Clavicle FractureCOMPACTNCT05231343
Comparing Dual Mini-fragment Plating to Single Precontoured Plating of Acute Midshaft Clavicle Fractures Trial
A study testing Dual Mini-fragment Plating and Single Precontoured Plating in people with Clavicle Fracture, run by Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The rate of surgical fixation of fractures of the collarbone (i.e., midshaft clavicle) has exponentially increased in recent years; however, the rate of repeat procedures for removal of these implants (i.e., plates) due to irritation remains high. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Clavicle Fracture
- What is being tested?
- Dual Mini-fragment Plating and Single Precontoured Plating
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 66 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 4 Apr 2022to Jan 2028
- 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 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Between 18 and 65 years of age
- A completely displaced midshaft fracture of the clavicle (no cortical contact between the main proximal and distal fragments (AO/OTA 15.2A/B/C)
- Fracture amenable to plate fixation with a minimum of three screws in each proximal and distal fragment
Who cannot join
- Open fracture
- Pathological fracture
- Fracture seen > 28 days after injury
- Associated neurovascular injury
- Associated head injury (Glasgow Coma Scale < 12)
- Concomitant ipsilateral upper extremity fracture
Show all 9Show fewer
- Significant medical comorbidities (i.e., ASA grade IV and V)
- Inability to comply with follow-up and
- Lack of consent
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Katrine Milner, BSc contact
Canada1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Toronto, Ontario, M4N 3M5
Alicia Alvares, BSc, 416-480-4285, orthores@sunnybrook.ca
Katrine Milner, BSc, katrine.milner@sunnybrook.ca
About this study
Official title: A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Dual Mini-Fragment Plating to Single Precontoured Plating of Acute Midshaft Clavicle Fractures: A Pilot Study
The rate of surgical fixation of fractures of the collarbone (i.e., midshaft clavicle) has exponentially increased in recent years; however, the rate of repeat procedures for removal of these implants (i.e., plates) due to irritation remains high. Despite technological advances in implant design, nearly one in four patients with a surgically fixed collarbone ultimately undergoes removal of their implant. More recently, there has been a growing body of literature demonstrating the effectiveness of using two smaller caliber plates, which have been found to have similar rates of implant removal. As such, the proposed randomized clinical trial seeks to be the first level I study to directly compare dual mini-fragment plating of acute displaced midshaft clavicle fractures to single precontoured plating. The investigators hypothesize that dual mini-fragment plating will result in lower rates of reoperation with similar rates of union and complication.
Read the detailed description
Midshaft clavicle fractures have traditionally been treated non-operatively with immobilization in a sling or a figure-of-eight bandage. Early studies reported a non-union rate of 1% and negligible functional consequence with conservative management. However, the inclusion of pediatric fractures and an absence of modern functional assessments in these studies resulted in an underestimation of non-union rates and overly optimistic clinical outcomes. More recent data has demonstrated a non-union rate of 15% with approximately 30% of patients dissatisfied with their outcome following non-operative treatment. As a result, there has been renewed interest in surgical fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. In fact, the rate of operative fixation has exponentially increased following the publication of a landmark randomized controlled trial by the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS) which was the first of many level I studies to demonstrate higher union rates, decreased rates of symptomatic malunion, earlier return to function, and improved patient-reported outcomes with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.
Traditional plating techniques for open reduction and internal fixation of clavicle fractures involved the use of a single 3.5-mm plates placed superiorly or anteriorly. However, these plates are often very prominent under the skin causing irritation, and in many cases result in reoperation for hardware removal. The rate of reoperation for removal of symptomatic hardware has been reported to range from 8% to 66%. For this reason, there have been a number of different fixation strategies describes to minimize the need to return to the operating room for implant-related symptoms. These include intramedullary nailing and the use of anatomic precontoured clavicle plates positioned superiorly or anteroinferiorly. However, even with the use of precontoured plates, the reported hardware removal rate varies from 5% to 47%. This is likely due to the significant variation in clavicle anatomy (i.e., sigmoid curve, coronal bow and length) observed between individuals which precludes anatomic fitting of precontoured plates in all patients. In fact, Malhas and colleagues published a cadaveric study that found further contouring of precontoured plates was necessary in 73% of cases to optimize plate-bone fit.
