Intramedullary Screw Versus Plate in Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures (PlaClaVis)
Primary Purpose
Clavicle Fracture
Status
Not yet recruiting
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Plate fixation
Intramedullary Screw
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional treatment trial for Clavicle Fracture focused on measuring Clavicle, Fracture, Screw, Intramedullary, Plate, Trauma, Upper limb
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- Age 18 to 75 yrs
- Midshaft Clavicle fracture
Completely displaced (one of the criteria)
- Displacement by one bone width
- Angulation exceeding 30°
- Initial shortening of more than 20 mm
- Tenting/compromised skin
Exclusion Criteria:
- Open fracture of the clavicle
- Fracture > 3 wks old
- Noncompliance
- Substance abuse
- Not a resident in the area surrounding the hospital
- Pathological fracture
- Congenital abnormality/bone disease
- Infectious process around the clavicle area
- Neurovascular injury
Sites / Locations
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Experimental
Arm Label
CONTROL
INTERVENTION
Arm Description
Plate fixation
Intramedullary Screw
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
The Constant Score
Scale from 0 to 100 to evaluate the shoulder function in daily life (0 is no function and 100 is normal function)
Secondary Outcome Measures
The Constant Score
Scale from 0 to 100 to evaluate the shoulder function in daily life (0 is no function and 100 is normal function)
The QuickDASH Score
Scale from 0 to 100 to evaluate the shoulder function in daily life (0 is no disability and 100 is maximum disability)
Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)
Scale from 0 to 10 to evaluate pain (0 is no pain and 10 is worst pain)
Subjective Shoulder Value
Scale from 0 to 100% to evaluate subjective shoulder assessment (0% is no shoulder function and 100% is normal shoulder)
Time to fracture union
From surgery to union (in days)
Length of incision
All incision in cm
The duration of surgery
From incision to closure (in min)
Blood loss during surgery
Estimation in mL
Cosmetic result, Numeric Rating Scale
Scale from 0 to 10 to evaluate cosmetic (0 is worst result and 10 perfect result)
Rated satisfaction
1: Very Satisfied ; 2: Satisfied ; 3: Ok ; 4: Dissatisfied ; 5: Very dissatisfied
Rate of secondary surgery or complication for non union, mal union, infection of the operative site and implant removal
Descriptive
Full Information
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT05262998
Brief Title
Intramedullary Screw Versus Plate in Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures
Acronym
PlaClaVis
Official Title
Intramedullary Screw Fixation Versus Plate in Completely Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures ?
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
March 2022
Overall Recruitment Status
Not yet recruiting
Study Start Date
November 1, 2022 (Anticipated)
Primary Completion Date
May 1, 2023 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
May 1, 2024 (Anticipated)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Bichat Hospital
4. Oversight
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
This study compares two operative managements of midshaft clavicle fractures: intramedullary screw and plate fixation.
In the past ten years, many studies have compared non operative management versus operative fixation and in particular plate fixation which has been well evaluated. But to date, there are only few retrospective studies that compares plate and intramedullary screw fixation and the knowledge about this last technique and its functional results is poor.
The main objective of this study is to compare plate and intramedullary screw fixation, in term of functional results and rate of union.
The hypothesis of this study is that there is superiority of plate over intramedullary screw fixation.
The main evaluation criterion is the Constant Score at 3 months postoperatively.
Detailed Description
Clavicle fractures are common, accounting for about 4% of all fractures, of which 80% occur in the middle third of the bone and occur typically in younger patients, posing a burden for this active population. Traditionally, non-operative treatment with a sling was standard care, however, increasing rates of fixation are now being reported.
Currently, the main procedure for surgical treatment of clavicular fractures is internal fixation with a plate. Plates provide reliable and secure fixation, but require a long incision and usually have to be removed in a second operation. In a meta-analysis of controlled randomized trials conducted by Woltz, the overall rate of secondary intervention in the plate fixation group was elevated at 17.6%, of which 58.9% was for implant removal.
