TC. Percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation after osteoporotic posterior ring fractures of the pelvis reduces pain significantly in elderly patients. Injury. 2015 Aug;46(8):1631-6. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.04.036. Epub 2015 May 14.
PubMed 26052052Konig A, Oberkircher L, Beeres FJP, Babst R, Ruchholtz S, Link BC. Cement augmentation of sacroiliac screws in fragility fractures of the pelvic ring-A synopsis and systematic review of the current literature. Injury. 2019 Aug;50(8):1411-1417. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.06.025. Epub 2019 Jun 28.
PubMed 31301810Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. The five item Barthel index. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001 Aug;71(2):225-30. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.71.2.225.
PubMed 11459898de Morton NA, Davidson M, Keating JL. The de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI): an essential health index for an ageing world. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008 Aug 19;6:63. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-6-63.
PubMed 18713451
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Oct 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Conservative or Operative Therapy in Patients With a Fragility Fracture of the Pelvis: a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04744350
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- FFP1
- Conditions
- Pelvic Fracture
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 68 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Björn-Christian LinkUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Nov 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Dec 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Dec 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 8 Feb 2021 (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.
In our society the population consists of more elderly patients. Medical treatment needs to be adjusted to this patient group. This research project focusses on patients with a fragility fracture of the pelvis. This results from a minor trauma and can cause a long immobilization period because of severe pain. For FFP type II b and II c there is no consensus on the best treatment option. Either a surgical minimal invasive sacroiliac osteosynthesis or conservative treatment is a possibility. Of course, both treatment options have pros and cons. This research project will randomize all patients with a FFP IIb or IIc fracture in either surgical or conservative treatment. These treatments will be evaluated at the follow-ups, 4 weeks, 4 months and 1 year after trauma. This will be evaluated with the DEMMI, Accelerometer, EQ-5D (EuroQol Quality of Live Questionnaire), radiological results, range of motion, pain-levels and reporting any postoperative complications or adverse events. Patient will be included over a period of 18 months and will be followed for at least a year. This research project aim to answer the question which treatment option for FFP type IIb and IIc is the most adequate.
Detailed description
Background. Fragility fractures of the pelvis are increasing in incidence. These are osteoporotic fractures, who result from a minor trauma. Typically, the weak osteoporotic bone is fractured, an the ligaments remain intact resulting in an undisplaced or minimally displaced pelvic ring. Fragility fractures of the pelvis can be divided in type I, II, III and IV. For type I the treatment method of choice is conservative. For type III and IV a surgical treatment is necessary. Only the ideal treatment for type II remains unclear. There is no consensus in whether conservative treatment or surgical treatment will have the best outcomes. Surgical treatment mostly means a minimal invasive osteosynthesis. In our hospital we use percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation with augmentation. The screws used are perforated and fenestrated, allowing for a correct placement an cement augmentation. Preferably, this procedure is performed in our hybrid operation theatre. An intraoperative CT-scan can be performed. This treatment method has proven to be a safe method in literature. On the other hand, surgical treatment, can have complications and risks, especially in the elderly. Conservative treatment consist of mobilisation and physiotherapy. But conservative treatment can be limited because of uncontrolled pain, resulting in a long immobilisation period. Immobilisation in the elderly leads to several complications. This research project will focus on early operative intervention to reduce the immobilisation period and its negative consequences.
Study design. Recruitment of patients will find place in our emergency department and our outpatient clinic. A lot of patients with a FFP type IIb and IIc present themselves at our emergency department due to immobilising pain. All the elderly patient who complain about sacroiliac pain will receive an CT-scan. Literature showed that an conventional x-ray is not sufficient to detect sacroiliac fractures. On the other hand a lot of patient are referred to our outpatient clinic by other hospitals in our region or even general practioners. All these patients, who meet our inclusion criteria, will be asked for informed consent. After informed consent has been collected, patients will be randomised to on of the groups. The first group will receive surgical treatment and the second group will receive conservative treatment. Randomisation is performed with a vending machine. Depending on which soda can comes out, patients are assigned to the groups.
