Minimally Invasive Procedure Versus Conservative Treatment in the Management of Calcaneal Joint Fractures (IMPACT)
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: Tristan FAUCHILLE, Doctor
- Phone Number: +33 0492037524
- Email: recherche.iuls@chu-nice.fr
Study Contact Backup
- Name: Charlotte CIAIS
- Phone Number: +33 0492039393
- Email: ciais.c3@chu-nice.fr
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Patient aged 18 or over
- Patient with a posterior articular fracture of the calcaneus Sanders II to IV, less than 15 days old
- Patient affiliated to a social security scheme,
- Patient having given written consent following written and oral information.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Patient with open calcaneal fracture
- Patient with bilateral calcaneal fracture
- Patient with extreme varus or valgus impingement of the fibula
- Patient with associated talar, tibial, femoral and/or pelvic fracture or associated spinal cord injury.
- Patient unsuitable for loco-regional anaesthesia (LRA).
- Patient with neuro-psychiatric disorders resulting in an inability to follow a post-surgical or post-immobilisation rehabilitation protocol.
- Pregnant women
- Patient protected by law under guardianship or curatorship, or unable to participate in a clinical study under article L. 1121-16 of the French Public Health Code.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Minimally invasive surgery group
|
The procedure involves making small incisions to insert a specialized nail into the bone to realign and stabilize the fracture.
This approach minimizes damage to surrounding tissues, reduces the risk of wound complications, and allows for quicker recovery compared to traditional open surgery.
after surgery, the patient will benefit from an immobilisation with a plaster boot without support for 3 weeks, followed by immobilisation with a removable walking boot for 3 weeks with partial support depending on the patient's pain.
|
|
Active Comparator: Conservative treatment group
|
The patient will be immobilised in a plaster cast without support for 3 weeks, followed by immobilisation in a removable walking boot for 3 weeks with partial support depending on the pain.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
To show a significant difference in favour of minimally invasive surgical treatment compared with orthopaedic treatment for displaced articular fractures of the calcaneus.
Time Frame: 1 year follow-up
|
The primary endpoint is the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) clinical score
|
1 year follow-up
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Demonstrate the superiority of minimally invasive surgical treatment over orthopaedic treatment on :A reduction in the rate of early complications (skin problems, infections, complex regional pain syndrome)
Time Frame: 1 year follow-up
|
The superiority of minimally invasive surgery over orthopaedic surgery in terms of early complications will be assessed by the rate of scar disunions, skin necrosis, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and surgical site infections.
|
1 year follow-up
|
|
Demonstrate the superiority of minimally invasive surgical treatment over orthopaedic treatment on :A reduction in the rate of late complications (rate of arthrodesis revision)
Time Frame: 1 year follow-up
|
Assessment of the superiority of minimally invasive surgical treatment over orthopaedic treatment in terms of late complications will be based on the long-term need for revision surgery or subtalar arthrodesis.
|
1 year follow-up
|
|
Demonstrate the superiority of minimally invasive surgical treatment over orthopaedic treatment on :Improved anatomical relationships (radiological measurements)
Time Frame: 1 year follow-up
|
Assessment of the superiority of minimally invasive surgical treatment over orthopaedic treatment in terms of restoration of calcaneal anatomy will be based on radiological measurements: Bohler angle and Meary angle.
The Böhler angle is expressed in degrees and correlates with the recovery or otherwise of the calcaneal morphology.
The Meary angle is expressed in degrees and correlates with the recovery or otherwise of the axis of the hindfoot.
|
1 year follow-up
|
|
Demonstrate the superiority of minimally invasive surgical treatment over orthopaedic treatment on : Improved bootability at 1 year.
Time Frame: 1 year follow-up
|
Assessment of the superiority of minimally invasive surgical treatment over orthopaedic treatment with respect to footwear will be assessed by being able to fit into: a) all types of footwear, b) some or c) not being able to fit into footwear.
|
1 year follow-up
|
|
Demonstrate the superiority of minimally invasive surgical treatment over orthopaedic treatment on :A reduction in the time taken to return to work and sport at 1 year.
Time Frame: 1 year follow-up
|
Assessment of the superiority of minimally invasive surgical treatment compared to orthopaedic treatment in terms of whether or not the patient can return to work and sport (binary yes or no answer) at follow-up consultations.
|
1 year follow-up
|
|
Demonstrate the superiority of minimally invasive surgical treatment over orthopaedic treatment on : An improvement in the patient self-assessment score (SAV) at 1 year.
Time Frame: 1 year follow-up
|
Assessment of the superiority of minimally invasive surgical treatment compared to orthopaedic treatment in terms of patient self-evaluation score.
This will be based on the SAV Simple Ankle Value (PROMS) score (Appendix II).
The assessment question will be "What percentage would you rate the function of your ankle today, if 100% was a normal ankle?".
The answer will be on a scale from 0% to 100%, where 100% is normal function.
|
1 year follow-up
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Estimated)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Estimated)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 24-PP-14
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
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.