PainNCT07209280
Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System Versus Standard Cannulated Screw System Fixation for Pelvic Fractures
An observational study of Pain, run by University of Utah at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The investigators aim is to determine if the cannulated Bone Bolt® screw system will provide improved post-operative pain control as compared to standard cannulated screw system fixation for the operative treatment of LC1 fractures (primary outcome). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Pain
- What is being tested?
- Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System and Standard Cannulated Screw System
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 11 Jun 2025to Jun 2028
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients between 18 and 80 years with operative LC1 pelvic ring injury.
Who may be able to join
- Age at presentation between 18 and 80 years in line with literature from prior investigations.
- Operative LC1 pelvic ring injury.
- Glasgow Coma Scale of 15.
- Willingness to participate in study.
Who cannot join
- Inability to provide informed consent.
- Pregnant or lactating woman.
- Current incarceration.
- Associated spinal cord injury.
- Non-ambulatory patients (including patients with associated lower extremity fracture that may limit post-operative weight bearing).
- Patient presents with osteoporosis, which in the opinion of the Principal Investigator, may limit the subject's ability to support fracture repair using the study device.
Show all 15Show fewer
- Patient has a metabolic disorder that may impair bone formation.
- Patient has osteomalacia.
- Patient has distant foci of infections which may spread to the implant site or patient with infection, sepsis or osteomyelitis.
- Patient has a vascular insufficiency, muscular atrophy, or neuromuscular disease.
- Patient is a current alcohol or drug abuser.
- Patients unable to comply with post-operative instruction.
- Other lower extremity injuries that impact weight bearing recommendation.
- Injuries that may have a larger impact on pain than the studied pelvic ring.
- Non-English/Spanish speaking.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
United States1 site
University of Utah Orthopedics
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108
About this study
Official title: Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System Versus Standard Cannulated Screw System Fixation for Lateral Compression Type-1 (LC-1) Pelvic Ring Injuries: Multicenter Prospective Observational Study
The investigators aim is to determine if the cannulated Bone Bolt® screw system will provide improved post-operative pain control as compared to standard cannulated screw system fixation for the operative treatment of LC1 fractures (primary outcome). Hypothesis: Patients treated with the cannulated Bone Bolt® screw system will experience a clinically important difference (1.5 points) in post-operative pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) compared to patients treated with standard cannulated screw system fixation.
Read the detailed description
Lateral Compression type-1 (LC1) fractures of the pelvis represent the most common injury to the pelvic ring, accounting for more than 50% of all pelvic ring injuries. These injuries occur secondary to a lateral compressive force on the pelvic ring causing an internal rotation force coupled with medialization of the impacted hemi-pelvis. Despite their prevalence, treatment algorithms for these injuries remain controversial. When significant deformity exists (>1cm displacement) the preference is typically for operative fixation as this has been listed repeatedly as an indication for surgery. In the setting of a minimally displaced LC1 fractures surgical indications become less clear. Minimally displaced fractures can have instability that is under appreciated on static imaging and can result in displacement with non-operative management. This has prompted many surgeons to treat the minimally displaced fracture more aggressively. Surgical intervention provides the benefit of preventing displacement, improving pain, and potentially progressing post-operative mobility.
Previous work has demonstrated short term benefit to the surgical treatment of these injuries, although the treatment benefits noted have been small. A recent observational study conducted at 16 trauma centers prospectively measured short-term VAS pain scores in 194 patients with unilateral sacral fractures and noted that patients with surgical fixation reported 2.7 points less pain at 24 hours postinjury (p=0.001) and 1.1 points less pain at 3 months as compared to those patients treated without surgery (p=0.02). Subsequent to this, an investigator demonstrated a small improvement in pain and functional outcome for up to 12 months in minimally displaced LC1 fractures with complete sacral injuries that were treated with surgical intervention as compared to those patients managed conservatively.
With this information at hand, the current treatment controversy for these injuries has shifted to determining how to optimize surgical fixation and pelvic stability, improve short-term outcomes such as pain, time to mobilization, discharge disposition, and physical function. Many surgeons now consider the short term benefits of surgical intervention to outweigh the risks of percutaneous pelvic fixation, and are desiring a more structurally reliable way in which surgical management to further improve consistency of patient outcomes. Present data provides little to no guidance as to which type of surgical fixation strategy may prove most beneficial to these patients and few advancements have been made in the technology used to treat pelvic ring injuries over the past several decades.