Study intervention. As stated before the are two groups in this research project. Both treatment are standard treatments. Both groups will receive a standard set of co-interventions, such as adequate analgesics and intensive physiotherapy. At our hospital a geriatric trauma centre is established. After discharge or 4 weeks after trauma a first follow-up is planned. This is primary for the treatment evaluation. Then after 4 months are second follow-up is planned with a traumatologist, physiotherapist and a geriatric specialist. At this follow-up several benchmark test are performed, such as the DEMMI, EQ 5D and an accelerometer is explained and given out. Especially this accelerometer will tell us more about the amount of mobilisation or immobilisation at home. The last follow-up will be 1 year after trauma. At all follow-ups radiological controls are performed. These will be conventional x-rays. Only in specific cases, for example prolonged pain, an CT-scan will be performed.
Data and data management. The sample size was based on the expected difference between treatment groups in improvement on the DEMMI score between baseline and 4 months follow-up. Previous studies show that the minimal clinical important difference of the DEMMI score is 10 points. This results in a sample size of 68 patients, accounted for 10% loss to follow-up.
The statistical planned analyses are primary a pearson chi-squared or fishers exact test for categorical variables or a students t or mann-whitney test. However the primary outcome will be analysed using mixed linear models with random effects. The models will be compared usin Akaike information criterium. Missing data will be imputed using multiple imputation. All analyses will be performed using SPSS version 19 or higher. A p value <0.05 is regarded as being statistically significant.
Data is stored on the protected server systems of Hospital of Lucerne. Files containing anonymous data can also be stored on the personal computers of the investigators. Data is recorded on paper and digitally. Questionnaires are on paper, but all the measurements, as the DEMMI score of range of motion will be digitally. Participants can not be identified in the CRF (Case report form). Appropriate corresponding codes are only known and accessible for the investigators.
Upon simple request by the patient, he or she will immediately be withdrawn from the study and no further date will be recorded in the study. It is guaranteed that further treatment will be equal to standard care.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Surgical | Active comparator | Procedure: Treatment of FFP type IIb and IIcSurgical treatment using a minimal invasive surgical method. At our hospital we perform a percutaneous sacroiliac osteosynthesis using cannulated, perforated and fenestrated screws. This procedure is preferably performed in our hybrid operation theatre, which allows for correct placement using an intraoperative CT-scan. |
| Conservative | Active comparator | Procedure: Treatment of FFP type IIb and IIcPatients will receive individually tailored physiotherapy and analgesics if necessary. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Informed Consent as documented by signature
- The fracture must be a fragility fracture. This means absence of high energy trauma.
- Fragility fracture of the sacrum (FFP II b + c). Involvement of the ventral pelvic ring is not an exclusion criteria.
- Able to walk 4 meters before fracture
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Patients who had a high energy trauma.
- FFP I or FFP III+IV were operative therapy is recommended
- Patient who are not operable according to the anaesthesiologist on call.
- Open fractures.
- Revision surgeries.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment of FFP type IIb and IIcPatients will either be randomized in the surgical or conservative group. | Procedure or surgery | Conservative, Surgical |
Primary outcome
Mobility level
Time frame: 1 year
DEMMI (0-100, 100 is maximal mobility)
17 secondary outcomes
Pain levels
Time frame: 1 year
Clinical characteristics
Time frame: Baseline
Clinical characteristics
Time frame: Baseline
Clinical characteristics
Time frame: Baseline
Clinical characteristics
Time frame: Baseline, 1 year
Clinical characteristics
Time frame: Baseline
Medication
Time frame: Baseline, 1 year
Clinical characteristics
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Clinical characteristics
Time frame: after discharge
Clinical characteristics
Time frame: Baseline
Clinical characteristics
Time frame: 1 year
Clinical characteristics
Time frame: 1 year
Clinical characteristics
Time frame: 1 year
Mobility level
Time frame: 1 year
Mobility level
Time frame: During 1 week after 4 Months
Mobility level
Time frame: 1 year
Mobility level
Time frame: 1 year
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 3 Oct 2023.
- Background: PubMed 29439771Oberkircher L, Ruchholtz S, Rommens PM, Hofmann A, Bucking B, Kruger A. Osteoporotic Pelvic Fractures. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018 Feb 2;115(5):70-80. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0070.