Fuglesang assessed in a randomized controlled trial the functional results of plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures and found that there was no significant difference between the two treatments courses at twelve months and QuickDASH and Constant Score were both excellent in the two groups. They noticed that recovery was faster with plate fixation (QuickDASH significantly better and clinically relevant (inferior by 8.7 points) at 5 weeks of follow-up and QuickDASH and Constant Score significantly better between 6 weeks and 6 months of follow-up).
They highlighted a significant higher rate of complications when a 2mm diameter nail was used for patients with peropertively discovery of narrow medullary canal. Thus, they suggested a conversion to open reduction and internal fixation with a plate when a 2.5 mm nail may not be used. Morever, they showed that degree of comminution was a strong predictor factor of functional results. The more comminution, the higher were the Quick-DASH and DASH scores during the first six months in the intramedullary nailing group. Plating appeared to be able to negate the effect of comminution when bridging the fracture and concluded that in the presence of comminution, plating may be the superior option.
Sun conducted a retrospective study comparing minimally invasive intramedullary fixation with cannulated screws versus plate fixation and showed that time to union was significantly lower in cannulated screw group (13.2 ± 6.9 weeks versus 16.3 ± 8.7 weeks in the plate fixation group) but there was no subsequent significant difference in Neer shoulder activity score between the two groups. Thus, the clinically significance is yet to be assessed.
In the light of the above considerations, we compared the functional results of cannulated screw fixation versus reconstruction plate fixation using a randomized prospective study design.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Clavicle Fracture
Keywords
Clavicle, Fracture, Screw, Intramedullary, Plate, Trauma, Upper limb
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
Outcomes Assessor
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
60 (Anticipated)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
CONTROL
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Plate fixation
Arm Title
INTERVENTION
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Intramedullary Screw
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Plate fixation
Intervention Description
Procedure: plate fixation
Plate fixation was performed by the regular on-call team surgeons and adhered to standard principles of fracture fixation. A standard surgical protocol was used, the approach was moved inferiorly, the fracture was reduced, sometimes with osteosutur and fixed with an antero-superior anatomical plate. 3.5mm Locked and cortical screws were used on both sides of the fracture. Fluoroscopy was used during the procedure. Intradermal suture was used to close the skin
Other: post-intervention All patients were discharged the day after the surgery. Interruption of work was given for 45 days. The same analgesics were administered in both groups for three weeks. Graduated exercises for the shoulder joint with pendular movements in a range of 15°-20° with the protection of a forearm sling were commenced from the postoperative second day. The sling was removed when X-ray films showed growth of callus or an indistinct fracture line.
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Intramedullary Screw
Intervention Description
Procedure: Intramedullary screw fixation
Intramedullary screw fixation was performed by the regular on-call team surgeons and adhered to standard principles of fracture fixation. Intramedullary screw fixation was performed by using a 1.6 or 2.8 mm-diameter threaded guide pin and a 85-100 mm long, 4.5 or 6.5 mm-diameter cannulated screw tapped in along the guide pin. Fluoroscopy was used during the procedure. Intradermal suture was used to close the skin.
