- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT00597779
Randomized Comparison of 2 Fixation Techniques for Unstable Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures (EMvsIM)
Extramedullary vs. Intramedullary Devices in the Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures
The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical and radiological outcome of patients that are treated with two different orthopedic implants. The study population will consist of patients that have sustained unstable hip fractures. The two different implants will be randomly assigned.
The null hypothesis states that there should not be any significant differences between the two implants.
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Intertrochanteric hip fractures are common injuries in the elderly population. They often signify generalized physical deterioration. Operative management has become the standard of care to prevent life threatening complications and dates back to the 1940's. The design of implants has evolved significantly since then.
The sliding hip screw replaced static fixation of the femoral head in the 1950's. As a result of this improvement in design, failures have been reduced to 9-16%. The sliding hip screw allows for stable collapse of the femoral neck. This can lead to significant shortening of the proximal femur in comminuted fractures.
Current treatment modalities focus on obtaining a satisfactory union of the fracture, often at the expense of anatomical alignment. Severely comminuted fractures treated with a standard plate-hip-screw device thus commonly result in significant degrees of mal-union and shortening. In the past, implants designed to restore and maintain the anatomy of the hip have resulted in high failure rates with the implant breaking out of the femoral head. In the mid 1980's, recognition of this led to the development of various intramedullary devices for fixation of these fractures. The weight-bearing portion of the implant is therefore shifted medially, resulting in reduced lever forces on the implant and femur. Additionally, the IM device does not rely on fixation to the lateral cortex of the femur with screws. From a biomechanical standpoint, the intramedullary device has distinct advantages, as it is a load- sharing device more closely located to the axis of weight bearing than the plate-hip-screw device.
Advances in intramedullary designs have been promising, but the clinical results variable. The relatively high rate of fracture at the tip, specifically at the level of the locking bolts, has hampered the widespread popularity of intramedullary devices. Additionally, the large diameter of the proximal aspect of the implants required extensive reaming of the greater trochanter and partial detachment of the gluteus medius. This may lead to abductor weakness and a Trendelenburg gait. Some studies have found increased re-operation rates for these early hip-nail devices compared to the plate -hip-screw implant. Other studies have shown decreased blood loss and operative time with the nails. A meta-analysis of the literature favors the sliding hip screw design. Unfortunately, most studies focus on radiological failure rate rather than patient function and relate to the first generation of IM devices.
The newest generation of nails (like the IM studied here) has attempted to correct the shortcomings of earlier designs. The proximal aspect of the nail diameter is minimized. The distal locking screw is located far away from the distal end of the nail and the locking bolt is placed in an oblique fashion. Design alterations to the femoral head fixation portion of the nail by using a helical blade rather than a screw may improve fixation in the femoral head. These new designs seem to compare favorably in recent clinical tests. Early mobilization for patients with the intramedullary device (IM) seems to be better.
Results of the pilot study indicate an earlier return to full mobility and shorter operating time in the IM group. This study included all intertrochanteric fracture types and did not demonstrate a clear benefit of the IM in many other parameters. The currently proposed multi-centre study will focus on the unstable A2 intertrochanteric fracture pattern.
Considering the significantly increased cost of the new intramedullary devices compared to the standard plate-hip-screw, a significant overall improvement in patient function should be realized before the general use of these new devices could be recommended.
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Phase 3
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Quebec
-
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3G 1A4
- McGill University Health Centre - Montreal General Hospital
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- 55 years or older
- Type A2 Intertrochanteric fractures
- Mono trauma
- Medically fit for surgery
- Less than 2 weeks post fracture
Exclusion Criteria:
- Fractures due to malignancy
- Non-ambulatory pre-fracture
- Severe dementia
- Limited life expectancy due to significant medical co-morbidities
- Medical contraindication to surgery
- Inability to comply with rehabilitation of form completion
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Active Comparator: EM device
Extramedullary Device (EM)
|
Surgical stabilization of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures using two commonly used implant categories
Other Names:
|
Active Comparator: IM device
Intramedullary Device (IM)
|
Surgical stabilization of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures using two commonly used implant categories
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Time Frame |
---|---|
Timed 2 minute walking distance
Time Frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
TUG (Time up and go) test
Time Frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
Trendelenburg's test: pelvic drop
Time Frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
Fracture classification: Mueller/ AO, displacement, time to union, heterotopic ossification and shortening.
Time Frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
FIM (Functional Independence Measure)
Time Frame: 6weks, 3months, 6months and 12months
|
6weks, 3months, 6months and 12months
|
LEM (Lower Extremity Measure)
Time Frame: 6weeks, 3months, 6months and 12 months
|
6weeks, 3months, 6months and 12 months
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Time Frame |
---|---|
Secondary Outcome Variable: Transfusions
Time Frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
Pre and Post operative Hgb
Time Frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
Complications/ Re-operation
Time Frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
Length of surgery and hospital stay
Time Frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
Weight bearing status post-op
Time Frame: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Collaborators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Rudy Reindl, MD FRCSC, McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre
Publications and helpful links
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimate)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Estimate)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- GEN #07-065
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
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 Hip Fractures
-
Smith & Nephew, Inc.Terminated
-
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El...CompletedHip Fractures (i.e. Femoral Neck or Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures)United States
-
FH ORTHORecruitingHip Fractures | Hip DiseaseFrance
-
Zhenjiang First People's HospitalCompletedHip Fractures | Hip DiseaseChina
-
Bayside HealthCompleted
-
Carilion ClinicCompleted
-
University of Missouri-ColumbiaUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham; Medical College of Wisconsin; University...CompletedHip Fractures | Pelvic Fractures | Acetabular FracturesUnited States
-
Rabin Medical CenterUnknown
-
Oslo University HospitalDiakonhjemmet HospitalCompletedHip Fractures | Trochanteric Fractures | Intertrochanteric FracturesNorway
-
Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical CenterUnknownIntertrochanteric Fractures of the HipIsrael
Clinical Trials on Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS); Trochanteric Fixation Nail (TFN)
-
Instituto Traumatologico Dr. Teodoro Gebauer WeisserUnknown
-
University of LeedsCitieffe S.r.lUnknownUnilateral Unstable HipUnited Kingdom
-
Security Forces HospitalCompletedAvascular Necrosis | Femoral Neck FracturesSaudi Arabia
-
Stryker Trauma GmbHGlobal Research Solutions; Stryker OsteosynthesisCompletedFemoral Neck Fractures | Intertrochanteric FractureSweden, Denmark, Canada
-
Stryker Trauma GmbHGlobal Research SolutionsCompletedFemoral Neck Fractures | Intertrochanteric FractureUnited States, United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Australia, China, Colombia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa
-
Kushtrim GrezdaUniversity Clinical Centre of KosovaCompleted
-
RWTH Aachen UniversityCompleted
-
Peking University Third HospitalCompleted
-
Instituto Traumatologico Dr. Teodoro Gebauer WeisserUnknown
-
Barts & The London NHS TrustUniversity College London Hospitals; Barking, Havering and Redbridge University... and other collaboratorsCompletedSARS-CoV 2 | Femoral Neck FracturesUnited Kingdom