More recently, a dual plate construct using two mini-fragment plates (i.e., 2.4-mm or 2.7-mm plates) placed orthogonally has been advocated as a means of decreasing the rate of reoperation for symptomatic hardware removal. In 2015, Prasarn et al. reported on a series of 17 patients undergoing clavicle fixation using a 2.7-mm plate positioned superiorly and a 2.4-mm plate positioned anteriorly and had no reoperations while noting a 100% union rate. The idea of dual plating is not new and is commonly used in the setting of clavicle fracture non-union fixation. Its efficacy has also been described in distal clavicle fractures. Dual plating may serve as the ideal low-profile implant option to help diminish the high rates of symptomatic implant removal observed with single plating. The benefits associated with a dual plate construct extend beyond a reduction in implant-related soft-tissue irritation. Intraoperatively, dual plating allows for more points of fixation, buttressing of anterior butterfly fragments, mini-fragment plates to be used as washers for multiple lag screws, and the use of either the superior or anterior plate as a reduction aid or clamp, while the second plate is applied. Based on existing biomechanical data in the literature, the ability of a dual plate construct to withstand multiplanar bending forces better than a single plate construct may also allow for early weight-bearing through the affected extremity. Despite the aforementioned benefits of dual plate fixation, there remains a lack of level I evidence for its use in the surgical management of acute midshaft clavicle fractures.
- Conditions
- Clavicle Fracture
- Being tested
- Dual Mini-fragment Plating, Single Precontoured Plating
- Keywords
- Orthogonal plating, Hardware removal, Reoperation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Dual Mini-fragment PlatingProcedure or surgery
Patients randomized to dual mini-fragment plating will undergo clavicle fixation using any configuration of 2.0-mm, 2.4-mm and 2.7-mm limited contact dynamic compression (LC-DCP), locking compression (LCP) or reconstruction plates (i.e., 2.4-mm superior and 2.7-mm anteroinferior). One of the two plates used must be a LC-DCP or LCP plate. Surgeons will contour the mini-fragment plate intraoperatively to fit each patient's anatomy.
Single Precontoured PlatingProcedure or surgery
Patients randomized to a single plate construct will undergo fixation using an anatomically precontoured (superior or anterior-inferior) clavicle plate.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Dual mini-fragment plating | Experimental | Not described Receives: Procedure: Dual Mini-fragment Plating |
| Single precontoured plating | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Procedure: Single Precontoured Plating |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Removal of hardware at two years of follow-up
The proportion of people that had their clavicle hardware removed by the two year follow-up.
Measured: 24 months postop
Secondary outcomes (11)
Radiographic union
Complete cortical bridging between the proximal and distal fragments on both views.
Measured: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Reoperation causes other than hardware removal
The proportion of people undergoing reoperation for reasons other than hardware removal.
Measured: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Adverse events/complications
Any event that necessitates another operative procedure or additional medical treatment. Nonunion will be defined as a lack of radiographic healing with clinical evidence of pain and motion at the fracture site at one year. Complex regional pain syndrome will be diagnosed by the presence of dysesthesia and hyperesthesia extending into the hand of the operative limb, with associated vasomotor changes, skin atrophy and diffuse osteopenia.
Measured: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Operative duration
Time between skin incision to skin closure
Measured: Immediately after skin closure
Pain as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)
The outcome on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale at the time points listed below. The scale ranges from 0 to 10, with a lower score representing less pain and thus a better outcome.
Measured: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Functional outcome ASES
Functional outcome as measured by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score. The score values range from 0 to 100, with a lower score representing greater pain and disability.
Measured: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Functional outcome DASH
Functional outcome as measure by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score. The score ranges from 0 to 100, with a lower score representing complete, unrestricted functioning of the upper extremities.
Measured: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Hardware related symptoms
As measured by the Clavicle Hardware Irritation Patient Questionnaires (CHIP-Q). This is a qualitative questionnaire.
Measured: 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Numbers of patients screened and eligible for the study within the recruitment period
We are interested in understanding how many people are eligible for the study.