Other: post-intervention All patients were discharged the day after the surgery. Interruption of work was given for 45 days. The same analgesics were administered in both groups for three weeks. Graduated exercises for the shoulder joint with pendular movements in a range of 15°-20° with the protection of a forearm sling were commenced from the postoperative second day. The sling was removed when X-ray films showed growth of callus or an indistinct fracture line.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
The Constant Score
Description
Scale from 0 to 100 to evaluate the shoulder function in daily life (0 is no function and 100 is normal function)
Time Frame
At 3 months
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
The Constant Score
Description
Scale from 0 to 100 to evaluate the shoulder function in daily life (0 is no function and 100 is normal function)
Time Frame
At 6 weeks, 4 months, 6 months and 12 months
Title
The QuickDASH Score
Description
Scale from 0 to 100 to evaluate the shoulder function in daily life (0 is no disability and 100 is maximum disability)
Time Frame
At 6 weeks, 3, 4, 6 and 12 months
Title
Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)
Description
Scale from 0 to 10 to evaluate pain (0 is no pain and 10 is worst pain)
Time Frame
At 6 weeks, 3, 4, 6 and 12 months
Title
Subjective Shoulder Value
Description
Scale from 0 to 100% to evaluate subjective shoulder assessment (0% is no shoulder function and 100% is normal shoulder)
Time Frame
At 6 weeks, 3, 4, 6 and 12 months
Title
Time to fracture union
Description
From surgery to union (in days)
Time Frame
At 6 weeks, 3, 4, 6 and 12 months
Title
Length of incision
Description
All incision in cm
Time Frame
Peroperatively
Title
The duration of surgery
Description
From incision to closure (in min)
Time Frame
Peroperatively
Title
Blood loss during surgery
Description
Estimation in mL
Time Frame
Peroperatively
Title
Cosmetic result, Numeric Rating Scale
Description
Scale from 0 to 10 to evaluate cosmetic (0 is worst result and 10 perfect result)
Time Frame
At 12 months
Title
Rated satisfaction
Description
1: Very Satisfied ; 2: Satisfied ; 3: Ok ; 4: Dissatisfied ; 5: Very dissatisfied
Time Frame
At 6 weeks, 3, 4, 6 and 12 months
Title
Rate of secondary surgery or complication for non union, mal union, infection of the operative site and implant removal
Description
Descriptive
Time Frame
At 12 months
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
75 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
Age 18 to 75 yrs
Midshaft Clavicle fracture
Completely displaced (one of the criteria)
Displacement by one bone width
Angulation exceeding 30°
Initial shortening of more than 20 mm
Tenting/compromised skin
Exclusion Criteria:
Open fracture of the clavicle
Fracture > 3 wks old
Noncompliance
Substance abuse
Not a resident in the area surrounding the hospital
Pathological fracture
Congenital abnormality/bone disease
Infectious process around the clavicle area
Neurovascular injury
Central Contact Person:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Jules Descamps, MD
Phone
0698270789
Email
dr.jdescamps@gmail.com
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Alma Sarfati, MD
Phone
0610982683
Email
alma.sarfati@gmail.com
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Patrick Boyer, PhD
Organizational Affiliation
Bichat Hospital
Official's Role
Study Chair
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Plan to Share IPD
No
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
24890294
Citation
Sun JZ, Zheng GH, Zhao KY. Minimally invasive treatment of clavicular fractures with cannulated screw. Orthop Surg. 2014 May;6(2):121-7. doi: 10.1111/os.12108.
Results Reference
result
PubMed Identifier
28768788
Citation
Fuglesang HFS, Flugsrud GB, Randsborg PH, Oord P, Benth JS, Utvag SE. Plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing of completely displaced midshaft fractures of the clavicle: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2017 Aug;99-B(8):1095-1101. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B8.BJJ-2016-1318.R1.
Results Reference
result
PubMed Identifier
19225778
Citation
Khalil A. Intramedullary screw fixation for midshaft fractures of the clavicle. Int Orthop. 2009 Oct;33(5):1421-4. doi: 10.1007/s00264-009-0724-2. Epub 2009 Feb 19.
Results Reference
result
PubMed Identifier
23370985
Citation
Smith SD, Wijdicks CA, Jansson KS, Boykin RE, Martetschlaeger F, de Meijer PP, Millett PJ, Hackett TR. Stability of mid-shaft clavicle fractures after plate fixation versus intramedullary repair and after hardware removal. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 Feb;22(2):448-55. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2411-5. Epub 2013 Jan 31.
Results Reference
result
PubMed Identifier
29129131
Citation
Domos P, Tytherleigh-Strong G, Van Rensburg L. Increased wound complication with intramedullary screw fixation of clavicle fractures: Is it thermal necrosis? J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2017 Sep-Dec;25(3):2309499017739482. doi: 10.1177/2309499017739482.
Results Reference
result
Learn more about this trial
Intramedullary Screw Versus Plate in Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs