Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Versus Conventional Surgery for FFP3-4 Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis in Elderly Patients
Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Versus Conventional Surgery in Elderly Patients With FFP3-4 Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis
研究概览
地位
详细说明
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 conventional surgery in elderly patients with FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis.
A total of 88 patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the robot assisted minimally invasive treatment group or the conventional surgery group. Randomization will be stratified according to FFP classification (FFP3 or FFP4) using a computer generated randomization sequence.
Eligible participants include patients aged 60 years or older diagnosed with osteoporosis related FFP3 or FFP4 pelvic fragility fractures caused by low energy trauma. The primary objective is to compare perioperative outcomes, pain control, early mobilization, functional recovery, imaging outcomes, venous thromboembolism events, laboratory parameters, complications, opioid consumption, and healthcare resource utilization between treatment strategies.
Patients in the robot assisted treatment group will undergo robot assisted minimally invasive pelvic fixation using robotic navigation assisted percutaneous screw placement. Patients in the conventional surgery group will undergo standard open surgical fixation according to fracture characteristics and surgeon judgment.
Outcome measures include pain scores, Majeed pelvic function score, EQ 5D, SMFA, imaging evaluation of fracture healing, venous thromboembolism events, laboratory parameters, muscle mass changes, bone mineral density, opioid consumption, perioperative indicators, 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 surgical treatment strategy for elderly patients with unstable pelvic fragility fractures.
研究类型
注册 (估计的)
阶段
- 不适用
联系人和位置
学习联系方式
- 姓名:Junbo Liang
- 电话号码:0576-85190463
- 邮箱:lingjb@enzemed.com
学习地点
-
-
Zhejiang
-
Linhai、Zhejiang、中国、317000
- No. 150 Ximen Road
-
接触:
- Junbo Liang
- 电话号码:0576-85190463
- 邮箱:liangjb@enzemed.com
-
-
参与标准
资格标准
适合学习的年龄
- 成人
- 年长者
接受健康志愿者
描述
Inclusion Criteria:
- Age ≥ 60 years
- Low energy trauma
- Diagnosis of osteoporosis
- Diagnosis of FFP3 or FFP4 fragility fractures of the pelvis
- Injury duration less than 3 weeks
- Ability to provide written informed consent
Exclusion Criteria:
- Severe open injury or skin infection at the surgical site
- Hemodynamic instability preventing anesthesia or surgery
- 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
学习计划
研究是如何设计的?
设计细节
- 主要用途:治疗
- 分配:随机化
- 介入模型:并行分配
- 屏蔽:双倍的
武器和干预
参与者组/臂 |
干预/治疗 |
|---|---|
|
实验性的:Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Group
Participants undergo robot assisted minimally invasive fixation for FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis using robotic navigation assisted percutaneous screw placement.
|
Robot assisted minimally invasive fixation is performed using robotic navigation assisted percutaneous screw placement for stabilization of unstable pelvic fragility fractures.
|
|
有源比较器:Conventional Surgery Group
Participants undergo conventional open surgical fixation for FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis.
|
Conventional open reduction and internal fixation for FFP3-4 pelvic fragility fractures performed without robotic assistance.
|
研究衡量的是什么?
主要结果指标
结果测量 |
措施说明 |
大体时间 |
|---|---|---|
|
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain
大体时间:At 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, 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 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, 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
大体时间:At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
The Majeed Pelvic Function Score is used to evaluate functional recovery after pelvic fracture treatment.
Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better functional outcomes and quality of life.
|
At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
次要结果测量
结果测量 |
措施说明 |
大体时间 |
|---|---|---|
|
EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level Questionnaire
大体时间:At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
Health related quality of life assessed using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L).
The EQ-5D index score ranges from values below 0 (health states considered worse than death) to 1.0 (full health).
Higher scores indicate better health related quality of life.
|
At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
|
Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA)
大体时间:At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
Musculoskeletal function assessed using the 46-item Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA).
Raw questionnaire scores are transformed to a standardized score ranging from 0 to 100.
Higher scores indicate worse musculoskeletal function and greater disability.
|
At day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
|
Complication
大体时间:From treatment initiation to 1 year follow up
|
From treatment initiation to 1 year follow up
|
|
|
Fracture Healing
大体时间: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
|
|
|
Opioid Consumption
大体时间:Time Frame: Postoperative Days 0-3
|
Assessment of cumulative opioid consumption during hospitalization
|
Time Frame: Postoperative Days 0-3
|
|
Serum C-Reactive Protein Level
大体时间:Time Frame: Preoperative, Day 1, Day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
Time Frame: Preoperative, Day 1, Day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment
|
|
|
Hemoglobin Level
大体时间:Time Frame: Preoperative, Day 1, Day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment.
|
Time Frame: Preoperative, Day 1, Day 3, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after treatment.
|
|
|
Operative time
大体时间:perioperative
|
Duration of surgery measured in minutes.
|
perioperative
|
|
Intraoperative Blood Loss
大体时间:perioperative
|
Estimated intraoperative blood loss measured in milliliters.
|
perioperative
|
|
Length of Surgical Incision
大体时间:perioperative
|
Length of skin incision measured in centimeters.
|
perioperative
|
合作者和调查者
赞助
出版物和有用的链接
一般刊物
- 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.
- 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.
- Hitchener WR, Cenedella RJ. Absolute rates of sterol synthesis estimated from [3H]water for bovine lens epithelial cells in culture. J Lipid Res. 1985 Dec;26(12):1455-63.
- Lau-Ting C. Asymptomatic hepatitis B antigen(s) carriers in Singapore: serological reassessment. Singapore Med J. 1988 Feb;29(1):11-3. No abstract available.
研究记录日期
研究主要日期
学习开始 (估计的)
初级完成 (估计的)
研究完成 (估计的)
研究注册日期
首次提交
首先提交符合 QC 标准的
首次发布 (实际的)
研究记录更新
最后更新发布 (实际的)
上次提交的符合 QC 标准的更新
最后验证
更多信息
此信息直接从 clinicaltrials.gov 网站检索,没有任何更改。如果您有任何更改、删除或更新研究详细信息的请求,请联系 register@clinicaltrials.gov. clinicaltrials.gov 上实施更改,我们的网站上也会自动更新.