- Background: PubMed 21800137Fuchs T, Rottbeck U, Hofbauer V, Raschke M, Stange R. [Pelvic ring fractures in the elderly. Underestimated osteoporotic fracture]. Unfallchirurg. 2011 Aug;114(8):663-70. doi: 10.1007/s00113-011-2020-z. German.
- Background: PubMed 22723074Rommens PM, Wagner D, Hofmann A. [Osteoporotic fractures of the pelvic ring]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2012 Jun;150(3):e107-18; quiz e119-20. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1314948. Epub 2012 Jun 21. German.
- Background: PubMed 23871193Rommens PM, Hofmann A. Comprehensive classification of fragility fractures of the pelvic ring: Recommendations for surgical treatment. Injury. 2013 Dec;44(12):1733-44. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.06.023. Epub 2013 Jul 18.
- Background: PubMed 2706863Matta JM, Saucedo T. Internal fixation of pelvic ring fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 May;(242):83-97.
- Background: PubMed 29088552Rommens PM, Wagner D, Hofmann A. Minimal Invasive Surgical Treatment of Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2017 Sept-Oct;112(5):524-537. doi: 10.21614/chirurgia.112.5.524.
- Background: PubMed 26708797Richter PH, Gebhard F, Dehner C, Scola A. Accuracy of computer-assisted iliosacral screw placement using a hybrid operating room. Injury. 2016 Feb;47(2):402-7. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.11.023. Epub 2015 Dec 12.
- Background: PubMed 23553117Wahnert D, Raschke MJ, Fuchs T. Cement augmentation of the navigated iliosacral screw in the treatment of insufficiency fractures of the sacrum: a new method using modified implants. Int Orthop. 2013 Jun;37(6):1147-50. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-1875-8. Epub 2013 Apr 4.
- Background: PubMed 9415865Routt ML Jr, Simonian PT, Mills WJ. Iliosacral screw fixation: early complications of the percutaneous technique. J Orthop Trauma. 1997 Nov;11(8):584-9. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199711000-00007.
- Background: PubMed 27167237Konig MA, Hediger S, Schmitt JW, Jentzsch T, Sprengel K, Werner CML. In-screw cement augmentation for iliosacral screw fixation in posterior ring pathologies with insufficient bone stock. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018 Apr;44(2):203-210. doi: 10.1007/s00068-016-0681-6. Epub 2016 May 11.
- Background: PubMed 26038048Wagner D, Ossendorf C, Gruszka D, Hofmann A, Rommens PM. Fragility fractures of the sacrum: how to identify and when to treat surgically? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015 Aug;41(4):349-62. doi: 10.1007/s00068-015-0530-z. Epub 2015 Apr 18.
- Background: PubMed 26052052Hopf JC, Krieglstein CF, Muller LP, Koslowsky TC. Percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation after osteoporotic posterior ring fractures of the pelvis reduces pain significantly in elderly patients. Injury. 2015 Aug;46(8):1631-6. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.04.036. Epub 2015 May 14.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Pelvic Fracture
Not yet recruiting
Lumbar Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus PENG Block for Hip Fracture Surgery
Femur Neck Fracture, Hip Fractures
RecruitingObservational study
Real World Evidence of SI-BONE's iFuse TORQ TNT Advancing Treatment of Pelvic Ring Fractures
Fracture; Pelvic, Insufficiency Fractures
Not yet recruiting
A Decision Support Tool for Common Surgical Fixations of Hip Fractures
Hip Fracture Surgeries, High Risk Population of Hip Fractures
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
GRACE II (General Retrospective Analysis of Commercial Experience With AGN1 LOEP)
Osteoporosis
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Suzetrigine (Journavx) as Multimodal Therapy for Pain Management in Adults Undergoing Surgery for Hip Fracture
Hip Fractures (ICD-10 72.01-72.2), Post Operative Analgesia
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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Treatment of FFP type IIb and IIc in people with Pelvic Fracture, run by Björn-Christian Link at 1 site in Switzerland.
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 8 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 3 Oct 2023. 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 Switzerland. 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 Roemalie Haveman (0041 79 618 9774, Roemaliehaveman@gmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Mobility level (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 NCT04744350, 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 3 Oct 2023.