Measured: Enrollment
Numbers of patients who agree to participate
We are interested in understanding how many people agree to participate in the study.
Measured: Through study completion, an average 2 years
Number of patients who have missed data points or time points
We are interested in understanding how many people have missed data points or time points in the study.
Measured: Through study completion, an average 2 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Feb 2022
- Study start4 Apr 2022
- Primary completionJan 2027 (estimated)
- Study completionJan 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Clavicle 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
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 66 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr. Ujash Sheth, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
- Investigators
- Ujash Sheth, MD MSc FRCSC, Principal investigator, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05231343
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- COMPACT
- Acronym
- COMPACT
- Status last verified
- May 2023
- First submitted
- 13 Jan 2022
- Last updated
- 24 May 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 May 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Dual Mini-Fragment Plating to Single Precontoured Plating of Acute Midshaft Clavicle Fractures: A Pilot Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05231343
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- COMPACT / COMPACT
- Conditions
- Clavicle Fracture
- Keywords
- Orthogonal plating, Hardware removal, Reoperation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 66 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences CentreUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society
- Study start
- 4 Apr 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jan 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jan 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 9 Feb 2022 (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 rate of surgical fixation of fractures of the collarbone (i.e., midshaft clavicle) has exponentially increased in recent years; however, the rate of repeat procedures for removal of these implants (i.e., plates) due to irritation remains high. Despite technological advances in implant design, nearly one in four patients with a surgically fixed collarbone ultimately undergoes removal of their implant. More recently, there has been a growing body of literature demonstrating the effectiveness of using two smaller caliber plates, which have been found to have similar rates of implant removal. As such, the proposed randomized clinical trial seeks to be the first level I study to directly compare dual mini-fragment plating of acute displaced midshaft clavicle fractures to single precontoured plating. The investigators hypothesize that dual mini-fragment plating will result in lower rates of reoperation with similar rates of union and complication.
Detailed description
Midshaft clavicle fractures have traditionally been treated non-operatively with immobilization in a sling or a figure-of-eight bandage. Early studies reported a non-union rate of 1% and negligible functional consequence with conservative management. However, the inclusion of pediatric fractures and an absence of modern functional assessments in these studies resulted in an underestimation of non-union rates and overly optimistic clinical outcomes. More recent data has demonstrated a non-union rate of 15% with approximately 30% of patients dissatisfied with their outcome following non-operative treatment. As a result, there has been renewed interest in surgical fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. In fact, the rate of operative fixation has exponentially increased following the publication of a landmark randomized controlled trial by the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS) which was the first of many level I studies to demonstrate higher union rates, decreased rates of symptomatic malunion, earlier return to function, and improved patient-reported outcomes with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.
Traditional plating techniques for open reduction and internal fixation of clavicle fractures involved the use of a single 3.5-mm plates placed superiorly or anteriorly. However, these plates are often very prominent under the skin causing irritation, and in many cases result in reoperation for hardware removal. The rate of reoperation for removal of symptomatic hardware has been reported to range from 8% to 66%. For this reason, there have been a number of different fixation strategies describes to minimize the need to return to the operating room for implant-related symptoms. These include intramedullary nailing and the use of anatomic precontoured clavicle plates positioned superiorly or anteroinferiorly. However, even with the use of precontoured plates, the reported hardware removal rate varies from 5% to 47%. This is likely due to the significant variation in clavicle anatomy (i.e., sigmoid curve, coronal bow and length) observed between individuals which precludes anatomic fitting of precontoured plates in all patients. In fact, Malhas and colleagues published a cadaveric study that found further contouring of precontoured plates was necessary in 73% of cases to optimize plate-bone fit.
