Konservativ versus operativ – Erstmalige Patellaluxation
Konservatives versus chirurgisches Management von erstmaligen Patellaluxationen
There is no consensus regarding whether rehabilitation or surgical management is best for the management of a primary patellar dislocation. Consequently this prospective randomized controlled aims to compare the incidence of recurrent knee dislocations and patient reported outcomes of patients with primary patellar dislocations managed with surgery (medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction) compared to non-operative management (a standardized rehabilitation protocol, control group).
Studienübersicht
Status
Bedingungen
Intervention / Behandlung
Detaillierte Beschreibung
Long term sequalae of first-time patellar dislocations include recurrent knee instability, osteoarthritis, and a decreased quality of life, and yet there is no consensus on the best management for these patients. Despite an increasing trend toward investigating operative vs non-operative management of primary patellar dislocations, scarce level-1 evidence exists comparing the two treatment modalities. Indeed, the few meta-analyses suggesting improved outcomes of operative treatment for first time patellar dislocations mainly utilize retrospective cohort studies. A randomized-controlled trial of 39 patients with primary patellar dislocations with a mean age of 24 (21 operative vs 18 non-operative), found decreased rates of recurrent knee instability after a mean follow up of 44 months (0% in operative vs 35% in non-operative), and a higher Kujala knee score (88.9 in operative vs 70.8 in non-operative; p=0.001). A controlled but non-randomized prospective controlled trial among 69 patients with a mean age of 18, (30 operative vs 39 non-operative), found lower rates of recurrent knee instability after a mean follow up of 24 months (0% in operative vs 20.5% in non-operative and a higher Kujala knee score (86.3 in operative group vs 80.03 in non-operative; p <0.05).The scarce randomized, prospective data investigating the appropriate management in primary patellar dislocations underscores the importance of the current study in providing high-quality evidence to the debate of how to best manage primary patellar dislocations. This study aims to compare the incidence of recurrent knee dislocations and patient reported outcomes of patients with primary patellar dislocations managed with surgery (medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction) compared to non-operative management (a standardized rehabilitation protocol, control group).
Studientyp
Phase
- Unzutreffend
Teilnahmekriterien
Zulassungskriterien
Studienberechtigtes Alter
Akzeptiert gesunde Freiwillige
Studienberechtigte Geschlechter
Beschreibung
Inclusion Criteria:
- age 12 and older
- patients seen by the Columbia University Shoulder Elbow and Sports Medicine Service
- patients who experience a first-time patella dislocation
Exclusion Criteria:
- coexistent ligament injury or osteochondral fracture necessitating acute surgical intervention
- previous knee surgery
- knee instability prior to injury
- inability or unwillingness to adhere to study participate
- lost to follow up
Studienplan
Wie ist die Studie aufgebaut?
Designdetails
- Hauptzweck: Behandlung
- Zuteilung: Zufällig
- Interventionsmodell: Parallele Zuordnung
- Maskierung: Keine (Offenes Etikett)
Waffen und Interventionen
Teilnehmergruppe / Arm |
Intervention / Behandlung |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Operative Group
This group will have surgical procedure called a medial patellofemoral reconstruction where the kneecap is anchored back into its correct position) |
Surgery to correct dislocated (knocked out of place) knee cap. This surgery anchors the kneecap back into the correct position and supports the kneecap. |
|
Aktiver Komparator: Non-operative group
This group will have physical therapy for their knee dislocation by following a specific rehabilitation plan. |
Physical therapy by following a specific regimen. |
Was misst die Studie?
Primäre Ergebnismessungen
Ergebnis Maßnahme |
Maßnahmenbeschreibung |
Zeitfenster |
|---|---|---|
|
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 2 weeks
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 2 weeks
|
The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point. |
Baseline and 2 weeks
|
|
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 6 weeks
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 weeks
|
The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point. |
Baseline and 6 weeks
|
|
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 3 months
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 3 months
|
The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point. |
Baseline and 3 months
|
|
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 6 months
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 months
|
The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point. |
Baseline and 6 months
|
|
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 1 year
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 1 year
|
The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point. |
Baseline and 1 year
|
|
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 2 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 2 years
|
The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point. |
Baseline and 2 years
|
|
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 5 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 5 years
|
The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point. |
Baseline and 5 years
|
|
Change in Kujala Questionnaire Score at 10 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 10 years
|
The Kujala questionnaire assess symptoms and limitations that a patient may experience as a result of a knee injury. Scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating less limitation. Scores will be reported at each time point. |
Baseline and 10 years
|
|
Time to first re-dislocation
Zeitfenster: Up to 10 years
|
Time to first re-dislocation following intervention, measured in weeks |
Up to 10 years
|
Sekundäre Ergebnismessungen
Ergebnis Maßnahme |
Maßnahmenbeschreibung |
Zeitfenster |
|---|---|---|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 2 weeks
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 2 weeks
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function. |
Baseline and 2 weeks
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 6 weeks
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 weeks
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function. |
Baseline and 6 weeks
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 3 months
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 3 months
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function. |
Baseline and 3 months
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 6 months
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 months
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function. |
Baseline and 6 months
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 1 year
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 1 Year
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function. |
Baseline and 1 Year
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 2 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 2 Years
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function. |
Baseline and 2 Years
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 5 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 5 Years
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function. |
Baseline and 5 Years
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) at 10 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 10 Years
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to a patient's physical function through a grading scale of activities of daily living. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of physical function. |
Baseline and 10 Years
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 2 weeks
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 2 weeks
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression. |
Baseline and 2 weeks
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 6 weeks
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 weeks
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression. |
Baseline and 6 weeks
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 3 Months
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 3 Months
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression. |
Baseline and 3 Months
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 6 Months
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 Months
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression. |
Baseline and 6 Months
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 1 Year
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 1 Year
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression. |
Baseline and 1 Year
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 2 Years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 2 Years
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression. |
Baseline and 2 Years
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 5 Years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 5 Years
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression. |
Baseline and 5 Years
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) at 10 Years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 10 Years
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to distress a patient may experience as a result of their injury, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher score is indicative of a greater level of depression. |
Baseline and 10 Years
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 2 weeks
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 2 weeks
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. |
Baseline and 2 weeks
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 6 weeks
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 weeks
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. |
Baseline and 6 weeks
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 3 months
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 3 months
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. |
Baseline and 3 months
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 6 months
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 months
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. |
Baseline and 6 months
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 1 year
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 1 year
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. |
Baseline and 1 year
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 2 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 2 years
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. |
Baseline and 2 years
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 5 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 5 years
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. |
Baseline and 5 years
|
|
Change in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) at 10 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 10 years
|
A computerized survey that asks a series of questions pertaining to pain a patient may experience from an injury and the way it influences different domains of their life, which can be followed over time to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) computer adaptive test (CAT) is reported as a T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. |
Baseline and 10 years
|
|
Percentage of participants who re-dislocate their knee after treatment at each time point within each group
Zeitfenster: 2 weeks 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years and 10 years
|
Percentage of group that experienced re-dislocation after treatment starts at each time point |
2 weeks 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years and 10 years
|
|
Time to return to full activity or sports for each group
Zeitfenster: Up to 10 years
|
Time from treatment initiation to full return to pre-injury activity levels in each group, measured in weeks |
Up to 10 years
|
|
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 2 weeks
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 2 weeks
|
Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes. |
Baseline and 2 weeks
|
|
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 6 weeks
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 weeks
|
Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes. |
Baseline and 6 weeks
|
|
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 3 months
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 3 months
|
Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes. |
Baseline and 3 months
|
|
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 6 months
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 months
|
Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes. |
Baseline and 6 months
|
|
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 1 year
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 1 year
|
Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes. |
Baseline and 1 year
|
|
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 2 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 2 years
|
Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes. |
Baseline and 2 years
|
|
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 5 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 5 years
|
Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes. |
Baseline and 5 years
|
|
Change in the Banff Patella Instability Instrument at 10 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 10 years
|
Quality of life survey developed in patients with patellofemoral instability that asks patients questions regarding how their patellofemoral injury has affected their life. it is on a scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better outcomes. |
Baseline and 10 years
|
|
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 2 weeks
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 2 weeks
|
Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome. |
Baseline and 2 weeks
|
|
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 6 weeks
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 weeks
|
Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome. |
Baseline and 6 weeks
|
|
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 3 months
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 3 months
|
Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome. |
Baseline and 3 months
|
|
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 6 months
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 6 months
|
Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome. |
Baseline and 6 months
|
|
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 1 year
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 1 year
|
Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome. |
Baseline and 1 year
|
|
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 2 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 2 years
|
Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome. |
Baseline and 2 years
|
|
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 5 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 5 years
|
Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome. |
Baseline and 5 years
|
|
Change in Norwich Patellar Instability Score at 10 years
Zeitfenster: Baseline and 10 years
|
Symptom survey that asks patients questions pertaining to symptoms they may be experiencing as a result of their knee injury. Scored as a percentage, a higher percentage indicates worse symptoms and therefore a worse outcome. |
Baseline and 10 years
|
Mitarbeiter und Ermittler
Sponsor
Ermittler
- Hauptermittler: David Trofa, MD, Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery
Publikationen und hilfreiche Links
Allgemeine Veröffentlichungen
- Zheng X, Hu Y, Xie P, Cui M, Ma X, Feng YE, Gu J, Gao S. Surgical medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction versus non-surgical treatment of acute primary patellar dislocation: a prospective controlled trial. Int Orthop. 2019 Jun;43(6):1495-1501. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4243-x. Epub 2018 Nov 20.
- Bitar AC, Demange MK, D'Elia CO, Camanho GL. Traumatic patellar dislocation: nonoperative treatment compared with MPFL reconstruction using patellar tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2012 Jan;40(1):114-22. doi: 10.1177/0363546511423742. Epub 2011 Oct 19.
- Xing X, Shi H, Feng S. Does surgical treatment produce better outcomes than conservative treatment for acute primary patellar dislocations? A meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Mar 24;15(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01634-5.
- Liu Z, Yi Q, He L, Yao C, Zhang L, Lu F, Zhang X, Wu M, Geng B, Xia Y, Jiang J. Comparing Nonoperative Treatment, MPFL Repair, and MPFL Reconstruction for Patients With Patellar Dislocation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021 Sep 28;9(9):23259671211026624. doi: 10.1177/23259671211026624. eCollection 2021 Sep.
- Mackay ND, Smith NA, Parsons N, Spalding T, Thompson P, Sprowson AP. Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction for Patellar Dislocation: A Systematic Review. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014 Aug 8;2(8):2325967114544021. doi: 10.1177/2325967114544021. eCollection 2014 Aug.
Studienaufzeichnungsdaten
Haupttermine studieren
Studienbeginn (Geschätzt)
Primärer Abschluss (Geschätzt)
Studienabschluss (Geschätzt)
Studienanmeldedaten
Zuerst eingereicht
Zuerst eingereicht, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt hat
Zuerst gepostet (Tatsächlich)
Studienaufzeichnungsaktualisierungen
Letztes Update gepostet (Tatsächlich)
Letztes eingereichtes Update, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt
Zuletzt verifiziert
Mehr Informationen
Begriffe im Zusammenhang mit dieser Studie
Zusätzliche relevante MeSH-Bedingungen
Andere Studien-ID-Nummern
- AAAU0964
Plan für individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD)
Planen Sie, individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD) zu teilen?
Arzneimittel- und Geräteinformationen, Studienunterlagen
Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Arzneimittelprodukt
Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Geräteprodukt
Diese Informationen wurden ohne Änderungen direkt von der Website clinicaltrials.gov abgerufen. Wenn Sie Ihre Studiendaten ändern, entfernen oder aktualisieren möchten, wenden Sie sich bitte an register@clinicaltrials.gov. Sobald eine Änderung auf clinicaltrials.gov implementiert wird, wird diese automatisch auch auf unserer Website aktualisiert .