Analysis of Four-fragment Fractures of the Proximal Humerus: the Interest of 2D and 3D Imagery and Inter- and Intra-observer Reproducibility (REPROD-HUMERUS)

August 22, 2018 updated by: CHU de Reims

Fractures of the proximal humerus are increasingly frequent, with numbers tripling between the 1970s and the 2000s. Among these fractures, those involving the tuberosities and also the anatomic neck are a therapeutic challenge. For this type of fracture (Neer's four-part fracture) the degree of displacement of the fracture needs to be understood in order to provide suitable treatment and apprehend the risks in its evolution. There is indeed, in this type of fracture, a risk of humeral head ischaemia, which will carry considerable weight in the therapy adopted.

The usual classifications, such as the AO or the Neer classification, have shown their limitations in terms of reproducibility and are not suitable for the prognostic assessment of these four-fragment fractures of the proximal humerus. The radiographic parameters described by Hertel in 2004, on the other hand, seem to be far more relevant to routine clinical practice.

The use of the scanner to improve reproducibility of the classification of these proximal humerus fractures is still controversial. The scanner is the rule to guide therapeutic strategy for complex fractures, although the reproducibility of the different assessment criteria has never been studied.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

The aims of the present study were firstly to analyse inter-observer and intra-observer reproducibility for the different criteria proposed by Hertel, using three types of imagery (standard radiographies, 2D and 3D scans) and secondly to assess the relevance of the use of the scanner to improve reproducibility

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
20

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • France
      • Reims, France
        • Damien JOLLY

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Proximal humerus fracture
  • standard radiographs, a 2D scan with axial, sagittal and coronal sections, and high-resolution 3D reconstructions performed in emergency settings when the patient arrived in the care facility

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort

Group / Cohort

A group or subgroup of participants in an observational study that is assessed for biomedical or health outcomes.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Patients with proximal humerus fracture
Other: Analysis of radiology (standard radiographies, 2D scan sections and 3D reconstructions)

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Inter-rater reproducibility concerning displacement of the humeral head on the frontal plane for 3D reconstructions
Time Frame: Day 0

Displacement of the humeral head on the frontal plane evaluated in "not displaced", "varus" or "valgus".

Assessment of inter-rater reproductibility for displacement of the humeral head on the frontal plane using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. A Kappa coefficient comprised between 0.00 and 0.20 significate a very poor agreement, between 0.21 and 0.40 significate a poor agreement, between 0.41 and 0.60 significate a moderate agreement, between 0.61 and 0.80 significate a satisfactory agreement and between 0.81 and 1.00 significate an excellent agreement.
Day 0
Inter-rater reproducibility concerning displacement of the humeral head on the sagittal plane for 3D reconstructions
Time Frame: Day 0

Displacement of the humeral head on the sagittal plane evaluated in "not displaced", "angle more than 20 degrees" or "angle less than 20 degrees".

Assessment of inter-rater reproductibility for displacement of the humeral head on the sagittal plane using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. A Kappa coefficient comprised between 0.00 and 0.20 significate a very poor agreement, between 0.21 and 0.40 significate a poor agreement, between 0.41 and 0.60 significate a moderate agreement, between 0.61 and 0.80 significate a satisfactory agreement and between 0.81 and 1.00 significate an excellent agreement.
Day 0
Inter-rater reproducibility concerning humeral head split for 3D reconstructions
Time Frame: Day 0
Humeral head split evaluated in "presence" or "absence". Assessment of inter-rater reproductibility for humeral head split using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. A Kappa coefficient comprised between 0.00 and 0.20 significate a very poor agreement, between 0.21 and 0.40 significate a poor agreement, between 0.41 and 0.60 significate a moderate agreement, between 0.61 and 0.80 significate a satisfactory agreement and between 0.81 and 1.00 significate an excellent agreement.
Day 0
Inter-rater reproducibility concerning calcar comminution for 3D reconstructions
Time Frame: Day 0
Calcar comminution evaluated in "presence" or "absence". Assessment of inter-rater reproductibility for calcar comminution using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. A Kappa coefficient comprised between 0.00 and 0.20 significate a very poor agreement, between 0.21 and 0.40 significate a poor agreement, between 0.41 and 0.60 significate a moderate agreement, between 0.61 and 0.80 significate a satisfactory agreement and between 0.81 and 1.00 significate an excellent agreement.
Day 0
Inter-rater reproducibility concerning medial hinge for 3D reconstructions
Time Frame: Day 0
Medial hinge evaluated in "presence" or "absence". Assessment of inter-rater reproductibility for medial hinge using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. A Kappa coefficient comprised between 0.00 and 0.20 significate a very poor agreement, between 0.21 and 0.40 significate a poor agreement, between 0.41 and 0.60 significate a moderate agreement, between 0.61 and 0.80 significate a satisfactory agreement and between 0.81 and 1.00 significate an excellent agreement.
Day 0
Inter-rater reproducibility concerning length of metaphyseal extension for 3D reconstructions
Time Frame: Day 0

Length of metaphyseal extension evaluated in "less than 8 mm" or "more than 8 mm".

Assessment of inter-rater reproductibility for length of metaphyseal extension using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. A Kappa coefficient comprised between 0.00 and 0.20 significate a very poor agreement, between 0.21 and 0.40 significate a poor agreement, between 0.41 and 0.60 significate a moderate agreement, between 0.61 and 0.80 significate a satisfactory agreement and between 0.81 and 1.00 significate an excellent agreement.
Day 0
Inter-rater reproducibility concerning displacement of the greater tuberosity for 3D reconstructions
Time Frame: Day 0

Displacement of the greater tuberosity evaluated in "not displaced", "more than 5 mm" or "less than 5 mm".

Assessment of inter-rater reproductibility for displacement of the greater tuberosity using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. A Kappa coefficient comprised between 0.00 and 0.20 significate a very poor agreement, between 0.21 and 0.40 significate a poor agreement, between 0.41 and 0.60 significate a moderate agreement, between 0.61 and 0.80 significate a satisfactory agreement and between 0.81 and 1.00 significate an excellent agreement.
Day 0
Inter-rater reproducibility concerning displacement of the lesser tuberosity for 3D reconstructions
Time Frame: Day 0

Displacement of the lesser tuberosity evaluated in "not displaced", "more than 5 mm" or "less than 5 mm".

Assessment of inter-rater reproductibility for displacement of the lesser tuberosity using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. A Kappa coefficient comprised between 0.00 and 0.20 significate a very poor agreement, between 0.21 and 0.40 significate a poor agreement, between 0.41 and 0.60 significate a moderate agreement, between 0.61 and 0.80 significate a satisfactory agreement and between 0.81 and 1.00 significate an excellent agreement.
Day 0

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
CHU de Reims

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
June 1, 2016

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
September 1, 2016

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
December 1, 2016

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
August 7, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 22, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
August 24, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
August 24, 2018

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 22, 2018

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
August 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 2017Ao005

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Proximal Humerus Fracture

Clinical Trials on Analysis of radiology (standard radiographies, 2D scan sections and 3D reconstructions)

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings