A Clinical Comparison of Patient-specific 3D Printed Splints Versus Conventional Splints in the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures. (3DxSPLINT)

June 5, 2023 updated by: Radboud University Medical Center

The goal of this clinical trial is to assess patient reported outcome measures of adult patients who are diagnosed with a distal radius fracture and treated with a patient-specific 3D printed splint as compared to a control cohort.

Patients receive routine immobilization procedure with a patient-specific 3D printed splint instead of the use of a conventional forearm splint after one week of conventional immobilization.

The main study parameters are patient reported outcome measures related to comfort and satisfaction of the medical aid. This will be measured qualitatively with a semi-structured interview and quantitively using questionnaires.

Study Overview

Status

Not yet recruiting

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Distal radius fracture (DRF) is a very common injury of the upper extremity. Yearly, over 45,000 patients visit the outpatient clinic with a DRF in the Netherlands. One third of these fractures are non-displaced and two thirds are displaced fractures. The conservative treatment of DRFs includes immobilization of the injured extremity using a conventional forearm cast. These casts do cause all sorts of discomfort during wear and impose life-style restrictions on the wearer. Examples are irritation and itching of the skin, pain from pressure points and inability to shower or swim without a protective sleeve. Emergent three-dimensional (3D) technology enables patient-specific splint design and fabrication. These splints are custom made to accurately fit the individual patient. The material of 3D printed splints is considered lightweight. Moreover, 3D splint design allows an open structure resulting in more ventilation, offering better hygiene and the possibility for wound control. The production of 3D splints can be accomplished with several hardware and software combination. The production process is similar overall and requires several steps. First image data with 3D spatial information of the limb is captured with either a 3D scanner or medical imaging device. The design of the 3D printed splint is further developed using a software application. The 3D splints design data is then exported, and the physical splint is printed using a 3D printer. Depending on material and device characteristics, postprocessing steps are required. The splint may require removal of support, curing and smoothing. If applicable, a closure mechanism is applied.

Currently most implementations of custom made 3D printed splints happen within the framework of case series or feasibility studies. Some previous studies have described on clinical tests from patients with promising results. However, studies are heterogenous in the use of hardware, software, 3D splint design, print materials, fabrication time and costs. Moreover, clinical comparison with conventional interventions remain scare. Therefore, it is challenging to determine the impact of 3D printed splints intervention on the patient with injuries .

The goal of this clinical trial is to assess patient reported outcome measures of adult patients who are diagnosed with a DRF and treated with a patient- specific 3D printed splint as compared to a control cohort. The secondary objectives are:

  • To define whether treatment of 3D printed splints of DRF's result in the same clinical outcomes compared to treatment with standard plaster cast .
  • To investigate the safety of 3D printed splint treatment.
  • To generate hypothesis which individual characteristics might be used to determine which patients can benefit most from 3D printed splint treatment.
  • To investigate barriers and facilitators to implementation.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

24

Phase

  • 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 Backup

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

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age 16 years or older
  • Admitted to the emergency department or plaster room with a DRF
  • Non-operative treatment with cast immobilization
  • Written informed consent
  • Patients must be able to follow the study protocol

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Operative treatment
  • Open fractures
  • History of surgically treated wrist fracture on the currently injured side within the last year (≤ 1 year)
  • Unable to wear conventional forearm splint due to medical condition, known allergies or other reasons
  • (partially) paralysis of the affected arm
  • DRF older than two weeks

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: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: 3DxSPLINT
Routine immobilization procedure with a patient-specific 3D printed splint instead of the use of a conventional forearm splint after one week of conventional immobilization.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
D-QUEST
Time Frame: three to five weeks post injury
Instrument for measuring client satisfaction with a medical device. D-QUEST is a Dutch version of the Quebec User Evalutation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology.
three to five weeks post injury
CSD-OPUS
Time Frame: three to five weeks post injury
The Orthotics and Prosthetics User's Survey on the Satisfaction with Devices.
three to five weeks post injury
EQ-5D VAS
Time Frame: three to five weeks post injury
Rates the overall health of a patient.
three to five weeks post injury
Semi structured interview
Time Frame: three to five weeks post injury
Patient reported outcome measrues related to comfort and satisfaction of the medical aid. Issures discussed:limitations daily life, cosmetic look and local complicaitons.
three to five weeks post injury

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
PRWE
Time Frame: Approximately, one week, three to five weeks and 3 months post injury.
Questionnaire to measure patient rated pain and disability for wrist conditions.
Approximately, one week, three to five weeks and 3 months post injury.
Complications
Time Frame: three months post injury.
McKay checklist is used for scoring the complications after distal radius fracture.
three months post injury.
Union rate
Time Frame: One week to three months post injury
Union rate will be measured according to the current clinical standard.
One week to three months post injury
Safety outcomes
Time Frame: one week to three months post injury
Reasons for withdrawal and adverse events (production- and wearing of the 3D printed splints) are registered and evaluated
one week to three months post injury
Barriers to implementation
Time Frame: one week to three months post injury
Acceptance by caregivers and technical problems related to hardware- and software use in the 3D workflow are registered and evaluated.
one week to three months post injury

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Baseline characteristics
Time Frame: Directly after admission
Baseline characteristics as age, gender, fracture classification, side of fracture, dominant arm and activity of daily living are registerd.
Directly after admission

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: V.M.A. Stirler, dr., Department of Trauma Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

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 (Estimated)

October 1, 2023

Primary Completion (Estimated)

October 1, 2023

Study Completion (Estimated)

December 31, 2023

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 5, 2023

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 5, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

June 15, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

June 15, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 5, 2023

Last Verified

June 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

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 Distal Radius Fractures

3
Subscribe