Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP)NCT07639619
Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Versus Conventional Surgery for FFP3-4 Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis in Elderly Patients
A study testing Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Fixation and Conventional Open Fixation in people with Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP) and Osteoporosis, run by Junbo Liang at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
This prospective randomized controlled trial aims to compare the efficacy and safety of robot assisted minimally invasive treatment versus conventional surgery in elderly patients with FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 60 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP), Osteoporosis
- What is being tested?
- Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Fixation and Conventional Open Fixation
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 88 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 1 Jun 2026to 30 Dec 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 60 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age ≥ 60 years
- Low energy trauma
- Diagnosis of osteoporosis
- Diagnosis of FFP3 or FFP4 fragility fractures of the pelvis
- Injury duration less than 3 weeks
- Ability to provide written informed consent
Who cannot join
- Severe open injury or skin infection at the surgical site
- Hemodynamic instability preventing anesthesia or surgery
- Severe psychiatric disorders or dementia
- Severe obesity affecting imaging quality
- Severe systemic diseases preventing surgery
- Pathological fracture
- Current chemotherapy, radiotherapy, systemic corticosteroid therapy, or growth factor therapy
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
China1 site
No. 150 Ximen Road
Linhai, Zhejiang, 317000
Junbo Liang, 0576-85190463, liangjb@enzemed.com
About this study
Official title: Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Versus Conventional Surgery in Elderly Patients With FFP3-4 Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis
This prospective randomized controlled trial aims to compare the efficacy and safety of robot assisted minimally invasive treatment versus conventional surgery in elderly patients with FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis. Eligible patients will be stratified according to FFP classification and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either robot assisted minimally invasive fixation or conventional surgical treatment. Primary and secondary outcomes include pain relief, early mobilization, functional recovery, perioperative complications, venous thromboembolism events, laboratory parameters, imaging outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization. The study aims to provide evidence for optimizing surgical treatment strategies in elderly patients with unstable pelvic fragility fractures.
Read the detailed description
This study is a prospective, single center, stratified randomized controlled trial designed to compare the efficacy and safety of robot assisted minimally invasive treatment versus conventional surgery in elderly patients with FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis.
A total of 88 patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the robot assisted minimally invasive treatment group or the conventional surgery group. Randomization will be stratified according to FFP classification (FFP3 or FFP4) using a computer generated randomization sequence.
Eligible participants include patients aged 60 years or older diagnosed with osteoporosis related FFP3 or FFP4 pelvic fragility fractures caused by low energy trauma. The primary objective is to compare perioperative outcomes, pain control, early mobilization, functional recovery, imaging outcomes, venous thromboembolism events, laboratory parameters, complications, opioid consumption, and healthcare resource utilization between treatment strategies.
Patients in the robot assisted treatment group will undergo robot assisted minimally invasive pelvic fixation using robotic navigation assisted percutaneous screw placement. Patients in the conventional surgery group will undergo standard open surgical fixation according to fracture characteristics and surgeon judgment.
Outcome measures include pain scores, Majeed pelvic function score, EQ 5D, SMFA, imaging evaluation of fracture healing, venous thromboembolism events, laboratory parameters, muscle mass changes, bone mineral density, opioid consumption, perioperative indicators, complications, and healthcare costs. Follow up assessments will be performed at postoperative day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year.
The results of this study may provide evidence regarding the optimal surgical treatment strategy for elderly patients with unstable pelvic fragility fractures.
- Being tested
- Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Fixation, Conventional Open Fixation
- Keywords
- Fragility Fracture, Robot Assisted Surgery, pelvis
- Medical subject headings
- Osteoporosis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive FixationProcedure or surgery
Robot assisted minimally invasive fixation is performed using robotic navigation assisted percutaneous screw placement for stabilization of unstable pelvic fragility fractures.
Conventional Open FixationProcedure or surgery
Conventional open reduction and internal fixation for FFP3-4 pelvic fragility fractures performed without robotic assistance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Group | Experimental | Participants undergo robot assisted minimally invasive fixation for FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis using robotic navigation assisted percutaneous screw placement. Receives: Procedure: Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Fixation |
| Conventional Surgery Group | Active comparator | Participants undergo conventional open surgical fixation for FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis. Receives: Procedure: Conventional Open Fixation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain. Scores range from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst imaginable pain. Higher scores indicate worse pain severity.
Measured: At 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, day 1, day 2, day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
Majeed Pelvic Function Score
The Majeed Pelvic Function Score is used to evaluate functional recovery after pelvic fracture treatment. Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better functional outcomes and quality of life.