More recently, a dual plate construct using two mini-fragment plates (i.e., 2.4-mm or 2.7-mm plates) placed orthogonally has been advocated as a means of decreasing the rate of reoperation for symptomatic hardware removal. In 2015, Prasarn et al. reported on a series of 17 patients undergoing clavicle fixation using a 2.7-mm plate positioned superiorly and a 2.4-mm plate positioned anteriorly and had no reoperations while noting a 100% union rate. The idea of dual plating is not new and is commonly used in the setting of clavicle fracture non-union fixation. Its efficacy has also been described in distal clavicle fractures. Dual plating may serve as the ideal low-profile implant option to help diminish the high rates of symptomatic implant removal observed with single plating. The benefits associated with a dual plate construct extend beyond a reduction in implant-related soft-tissue irritation. Intraoperatively, dual plating allows for more points of fixation, buttressing of anterior butterfly fragments, mini-fragment plates to be used as washers for multiple lag screws, and the use of either the superior or anterior plate as a reduction aid or clamp, while the second plate is applied. Based on existing biomechanical data in the literature, the ability of a dual plate construct to withstand multiplanar bending forces better than a single plate construct may also allow for early weight-bearing through the affected extremity. Despite the aforementioned benefits of dual plate fixation, there remains a lack of level I evidence for its use in the surgical management of acute midshaft clavicle fractures.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Dual mini-fragment plating | Experimental | Procedure: Dual Mini-fragment Plating |
| Single precontoured plating | Active comparator | Procedure: Single Precontoured Plating |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Between 18 and 65 years of age
- A completely displaced midshaft fracture of the clavicle (no cortical contact between the main proximal and distal fragments (AO/OTA 15.2A/B/C)
- Fracture amenable to plate fixation with a minimum of three screws in each proximal and distal fragment
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Open fracture
- Pathological fracture
- Fracture seen > 28 days after injury
- Associated neurovascular injury
- Associated head injury (Glasgow Coma Scale < 12)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dual Mini-fragment PlatingPatients randomized to dual mini-fragment plating will undergo clavicle fixation using any configuration of 2.0-mm, 2.4-mm and 2.7-mm limited contact dynamic compression (LC-DCP), locking compression (LCP) or reconstruction plates (i.e., 2.4-mm superior and 2.7-mm anteroinferior). One of the two plates used must be a LC-DCP or LCP plate. Surgeons will contour the mini-fragment plate intraoperatively to fit each patient's anatomy. | Procedure or surgery | Dual mini-fragment plating |
| Single Precontoured PlatingPatients randomized to a single plate construct will undergo fixation using an anatomically precontoured (superior or anterior-inferior) clavicle plate. | Procedure or surgery | Single precontoured plating |
Primary outcome
Removal of hardware at two years of follow-up
Time frame: 24 months postop
The proportion of people that had their clavicle hardware removed by the two year follow-up.
11 secondary outcomes
Radiographic union
Time frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Reoperation causes other than hardware removal
Time frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Adverse events/complications
Time frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Operative duration
Time frame: Immediately after skin closure
Pain as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)
Time frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Functional outcome ASES
Time frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Functional outcome DASH
Time frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Hardware related symptoms
Time frame: 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postop
Numbers of patients screened and eligible for the study within the recruitment period
Time frame: Enrollment
Numbers of patients who agree to participate
Time frame: Through study completion, an average 2 years
Number of patients who have missed data points or time points
Time frame: Through study completion, an average 2 years
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 24 May 2023.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Clavicle Fracture
Recruiting
Fluoroscopic Endobutton in Clavicle Fractures and AC Dislocations
Clavicle Fracture
Active, not recruiting
Effectiveness of Superficial Cervical and Clavipectoral Block for Clavicle Surgery
Clavicle Fracture, Postoperative Pain
Enrolling by invitation
Cervical Plexus Versus Infiltration for Clavicular Operations (CERPICO)
Clavicle Surgery, Clavicle Fracture
Active, not recruiting
KT Tape for Pediatric Clavicle Fractures
Clavicle Fracture
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Descriptive Single-center Retrospective Study of a Series of Cases of Clavicle Pseudarthrosis: Epidemiology, Surgical Management, and Functional Outcomes
Pseudarthrosis, Clavicle Fracture
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.
Katrine Milner, BSc contact
Ujash Sheth, MD MSc FRCSC principal investigator
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Dual Mini-fragment Plating and Single Precontoured Plating in people with Clavicle Fracture, run by Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre at 1 site 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 3 inclusion and 9 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 24 May 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 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?
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 Sara Aman, BSc (416-480-4285, orthores@sunnybrook.ca), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Removal of hardware at two years of follow-up (time frame: 24 months postop). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 24 May 2023.