Plate Osteosynthesis Versus ESIN of Displaced Midclavicular Fractures
Primary Purpose
Clavicle Fractures
Status
Completed
Phase
Phase 2
Locations
Norway
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
plate osteosynthesis
ESIN
Sponsored by

About this trial
This is an interventional treatment trial for Clavicle Fractures focused on measuring clavicle, TEN, Plate osteosynthesis, displaced, ESIN, displaced midshaft clavicular fractures
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- 16 - 60 years of age
- Dislplaced midshaft clavicular fractures with no cortical bone contact or shortening over 15 mm
- Tenting/compromised skin
- Axial malalignment over 30 degrees
Exclusion Criteria:
- More than 4 weeks old fracture
- Ipsilateral damage that will influence the recovery and scoring systems, ie. Rotator cuff injury/fracture
- Pathological fracture
- Neurovascular injury
- Open fracture
- Noncompliance
- Congenital anomaly or bone disease
- Ongoing infectious process around the incision site for plate osteosynthesis
Sites / Locations
- Akershus University Hospital
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Active Comparator
Arm Label
Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing
Plate osteosynthesis
Arm Description
Operative intervention with closed or open reduction and intramedullary stabilization of midshaft clavicle fractures
Open reduction and plate fixation of midshaft clavicle fractures
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Functional outcome using DASH score
Secondary Outcome Measures
At each control, complication such as infection, thoracic outlet syndrome is evaluated
Constant score
SF 36
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT01015924
First Posted
November 17, 2009
Last Updated
January 30, 2014
Sponsor
University Hospital, Akershus
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01015924
Brief Title
Plate Osteosynthesis Versus ESIN of Displaced Midclavicular Fractures
Official Title
Intramedullary Nailing Compared With Plate Fixation of Displaced Mid-clavicular Fractures. A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
January 2014
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
July 2009 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
September 2013 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
September 2013 (Actual)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
University Hospital, Akershus
4. Oversight
Data Monitoring Committee
No
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
The purpose of this study is to compare two widely used operative techniques on displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. The hypothesis is that there is no difference in functional outcome.
Detailed Description
Clavicular fracture is one of the most common fractures, accounting for about 4 % of all fractures. Midshaft fractures account for approximately 80%. Traditionally, midshaft fractures have been thought to have a good prognosis even when substantially displaced, and most have been treated nonoperatively with a sling or a figure of eight bandage. Early studies by Neer and Rowe in the 60´s demonstrated a very low non-union rate, with av prevalence of 4 in a series of 566 patients, and 3 nonunions in 2235 in another. On this basis, the general view has been that the vast majority of even severely displaced midshaft fractures healed uneventfully, with a very low nonunion rate and a good functional result. Operative results reported on the other hand bad results, especially concerning the risk of infection. Recent studies, however, conclude differently, and suggest the outcomes of displaced fractures might not be as favourable as once thought. Hill showed in a series of 52 completely displaced midclavicular fractures a nonunion rate of 15% (8 of 52 patients) and 31% (16 of 52) of patients were not satisfied with the end result. This correlated with a shortening of more than 2 cm. In a prospective study of 222 patients by Nowak, 42% (93 of 222) were found to have persisting symptoms after 6 months wheras 15% were found to have nonunion. These symptoms seem to persist even after 9 - 10 years reporting 29 % of 208 patients having pain during activity and 9% pain at rest. 46% did not consider themselves fully recovered.
Similar result were found in a systemic review of 2144 fractures. 15.1 % (24 of 159) of nonoperative treated dislocated fractures resulted in nonuion, whereas 2,2% (10 of 460) and 2% (5 of 152) nonunions were found in fractures treated operatively with either plate or intramedullary pins. On this basis, it is becoming more evident that conservative treatment gives much inferior results compared to earlier reported results.
The operative approach to midclavicular fractures have traditionally been plate osteosynthesis or intramedullary nailing. Poigenfürst in 1992 showed in a series of 122 patients a low nonunion rate and good functional results after plating. Likewise, intramedullary nailing has been described as an alternative technique with good results. Kettler demonstrated en a series of 87 patients a good functional results union in 97,7 % ( 85 of 87) and no infections. Similar results were fond by Rehm in 2004, with one nonunion of 136 fractures treated and a constant score one year after implant removal of 97.
Operative treatment of displaced midclavicular fracture thus shows reliable good results compared to earlier reported results. In 2007, the Canadian Orthopedic Trauma Society published a prospective randomised controlled trial of 132 patients, randomised to either conservative treatment with a sling, or plate fixation. The operative group showed clear superiority in Constant and DASH scores, reduction in risk of developing non-union, earlier return to work. With intramedullary nailing using ESIN technique, Smekal et al demonstrated superior results in the operative group in a prospective randomised controlled trial of 60 patients. 30 patients were opereated with elastic stable intramedullary nailing, and 30 patients were randomised to conservative treatment with a sling. The operative group had fewer complications, shorter time to union and a better functional outcome.
It seems from the above, that it is reasonable to offer operative treatment to active adults with displaced fractures of the middle third of the clavicle due to the risk of developing a symptomatic non- or malunion. Both plate fixation and intramedullary nailing of displaced fractures are described as safe methods of operative treatment. To our knowledge, there has never been conducted a prospective randomised controlled trial that compares different forms of the former mentioned operative alternatives.
On this basis, we plan to contuct a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing operative plate fixation and intramedullary nailing with TEN.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Clavicle Fractures
Keywords
clavicle, TEN, Plate osteosynthesis, displaced, ESIN, displaced midshaft clavicular fractures
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Phase 2, Phase 3
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
125 (Actual)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Operative intervention with closed or open reduction and intramedullary stabilization of midshaft clavicle fractures
Arm Title
Plate osteosynthesis
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Open reduction and plate fixation of midshaft clavicle fractures
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
plate osteosynthesis
Other Intervention Name(s)
The standard plate i a precontoured LCP clavicle plate by Synthes
Intervention Description
Patients are operated upon within 3 w of the fracture
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
ESIN
Other Intervention Name(s)
TEN, synthes
Intervention Description
Elastiv stable intramedullary nailing
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Functional outcome using DASH score
Time Frame
quick dash w 1 thru 6. DASH at 6, 12, 26, 52
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
At each control, complication such as infection, thoracic outlet syndrome is evaluated
Time Frame
continuously, as well as w 6, 12, 26, 52
Title
Constant score
Time Frame
evaluated 6w, 12w, 26w 52 w
Title
SF 36
Time Frame
26 w and 52 w
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
16 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
60 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
16 - 60 years of age
Dislplaced midshaft clavicular fractures with no cortical bone contact or shortening over 15 mm
Tenting/compromised skin
Axial malalignment over 30 degrees
Exclusion Criteria:
More than 4 weeks old fracture
Ipsilateral damage that will influence the recovery and scoring systems, ie. Rotator cuff injury/fracture
Pathological fracture
Neurovascular injury
Open fracture
Noncompliance
Congenital anomaly or bone disease
Ongoing infectious process around the incision site for plate osteosynthesis
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Stein Erik Utvag, MD PhD
Organizational Affiliation
University of Oslo
Official's Role
Study Director
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Akershus University Hospital
City
Lørenskog
State/Province
Akershus
ZIP/Postal Code
1478
Country
Norway
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Learn more about this trial
Plate Osteosynthesis Versus ESIN of Displaced Midclavicular Fractures
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs