Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Versus Conservative Treatment for Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis Type 1-2 in Elderly Patients (FFP)
Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Versus Conservative Treatment in Elderly Patients With FFP1-2 Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
This study is a prospective, single center, stratified randomized controlled trial designed to compare the efficacy and safety of robot assisted minimally invasive treatment versus conservative treatment in elderly patients with FFP1-2 fragility fractures of the pelvis.
A total of 152 patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the robot assisted minimally invasive treatment group or the conservative treatment group. Randomization will be stratified according to FFP classification (FFP1 or FFP2) using a computer generated randomization sequence.
Eligible participants include patients aged 60 years or older diagnosed with osteoporosis related FFP1 or FFP2 pelvic fragility fractures caused by low energy trauma. The primary objective is to compare pain control, early weight bearing, functional recovery, fracture progression, venous thromboembolism events, and healthcare resource utilization between treatment strategies.
Patients in the robot assisted treatment group will undergo robot assisted minimally invasive pelvic fixation, while patients in the conservative treatment group will receive standardized nonoperative management including pain control, anticoagulation prophylaxis, rehabilitation, and osteoporosis treatment.
Outcome measures include pain scores, Majeed pelvic function score, EQ 5D, SMFA, imaging evaluation of fracture progression and healing, venous thromboembolism events, laboratory parameters, muscle mass changes, bone mineral density, opioid consumption, complications, and healthcare costs. Follow up assessments will be performed at postoperative day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year.
The results of this study may provide evidence regarding the optimal treatment strategy for elderly patients with FFP1-2 pelvic fragility fractures.
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: Junbo Liang
- Phone Number: 0576-85190463
- Email: liangjb@enzemed.com
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
Age ≥ 60 years Low energy trauma Diagnosis of osteoporosis Diagnosis of FFP1 or FFP2 fragility fractures of the pelvis Injury duration less than 3 weeks Ability to walk independently or with assistance before injury Ability to provide written informed consent
Exclusion Criteria:
Severe open injury or skin infection at the surgical site Long term bedridden status or severe disability Severe psychiatric disorders or dementia Severe obesity affecting imaging quality Severe systemic diseases preventing surgery Pathological fracture Current chemotherapy, radiotherapy, systemic corticosteroid therapy, or growth factor therapy
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Double
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Group
Participants undergo robot assisted minimally invasive fixation for FFP1-2 fragility fractures of the pelvis.
|
Robot assisted minimally invasive fixation is performed using robotic navigation assisted percutaneous screw placement for stabilization of pelvic fragility fractures.
|
|
Active Comparator: Conservative Treatment Group
Participants receive standardized conservative treatment including pain management, rehabilitation, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and osteoporosis treatment.
|
Robot assisted minimally invasive fixation is performed using robotic navigation assisted percutaneous screw placement for stabilization of pelvic fragility fractures.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain
Time Frame: At day 1, day 2, day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain.
Scores range from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst imaginable pain.
Higher scores indicate worse pain severity.
|
At day 1, day 2, day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
|
Majeed Pelvic Function Score
Time Frame: At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level Questionnaire
Time Frame: At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
|
|
Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA)
Time Frame: At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
|
|
Fracture Progression and Healing
Time Frame: At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
Assessment of fracture healing, secondary displacement, and FFP classification progression using pelvic CT.
|
At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
|
complication
Time Frame: From treatment initiation to 1 year follow up
|
Assessment of complication events during follow up.
|
From treatment initiation to 1 year follow up
|
|
Opioid Consumption
Time Frame: Days 0-3 after treatment
|
Assessment of cumulative opioid consumption during hospitalization
|
Days 0-3 after treatment
|
|
Serum C-Reactive Protein Level
Time Frame: Preoperatively and at day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
Preoperatively and at day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
|
|
D-Dimer Level
Time Frame: Preoperatively and at day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
Preoperatively and at day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
|
|
Hemoglobin Level
Time Frame: Preoperatively and at day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
Preoperatively and at day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Zong Y, Li J, Li Z, Wang W. Minimally invasive surgery and conservative treatment achieve similar clinical outcomes in patients with type II fragility fractures of the pelvis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2025 Feb 27;20(1):210. doi: 10.1186/s13018-025-05581-x.
- Haentjens P, Magaziner J, Colon-Emeric CS, Vanderschueren D, Milisen K, Velkeniers B, Boonen S. Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Mar 16;152(6):380-90. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-6-201003160-00008.
- Banierink H, Ten Duis K, de Vries R, Wendt K, Heineman E, Reininga I, IJpma F. Pelvic ring injury in the elderly: Fragile patients with substantial mortality rates and long-term physical impairment. PLoS One. 2019 May 28;14(5):e0216809. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216809. eCollection 2019.
- Yamamoto N, Someko H, Nakashima Y, Nakao S, Kaneko T, Tsuge T. Mortality following fragility fractures of the pelvis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2025 Oct;56(10):112618. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2025.112618. Epub 2025 Jul 21.
- Nakayama Y, Suzuki T, Kurozumi T, Watanabe Y. Progression to Rommens type IIIa fragility fracture of the pelvis managed by delayed open reduction and interdigitating screw fixation: A case report. Trauma Case Rep. 2023 Jan 13;43:100773. doi: 10.1016/j.tcr.2023.100773. eCollection 2023 Feb.
- Rommens PM, Arand C, Hopf JC, Mehling I, Dietz SO, Wagner D. Progress of instability in fragility fractures of the pelvis: An observational study. Injury. 2019 Nov;50(11):1966-1973. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.08.038. Epub 2019 Aug 27.
- Jiang Y, Qi X, Cui H, Huang Y, Lv Y, Yang Y, Yao X, Yang D. The Inflammation-Energy Metabolism Axis: A Central Driver of Sarcopenia-Osteoporosis: A Narrative Review. Calcif Tissue Int. 2026 Jan 7;117(1):9. doi: 10.1007/s00223-025-01473-8.
- Lin YH, Shih YT, Teng MMH. The Impact of the "Osteo" Component of Osteosarcopenia on Fragility Fractures in Post-Menopausal Women. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 May 17;22(10):5256. doi: 10.3390/ijms22105256.
- Meermans G, van Egmond JC. Malnutrition in Older Hip Fracture Patients: Prevalence, Pathophysiology, Clinical Outcomes, and Treatment-A Systematic Review. J Clin Med. 2025 Aug 11;14(16):5662. doi: 10.3390/jcm14165662.
- Rommens PM, Arand C, Hofmann A, Wagner D. When and How to Operate Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis? Indian J Orthop. 2019 Jan-Feb;53(1):128-137. doi: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_631_17.
- Ali KA, He L, Li W, Zhang W, Huang H. Sleep quality and psychological health in patients with pelvic and acetabulum fractures: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2024 Apr 4;24(1):314. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-04929-y.
- Hutchings L, Roffey DM, Lefaivre KA. Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis: Current Practices and Future Directions. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2022 Dec;20(6):469-477. doi: 10.1007/s11914-022-00760-9. Epub 2022 Nov 7.
- GBD 2019 Fracture Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of bone fractures in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021 Sep;2(9):e580-e592. doi: 10.1016/S2666-7568(21)00172-0.
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
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- K20260153
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
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.
Clinical Trials on Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP)
-
NCT07351123RecruitingPelvic Fractures | Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP)
-
NCT06540339Not yet recruitingPelvic Fracture | Pelvic Trauma | Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP)
-
NCT05426356TerminatedOsteoporosis | Fragility Fracture | Insufficiency Fractures | Sacral Fracture | Sacroiliac; Fusion | Fracture;Pelvis
-
NCT02433665TerminatedCT of the Abdomen and Pelvis With Contrast Material
-
NCT06124976RecruitingTransitional Cell Cancer of the Renal Pelvis and Ureter | Urothelial Carcinoma of the Renal Pelvis and Ureter
-
NCT03226535UnknownCT Guided Biopsy | CT Guided Drain Placement Within the Abdomen or Pelvis | CT Guided Injection of Muscle or Nerve Within the Pelvis
-
NCT05409001CompletedFalls, Tomography of the Head, Cervical Spine, Chest, Abdomen, and Pelvis
-
NCT00363883TerminatedMetastatic Transitional Cell Cancer of the Renal Pelvis and Ureter | Recurrent Transitional Cell Cancer of the Renal Pelvis and Ureter | Regional Transitional Cell Cancer of the Renal Pelvis and Ureter | Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder | Localized Transitional Cell Cancer of the Renal Pelvis and Ureter
-
NCT07150221Enrolling by invitationAvascular Necrosis of Bone of Hip | Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphyses | Traumatic Arthropathy-Hip | Fracture of Pelvis | Protrusio Acetabuli | Diastrophic Variant | Fused Hip | Osteoarthritis (OA) of the Hip
Clinical Trials on Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Fixation
-
NCT07624942Not yet recruiting
-
NCT02804893Recruiting
-
NCT01544790CompletedEsophageal Cancer | Esophageal Carcinoma
-
NCT04652180RecruitingPostoperative Complications | Esophageal Cancer | Esophageal Carcinoma
-
NCT06484374RecruitingHematoma Brain | Large Basal Ganglia Hemorrhage
-
NCT06939023RecruitingPancreatic Neoplasms | Surgery | Pancreatic Cyst | Pancreatectomy | Minimally Invasive Surgery | Pancreatic Adenoma | Pancreatic Cystadenoma | Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique | Distal Pancreatectomy (DP) | Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy
-
NCT04072094Not yet recruiting
-
NCT05871866RecruitingUnstable Pelvic Fractures
-
NCT00612391CompletedClosed Fracture Proximal Humerus, Neck
-
NCT02924922Completed