Reverse Or Nothing For Complex Proximal Humeral Fractures

Sponsor
Consorci Sanitari de l'Anoia (Other)
Overall Status
Active, not recruiting
CT.gov ID
NCT03610113
Collaborator
Germans Trias i Pujol Hospital (Other), Parc de Salut Mar (Other)
81
1
2
87
0.9

Study Details

Study Description

Brief Summary

Reverse shoulder prosthesis has recently emerged as an acute treatment for complex proximal humeral fractures. Promising functional results have been reported in observational papers.

However, no clinical trials have yet been reported when comparing the conservative treatment to surgical treatment through the use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Condition or Disease Intervention/Treatment Phase
  • Device: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty
N/A

Detailed Description

Introduction The proximal humeral fractures are frequent in the investigator's environment. Among them, about 20% are considered as complex features. Conservative treatment has traditionally offered an extensive range of results. The reverse shoulder prosthesis as a treatment for acute fractures of the proximal humeral in the elderly population has changed the therapeutic approach of this acute pathology. However, high-level evidence-based studies are still not available, when comparing the conservative treatment with the treatment with reverse shoulder prosthesis.

Objective To compare the functional results and complications of elderly patients presenting acute complex fractures of the proximal humerus through two types of treatments; conservative treatment and treatment with reverse shoulder prosthesis.

Methodology A prospective, multicentre and randomized study comparing conservative treatment with the surgical treatment at two years followup by the use of functional shoulder assessment (Constant scale), complications and re-interventions associated with each treatment. The quality of life will also be analyzed through the SF-36 health questionnaire

Expected results The null hypothesis of the work is based on the appearance of non-significant differences between the two groups of the study (conservative vs. surgical treatment), concerning functional status, complications, and re-interventions

Study Design

Study Type:
Interventional
Anticipated Enrollment :
81 participants
Allocation:
Randomized
Intervention Model:
Parallel Assignment
Masking:
Double (Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose:
Treatment
Official Title:
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Conservative Treatment For Complex Proximal Fractures in Elderly Patients
Actual Study Start Date :
Sep 1, 2016
Anticipated Primary Completion Date :
Aug 1, 2023
Anticipated Study Completion Date :
Dec 1, 2023

Arms and Interventions

Arm Intervention/Treatment
No Intervention: CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT

Conservative treatment is conceived to the use of sling for three weeks, followed by rehabilitation protocol

Experimental: REVERSE ARTHROPLASTY TREATMENT

This group receives a surgical intervention by the use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty through deltopectoral approach and tuberosities reattachment. It is followed by the same rehabilitation protocol than conservative treatment

Device: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty
The implantation of reverse shoulder prosthesis, and reattachment of greater and lesser tuberosities
Other Names:
  • Shoulder prosthesis
  • Outcome Measures

    Primary Outcome Measures

    1. Pain, Mobility, Strenght and Daily Life Activities. (Functional Outcome) [1 year]

      Constant-Murley Score. The Constant-Murley score (CMS) is a 100-points scale composed of a number of individual parameters. These parameters define the level of pain and the ability to carry out the normal daily activities of the patient.The Constant-Murley score was introduced to determine the functionality after the treatment of a shoulder injury and it ranges from 0 to 100 points. The test is divided into four subscales: pain (0 to 15 points), activities of daily living (0 to 20 points), strength (0 to 25 points) and range of motion: forward elevation (0 to 10 points), external rotation (o to 10 points), abduction (0 to 10 points) and internal rotation of the shoulder (0 to 10 points). Then, those range of motion items allocate from 0 to 40 points to the global score. The higher the score, the higher the quality of the function.

    Secondary Outcome Measures

    1. Number of participants with treatment-related surgical reinterventions [1 year]

      Number of participants with treatment-related adverse events that require an additional surgical treatment after the randomization; such as debridement, implant replacement In the control group; reinterventions will be measured by the necessity to receive a treatment for fracture sequelae such as an implantation of a shoulder prosthesis or any other surgical intervention

    2. Number of participants with treatment-related shoulder joint infection [1 year]

      Acute infection will be defined as swelling, erythema, fever, purulent discharge or increasing level of biological parameters such as C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count (WBC). Only expected in experimental/intervention group

    3. Number of participants with treatment-related Implant dislocation [1 year]

      It is defined as the number of patients in experimental arm presenting a radiological disalignement between the humeral component (stem) and the glenoid component (glenosphere). Only expected in experimental/intervention group

    Eligibility Criteria

    Criteria

    Ages Eligible for Study:
    70 Years and Older
    Sexes Eligible for Study:
    All
    Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
    No
    Inclusion Criteria:
    • Patients with mental conditions available for rehabilitation protocols

    • Patients presenting a 3 or 4 part proximal humeral fracture

    Exclusion Criteria:
    • Extremely displaced fractures with no bony contact or less than 1 cm.

    • Cognitive impairment (Pfeiffer test >3)

    • Shoulder dislocations

    • Unable to sign informed consent or unable to respond to questionnaires

    • Trauma or previous surgery of the extremity

    • Open or pathological fracture

    • Vascular or neurological injury associated

    • Unable to collaborate with rehabilitation

    • Patients with serious comorbidities that discourage surgery

    Contacts and Locations

    Locations

    Site City State Country Postal Code
    1 Joan Miquel Noguera Collbató Barcelona Spain 08293

    Sponsors and Collaborators

    • Consorci Sanitari de l'Anoia
    • Germans Trias i Pujol Hospital
    • Parc de Salut Mar

    Investigators

    • Study Director: Carlos Torrens, PhD, Parc de Salut Mar

    Study Documents (Full-Text)

    None provided.

    More Information

    Publications

    None provided.
    Responsible Party:
    Joan Miquel, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Principal Investigator, Consorci Sanitari de l'Anoia
    ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
    NCT03610113
    Other Study ID Numbers:
    • AC12-045
    First Posted:
    Aug 1, 2018
    Last Update Posted:
    Jul 28, 2021
    Last Verified:
    Jul 1, 2021
    Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product:
    No
    Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product:
    No
    Product Manufactured in and Exported from the U.S.:
    No
    Keywords provided by Joan Miquel, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Principal Investigator, Consorci Sanitari de l'Anoia
    Additional relevant MeSH terms:

    Study Results

    No Results Posted as of Jul 28, 2021