Measured: At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
Secondary outcomes (10)
EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level Questionnaire
Health related quality of life assessed using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). The EQ-5D index score ranges from values below 0 (health states considered worse than death) to 1.0 (full health). Higher scores indicate better health related quality of life.
Measured: At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
Fracture Healing
Measured: At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
Complication
Measured: From treatment initiation to 1 year follow up
Opioid Consumption
Assessment of cumulative opioid consumption during hospitalization
Measured: Time Frame: Postoperative Days 0-3
Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA)
Musculoskeletal function assessed using the 46-item Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA). Raw questionnaire scores are transformed to a standardized score ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate worse musculoskeletal function and greater disability.
Measured: At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
Serum C-Reactive Protein Level
Measured: Time Frame: Preoperative, Day 1, Day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
Hemoglobin Level
Measured: Time Frame: Preoperative, Day 1, Day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment.
Operative time
Duration of surgery measured in minutes.
Measured: perioperative
Intraoperative Blood Loss
Estimated intraoperative blood loss measured in milliliters.
Measured: perioperative
Length of Surgical Incision
Length of skin incision measured in centimeters.
Measured: perioperative
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Jun 2026
- Study start1 Jun 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion1 Jun 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Dec 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (13)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP)Studies 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
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 88 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Junbo Liang
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Junbo Liang, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07639619
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- K20260303
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 24 May 2026
- Last updated
- 10 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
GBD 2019 Fracture Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of bone fractures in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021 Sep;2(9):e580-e592. doi: 10.1016/S2666-7568(21)00172-0.
PubMed 34723233Hutchings L, Roffey DM, Lefaivre KA. Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis: Current Practices and Future Directions. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2022 Dec;20(6):469-477. doi: 10.1007/s11914-022-00760-9. Epub 2022 Nov 7.
PubMed 36342642Ali KA, He L, Li W, Zhang W, Huang H. Sleep quality and psychological health in patients with pelvic and acetabulum fractures: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2024 Apr 4;24(1):314. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-04929-y.
PubMed 38575871Rommens PM, Arand C, Hofmann A, Wagner D. When and How to Operate Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis? Indian J Orthop. 2019 Jan-Feb;53(1):128-137. doi: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_631_17.
PubMed 30905993Hitchener WR, Cenedella RJ. Absolute rates of sterol synthesis estimated from [3H]water for bovine lens epithelial cells in culture. J Lipid Res. 1985 Dec;26(12):1455-63.
PubMed 4086948Lau-Ting C. Asymptomatic hepatitis B antigen(s) carriers in Singapore: serological reassessment. Singapore Med J. 1988 Feb;29(1):11-3. No abstract available.
PubMed 3406758Jiang Y, Qi X, Cui H, Huang Y, Lv Y, Yang Y, Yao X, Yang D. The Inflammation-Energy Metabolism Axis: A Central Driver of Sarcopenia-Osteoporosis: A Narrative Review. Calcif Tissue Int. 2026 Jan 7;117(1):9. doi: 10.1007/s00223-025-01473-8.
PubMed 41495343Rommens PM, Arand C, Hopf JC, Mehling I, Dietz SO, Wagner D. Progress of instability in fragility fractures of the pelvis: An observational study. Injury. 2019 Nov;50(11):1966-1973. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.08.038. Epub 2019 Aug 27.
PubMed 31492514Nakayama Y, Suzuki T, Kurozumi T, Watanabe Y. Progression to Rommens type IIIa fragility fracture of the pelvis managed by delayed open reduction and interdigitating screw fixation: A case report. Trauma Case Rep. 2023 Jan 13;43:100773. doi: 10.1016/j.tcr.2023.100773. eCollection 2023 Feb.
PubMed 36691632Yamamoto N, Someko H, Nakashima Y, Nakao S, Kaneko T, Tsuge T. Mortality following fragility fractures of the pelvis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2025 Oct;56(10):112618. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2025.112618. Epub 2025 Jul 21.
PubMed 40714375Banierink H, Ten Duis K, de Vries R, Wendt K, Heineman E, Reininga I, IJpma F. Pelvic ring injury in the elderly: Fragile patients with substantial mortality rates and long-term physical impairment. PLoS One. 2019 May 28;14(5):e0216809. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216809. eCollection 2019.
PubMed 31136589Haentjens P, Magaziner J, Colon-Emeric CS, Vanderschueren D, Milisen K, Velkeniers B, Boonen S. Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Mar 16;152(6):380-90. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-6-201003160-00008.
PubMed 20231569Zong Y, Li J, Li Z, Wang W. Minimally invasive surgery and conservative treatment achieve similar clinical outcomes in patients with type II fragility fractures of the pelvis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2025 Feb 27;20(1):210. doi: 10.1186/s13018-025-05581-x.
PubMed 40016842
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Versus Conventional Surgery in Elderly Patients With FFP3-4 Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07639619
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- K20260303
- Keywords
- Fragility Fracture, Robot Assisted Surgery, pelvis
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 88 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Junbo LiangUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jun 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jun 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Dec 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 10 Jun 2026 (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.
This prospective randomized controlled trial aims to compare the efficacy and safety of robot assisted minimally invasive treatment versus conventional surgery in elderly patients with FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis. Eligible patients will be stratified according to FFP classification and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either robot assisted minimally invasive fixation or conventional surgical treatment. Primary and secondary outcomes include pain relief, early mobilization, functional recovery, perioperative complications, venous thromboembolism events, laboratory parameters, imaging outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization. The study aims to provide evidence for optimizing surgical treatment strategies in elderly patients with unstable pelvic fragility fractures.
Detailed description
This study is a prospective, single center, stratified randomized controlled trial designed to compare the efficacy and safety of robot assisted minimally invasive treatment versus conventional surgery in elderly patients with FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis.
A total of 88 patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the robot assisted minimally invasive treatment group or the conventional surgery group. Randomization will be stratified according to FFP classification (FFP3 or FFP4) using a computer generated randomization sequence.
Eligible participants include patients aged 60 years or older diagnosed with osteoporosis related FFP3 or FFP4 pelvic fragility fractures caused by low energy trauma. The primary objective is to compare perioperative outcomes, pain control, early mobilization, functional recovery, imaging outcomes, venous thromboembolism events, laboratory parameters, complications, opioid consumption, and healthcare resource utilization between treatment strategies.
Patients in the robot assisted treatment group will undergo robot assisted minimally invasive pelvic fixation using robotic navigation assisted percutaneous screw placement. Patients in the conventional surgery group will undergo standard open surgical fixation according to fracture characteristics and surgeon judgment.
Outcome measures include pain scores, Majeed pelvic function score, EQ 5D, SMFA, imaging evaluation of fracture healing, venous thromboembolism events, laboratory parameters, muscle mass changes, bone mineral density, opioid consumption, perioperative indicators, complications, and healthcare costs. Follow up assessments will be performed at postoperative day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year.
The results of this study may provide evidence regarding the optimal surgical treatment strategy for elderly patients with unstable pelvic fragility fractures.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Group | Experimental | Procedure: Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive FixationParticipants undergo robot assisted minimally invasive fixation for FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis using robotic navigation assisted percutaneous screw placement. |
| Conventional Surgery Group | Active comparator | Procedure: Conventional Open FixationParticipants undergo conventional open surgical fixation for FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 60 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Age ≥ 60 years
- Low energy trauma
- Diagnosis of osteoporosis
- Diagnosis of FFP3 or FFP4 fragility fractures of the pelvis
- Injury duration less than 3 weeks
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Severe open injury or skin infection at the surgical site
- Hemodynamic instability preventing anesthesia or surgery
- Severe psychiatric disorders or dementia
- Severe obesity affecting imaging quality
- Severe systemic diseases preventing surgery
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive FixationRobot assisted minimally invasive fixation is performed using robotic navigation assisted percutaneous screw placement for stabilization of unstable pelvic fragility fractures. | Procedure or surgery | Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Group |
| Conventional Open FixationConventional open reduction and internal fixation for FFP3-4 pelvic fragility fractures performed without robotic assistance. | Procedure or surgery | Conventional Surgery Group |
Primary outcome
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain
Time frame: At 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, day 1, day 2, day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain. Scores range from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst imaginable pain. Higher scores indicate worse pain severity.
Majeed Pelvic Function Score
Time frame: At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
The Majeed Pelvic Function Score is used to evaluate functional recovery after pelvic fracture treatment. Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better functional outcomes and quality of life.
10 secondary outcomes
EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level Questionnaire
Time frame: At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
Fracture Healing
Time frame: At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
Complication
Time frame: From treatment initiation to 1 year follow up
Opioid Consumption
Time frame: Time Frame: Postoperative Days 0-3
Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA)
Time frame: At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
Serum C-Reactive Protein Level
Time frame: Time Frame: Preoperative, Day 1, Day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
Hemoglobin Level
Time frame: Time Frame: Preoperative, Day 1, Day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment.
Operative time
Time frame: perioperative
Intraoperative Blood Loss
Time frame: perioperative
Length of Surgical Incision
Time frame: perioperative
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 10 Jun 2026.
- Results publication: PubMed 34723233GBD 2019 Fracture Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of bone fractures in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021 Sep;2(9):e580-e592. doi: 10.1016/S2666-7568(21)00172-0.
- Results publication: PubMed 36342642Hutchings L, Roffey DM, Lefaivre KA. Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis: Current Practices and Future Directions. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2022 Dec;20(6):469-477. doi: 10.1007/s11914-022-00760-9. Epub 2022 Nov 7.
- Results publication: PubMed 38575871Ali KA, He L, Li W, Zhang W, Huang H. Sleep quality and psychological health in patients with pelvic and acetabulum fractures: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2024 Apr 4;24(1):314. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-04929-y.
- Results publication: PubMed 30905993Rommens PM, Arand C, Hofmann A, Wagner D. When and How to Operate Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis? Indian J Orthop. 2019 Jan-Feb;53(1):128-137. doi: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_631_17.
- Results publication: PubMed 4086948Hitchener WR, Cenedella RJ. Absolute rates of sterol synthesis estimated from [3H]water for bovine lens epithelial cells in culture. J Lipid Res. 1985 Dec;26(12):1455-63.
- Results publication: PubMed 3406758Lau-Ting C. Asymptomatic hepatitis B antigen(s) carriers in Singapore: serological reassessment. Singapore Med J. 1988 Feb;29(1):11-3. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 41495343Jiang Y, Qi X, Cui H, Huang Y, Lv Y, Yang Y, Yao X, Yang D. The Inflammation-Energy Metabolism Axis: A Central Driver of Sarcopenia-Osteoporosis: A Narrative Review. Calcif Tissue Int. 2026 Jan 7;117(1):9. doi: 10.1007/s00223-025-01473-8.
- Results publication: PubMed 31492514Rommens PM, Arand C, Hopf JC, Mehling I, Dietz SO, Wagner D. Progress of instability in fragility fractures of the pelvis: An observational study. Injury. 2019 Nov;50(11):1966-1973. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.08.038. Epub 2019 Aug 27.
- Results publication: PubMed 36691632Nakayama Y, Suzuki T, Kurozumi T, Watanabe Y. Progression to Rommens type IIIa fragility fracture of the pelvis managed by delayed open reduction and interdigitating screw fixation: A case report. Trauma Case Rep. 2023 Jan 13;43:100773. doi: 10.1016/j.tcr.2023.100773. eCollection 2023 Feb.
- Results publication: PubMed 40714375Yamamoto N, Someko H, Nakashima Y, Nakao S, Kaneko T, Tsuge T. Mortality following fragility fractures of the pelvis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2025 Oct;56(10):112618. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2025.112618. Epub 2025 Jul 21.
- Results publication: PubMed 31136589Banierink H, Ten Duis K, de Vries R, Wendt K, Heineman E, Reininga I, IJpma F. Pelvic ring injury in the elderly: Fragile patients with substantial mortality rates and long-term physical impairment. PLoS One. 2019 May 28;14(5):e0216809. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216809. eCollection 2019.
- Results publication: PubMed 20231569Haentjens P, Magaziner J, Colon-Emeric CS, Vanderschueren D, Milisen K, Velkeniers B, Boonen S. Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Mar 16;152(6):380-90. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-6-201003160-00008.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Functional Outcomes in Older Adults With Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis: The FFP-France Study
Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP), Osteoporotic Fractures
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP)
Pelvic Fracture
Not yet recruiting
Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Versus Conservative Treatment for Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis Type 1-2 in Elderly Patients
Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP)
RecruitingObservational study
Assessment of Treatment Variability for Pelvic Ring Fragility Fractures
Pelvic Fractures, Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
A Snapshot Audit of Traumatic Pelvic Ring Injuries
Pelvic Trauma, Pelvic 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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Fixation and Conventional Open Fixation in people with Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP) and Osteoporosis, run by Junbo Liang at 1 site in China.
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 6 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Jun 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 China. 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 Junbo Liang (0576-85190463, lingjb@enzemed.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain (time frame: At 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, day 1, day 2, day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT07639619, which also lists 13 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 10 Jun 2026.