Standard treatment strategies for operative LC1 injuries includes management with cannulated sacroiliac (SI) or trans-sacral (TS) screws in the posterior pelvic ring with or without anterior pelvic ring fixation. Standard cannulated screw System fixation work reasonably well, but loosening and loss of fixation integrity are not infrequent. New advances in FDA cleared screw designs that offer greater mechanical stability, may give more reliable results from surgical treatment.
Given that improvements have been noted with surgical intervention but current surgical techniques and technology have only offered modest clinical benefits, the next logical step is to determine if new technology such as the Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System with proven increase mechanical strength and stiffness can improve post-operative patient outcomes. Given that these injuries represent the most common pelvic ring fractures but do not yet have a ideal and fully reliable treatment pathway, the results of this prospective study could greatly improve care of these patients. A prospective observational design is preferred given a true equipoise for screw design used in the operative treatments for these patients.
- Conditions
- Pain
- Being tested
- Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System, Standard Cannulated Screw System
- Keywords
- Lateral Compression Type-1 (LC-1) fractures, Pelvic Ring Injuries, Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System, Standard Cannulated Screw System, Post-operative pain, Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
- Medical subject headings
- Pain, Fractures, Bone, Pain, Postoperative
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw SystemOther
Patients treated with the Cannulated Bone Bolt® screw system for Lateral Compression Type -1 (LC-1) fractures.
Standard Cannulated Screw SystemOther
Patients treated with the Standard Cannulated Screw System for Lateral Compression Type -1 (LC-1) fractures.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System | Surgeons identifying as users of the Cannulated Bone Bolt® screws will be required to place at least one Cannulated Bone Bolt® screw in each of their operative LC1 injuries. Receives: Other: Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System | |
| Standard Cannulated Screw System Fixation | Surgeons identifying as users of standard cannulated screws will be able to use the cannulated screw of their choice. Receives: Other: Standard Cannulated Screw System |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain
VAS pain score (0 no pain - 10 severe pain)
Measured: 2-weeks after surgery
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain
VAS pain score (0 no pain - 10 severe pain)
Measured: 6-weeks after surgery
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain
VAS pain score (0 no pain - 10 severe pain)
Measured: 12-weeks after surgery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Oct 2025
- Study start11 Jun 2025
- Primary completionJun 2028 (estimated)
- Study completionJun 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for PainStudies 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Utah
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Lucas Marchand, University of Utah
- Investigators
- Lucas Marchand, M.D., Principal investigator, University of Utah Orthopaedics
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07209280
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 188952
- Status last verified
- Apr 2026
- First submitted
- 30 Sep 2025
- Last updated
- 23 Apr 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- 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 23 Apr 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System Versus Standard Cannulated Screw System Fixation for Lateral Compression Type-1 (LC-1) Pelvic Ring Injuries: Multicenter Prospective Observational Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07209280
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 188952
- Conditions
- Pain
- Keywords
- Lateral Compression Type-1 (LC-1) fractures, Pelvic Ring Injuries, Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System, Standard Cannulated Screw System, Post-operative pain, Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Enrolling by invitation
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of UtahUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 11 Jun 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jun 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 6 Oct 2025 (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 investigators aim is to determine if the cannulated Bone Bolt® screw system will provide improved post-operative pain control as compared to standard cannulated screw system fixation for the operative treatment of LC1 fractures (primary outcome). Hypothesis: Patients treated with the cannulated Bone Bolt® screw system will experience a clinically important difference (1.5 points) in post-operative pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) compared to patients treated with standard cannulated screw system fixation.
Detailed description
Lateral Compression type-1 (LC1) fractures of the pelvis represent the most common injury to the pelvic ring, accounting for more than 50% of all pelvic ring injuries. These injuries occur secondary to a lateral compressive force on the pelvic ring causing an internal rotation force coupled with medialization of the impacted hemi-pelvis. Despite their prevalence, treatment algorithms for these injuries remain controversial. When significant deformity exists (>1cm displacement) the preference is typically for operative fixation as this has been listed repeatedly as an indication for surgery. In the setting of a minimally displaced LC1 fractures surgical indications become less clear. Minimally displaced fractures can have instability that is under appreciated on static imaging and can result in displacement with non-operative management. This has prompted many surgeons to treat the minimally displaced fracture more aggressively. Surgical intervention provides the benefit of preventing displacement, improving pain, and potentially progressing post-operative mobility.
Previous work has demonstrated short term benefit to the surgical treatment of these injuries, although the treatment benefits noted have been small. A recent observational study conducted at 16 trauma centers prospectively measured short-term VAS pain scores in 194 patients with unilateral sacral fractures and noted that patients with surgical fixation reported 2.7 points less pain at 24 hours postinjury (p=0.001) and 1.1 points less pain at 3 months as compared to those patients treated without surgery (p=0.02). Subsequent to this, an investigator demonstrated a small improvement in pain and functional outcome for up to 12 months in minimally displaced LC1 fractures with complete sacral injuries that were treated with surgical intervention as compared to those patients managed conservatively.
With this information at hand, the current treatment controversy for these injuries has shifted to determining how to optimize surgical fixation and pelvic stability, improve short-term outcomes such as pain, time to mobilization, discharge disposition, and physical function. Many surgeons now consider the short term benefits of surgical intervention to outweigh the risks of percutaneous pelvic fixation, and are desiring a more structurally reliable way in which surgical management to further improve consistency of patient outcomes. Present data provides little to no guidance as to which type of surgical fixation strategy may prove most beneficial to these patients and few advancements have been made in the technology used to treat pelvic ring injuries over the past several decades.
Standard treatment strategies for operative LC1 injuries includes management with cannulated sacroiliac (SI) or trans-sacral (TS) screws in the posterior pelvic ring with or without anterior pelvic ring fixation. Standard cannulated screw System fixation work reasonably well, but loosening and loss of fixation integrity are not infrequent. New advances in FDA cleared screw designs that offer greater mechanical stability, may give more reliable results from surgical treatment.
Given that improvements have been noted with surgical intervention but current surgical techniques and technology have only offered modest clinical benefits, the next logical step is to determine if new technology such as the Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System with proven increase mechanical strength and stiffness can improve post-operative patient outcomes. Given that these injuries represent the most common pelvic ring fractures but do not yet have a ideal and fully reliable treatment pathway, the results of this prospective study could greatly improve care of these patients. A prospective observational design is preferred given a true equipoise for screw design used in the operative treatments for these patients.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System | – | Other: Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw SystemSurgeons identifying as users of the Cannulated Bone Bolt® screws will be required to place at least one Cannulated Bone Bolt® screw in each of their operative LC1 injuries. |
| Standard Cannulated Screw System Fixation | – | Other: Standard Cannulated Screw SystemSurgeons identifying as users of standard cannulated screws will be able to use the cannulated screw of their choice. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients between 18 and 80 years with operative LC1 pelvic ring injury.
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Age at presentation between 18 and 80 years in line with literature from prior investigations.
- Operative LC1 pelvic ring injury.
- Glasgow Coma Scale of 15.
- Willingness to participate in study.
Key exclusion criteria (15 listed)
- Inability to provide informed consent.
- Pregnant or lactating woman.
- Current incarceration.
- Associated spinal cord injury.
- Non-ambulatory patients (including patients with associated lower extremity fracture that may limit post-operative weight bearing).
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw SystemPatients treated with the Cannulated Bone Bolt® screw system for Lateral Compression Type -1 (LC-1) fractures. | Other | Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System |
| Standard Cannulated Screw SystemPatients treated with the Standard Cannulated Screw System for Lateral Compression Type -1 (LC-1) fractures. | Other | Standard Cannulated Screw System Fixation |
Primary outcome
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain
Time frame: 2-weeks after surgery
VAS pain score (0 no pain - 10 severe pain)
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain
Time frame: 6-weeks after surgery
VAS pain score (0 no pain - 10 severe pain)
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain
Time frame: 12-weeks after surgery
VAS pain score (0 no pain - 10 severe pain)
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 23 Apr 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Pain
Not yet recruiting
Digital Use, 24-Hour Movement Behaviors, and Myofascial Release in University Students With Neck Pain
Forward Head Posture, Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain
Recruiting
Effects of Virtual Reality Exergames Versus Spinal Manipulation in Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Chronic Nonspecific Low-back Pain, CNSLBP
Recruiting
Dietary Intervention for Migraine Relief
Migraine
RecruitingPhase 4
Anrikefon-based Patient-controlled Intravenous Analgesia Following Laparoscopic Surgery
Laparoscopic Surgery, Visceral Pain, Postoperative
Not yet recruiting
Ultrasound-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation for Focal Adenomyosis
Adenomyosis, Adenomyoma of Uterus
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.
Lucas Marchand, M.D. principal investigator
University of Utah Orthopaedics
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Pain, run by University of Utah 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 4 inclusion and 15 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: enrolling by invitation, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Apr 2026. 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?
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?
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?
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain (time frame: 2-weeks after surgery). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. 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 23 Apr 2026.