Ultrasound Guided Closed Reduction of Depressed Zygomatic Arch Fractures

October 13, 2020 updated by: Ashutosh Kumar Singh, College of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital. Nepal

Ultrasound Guided Closed Reduction of Depressed Zygomatic Arch Fractures Compared to Conventional Blind Reduction: A Randomized Double Blind Clinical Trial

Zygomatic arch fractures have always been treated with blind closed reduction and is the most commonly used method. Blind reduction of fractures might lead to inadequate reduction and associated complications of facial asymmetry and limitations in mouth opening which may require reoperation for correction. Various methods like portable CT scan, C arm fluoroscopy, endoscopy and ultrasound have been proposed and used to visualize the reduction for better outcome. Out of these, ultrasound is inexpensive, easily available, easy to use, non-ionizing and has greatest potential to be used as standard for visual reduction of zygomatic arch fractures. There are studies where ultrasound has been compared to blind method and other modalities but level I evidence and recommended protocol for its intraoperative use has been lacking.

Study Overview

Status

Status

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

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

Isolated and depressed zygomatic arch fractures have an incidence of about 5 to 14% of lateral mid face fractures. Depressed zygomatic arch fractures have been managed by blind closed reduction historically based upon tactile sense of surgeon and auditory click assumed as the conclusive evidence of reduction. The minimal fracture exposure for zygomatic arch fractures either solitary or combined with zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures results in inadequate visibility of the fractures and inadequate or inappropriate reduction of fractures. These fractures can be visualized by surgical exposure with coronal approach but is limited by complications and extensive training required. Other options are intraoperative imaging with portable CT scan but they are cumbersome, require radiologists for positioning and are not available in all operative units as well as expensive. Endoscopic visualization and reduction are another option for intraoperative control of these fractures but endoscopes are expensive, not available in all operative units and require experience and training to use appropriately. Various studies and our own experience show that unacceptable number of depressed zygomatic arch fractures remain incompletely reduced with blind reduction method. The resulting deficit might be as small as a depressed lateral face, inadequate sagittal projection of cheek to inadequate mouth opening. Portable ultrasound machines are readily available in almost all anesthesia units and operating rooms. These ultrasound units can be utilized to reduce the zygomatic arch satisfactorily with real time image guidance and it has advantage of being radiation free and inexpensive compared to fluoroscopy based portable C arm units. A small pilot in our own unit has shown remarkable difference between reduction achieved under ultrasonography guidance vs closed reduction based on tactility. This method should be explored and perfected to bring in common use among Oral & Maxillofacial surgeons so that blind assumption of fracture reduction is replaced by a more scientific confirmation of fracture reduction.

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.
Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

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.
100

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

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

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.

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

2 years and older (Child, Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • 6 years and above
  • fractured and depressed zygomatic arch requiring surgical reduction

Exclusion Criteria:

  • pregnant patients
  • not willing for participation
  • below 6 years age

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

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
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.
Experimental: Ultrasound guided
Intraoperative high frequency ultrasound used to guide the reduction of depressed zygomatic arch.
Device: Intraoperative ultrasound guided
Samsung Mysono U6 machine with LN 15 linear (https://www.samsunghealthcare.com/en/products/UltrasoundSystem/MySono%20U6/General%20Imaging/transducers) probe capable of Musculoskeletal imaging will be used for visualization and location of fracture after which elevation and reduction of fracture will be attempted. The ultrasound probe will be used as described by McCann. Radiographic continuity of periosteal shadow without any step will be taken as end point for reduction and the procedure will be terminated.
Other Names:
  • Intraoperative USG Imaging
Other: Conventional blind reduction technique
Conventional blind reduction of zygomatic arch fracture will be conducted without any intraoperative imaging.
Other: Conventional blind reduction technique
Conventional blind reduction technique
Other Names:
  • comparator

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
Post operative radiographic evidence of adequate reduction
Time Frame: 24 hours

The radiographic evaluation will be performed blinded by one of the clinician oral and maxillofacial surgeons who will not be involved in any of the operations. The adequacy of reduction will be evaluated in a DICOM viewing software on axial scans to assess contour of the arch and step if any at the fracture site.

  1. Good reduction : Absence of any step and straight contour of zygomatic arch symmetric to contralateral uninjured arch
  2. Average reduction: Absence of any step but poor contour of zygomatic arch and asymmetric to contralateral uninjured arch
  3. Poor reduction: Presence of both a cortical step and asymmetric arch compared to contralateral uninjured arch
24 hours
Facial profile symmetry
Time Frame: one week to four weeks
Clinical assessment will be performed blinded by a clinician oral and maxillofacial surgeon who will not be involved in any of the operations on first postoperative day, first follow up visit after one week of operation and 4 weeks of operation. Facial symmetry and projection will be assessed clinically by the clinician and graded as good, adequate and poor. A patient oriented clinical outcome is considered good practice and clinically relevant in modern evidence based medicine so patient response will be recorded as binary (yes/no) response regarding their view on facial symmetry.
one week to four weeks
Number of reoperations
Time Frame: 24 hours
Revision surgery required after failed reduction assessed and confirmed radiographically on CT scan and clinical assessment as well as patient reported measure of facial symmetry and adequate mouth opening.
24 hours
Mouth opening
Time Frame: at 24 hours postoperatively
Interincisal opening measured between the incisal tips of central incisor teeth and recorded in millimeter using a vernier caliper.
at 24 hours postoperatively

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Operative time
Time Frame: Intraoperative
Additional time required to reduce with intervention.
Intraoperative
Number of attempts or reduction
Time Frame: Intraoperative
Additional attempts required with imaging guidance.
Intraoperative
Cost of intervention
Time Frame: Intraoperative
Additional cost required with imaging guidance.
Intraoperative

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.
College of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital. Nepal

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Ashutosh K Singh, MDS, College of Medical Sciences, Nepal

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 (Anticipated)

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, 2021

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

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.
October 1, 2021

Study Completion (Anticipated)

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.
August 1, 2022

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 22, 2020

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 25, 2020

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 27, 2020

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.
October 14, 2020

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.
October 13, 2020

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.
October 1, 2020

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.
  • CMSNepal

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

Yes

IPD Plan Description

Fully sharable link will be provided after study completion with deidentified data

IPD Sharing Time Frame

6 months after completion and publication

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

Decided by PI

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • Study Protocol
  • Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)
  • Informed Consent Form (ICF)
  • Clinical Study Report (CSR)

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 Zygomatic Arch Fracture

Clinical Trials on Intraoperative ultrasound guided

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