Humeral Diaphyseal FractureNCT00878319
Operative and Nonoperative Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures
A study testing Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and Non-surgical in people with Humeral Diaphyseal Fracture, run by McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The purpose of this research study is to compare two different ways of treating a broken arm (fractured humerus) using either, the nonoperative approach or the operative, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 90 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Humeral Diaphyseal Fracture
- What is being tested?
- Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and Non-surgical
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 180 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 19 Aug 2009to 1 Feb 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 90 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Over 18 y/o with skeletal maturity, and consenting to participate
- A displaced fracture of the humeral diaphysis amenable to fixation with a plate with no other injuries to the same limb
- 21 days or less between injury and surgery
- Medically fit for anaesthesia
- The mental faculties to participate in post-op evaluation
- Fracture amenable to both treatment methods
Who cannot join
- Open fracture
- Neurovascular injury requiring repair in the same limb (excluding radial nerve palsy)
- Active infection in the area of the surgical approach
- Prior injury, degenerative condition, or congenital condition to the shoulder, arm or elbow
- Bone disorder which may impair bone healing
- Polytrauma with other limb fractures
Show all 9Show fewer
- Incapable of ensuring follow-up
- Pathologic fracture
- Already enrolled in another research clinical trial
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Canada1 site
McGill University Health Centre - Montreal General Hospital
Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1A4
About this study
Official title: A Randomized Prospective Trial Comparing Operative and Nonoperative Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures
The purpose of this research study is to compare two different ways of treating a broken arm (fractured humerus) using either, the nonoperative approach or the operative, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The study will examine which treatment will overall give better results in regards to shoulder and elbow function, residual pain and deformity.
Patients who agree to consent to participation in this study will be randomly selected to receive one of the two treatment methods:
Read more
- Nonoperative: This method requires the application of a plaster sugartong splint for 10 - 14 days followed by a transition to a functional (coaptation) brace to be worn for 4-6 weeks. Patients will be followed by physiotherapy from the baseline visit at 2 weeks.
- Operative: This treatment option involves an operative procedure for fixation of the broken bone with plates and screws (open reduction internal fixation - ORIF). With this method of treatment, a splint or sling is worn for comfort postoperatively. The patient will be followed by physiotherapy after the post-operative visit at 2 weeks.
Standard follow-up clinic visits at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 4 months, 6 months and 12 months will be arranged from the date of randomization. The patient will be asked to complete two questionnaires, reporting the level of wellbeing and physical function. These questionnaires will be given to the patient at the time of baseline visit at 2 weeks and again at 6 weeks, 4 months, 6 months and 12 months. They should take approximately 10 - 20 minutes to complete. At each appointment, the patients will be x-rayed until healing has occurred, examined and evaluated (Constant Shoulder Score) by the surgeon and followed by physiotherapy for gentle range of motion (ROM) exercises progressing to strengthening and proprioception of the elbow and shoulder.
Read the detailed description
Fractures of the humeral diaphysis occur in a bimodal distribution and represent 3-5% of all fractures. Overall the incidence is higher in women and typically presents at a more advanced age in this population, rendering fixation more difficult due to osteoporosis. The majority of fractures of the humeral diaphysis occur in the mid-shaft and proximal third and the majority are simple (or non-comminuted) in pattern.
Presently, the standard treatment of isolated humeral diaphysis fractures is nonoperative care using splints, braces, casts and slings. Most centres in North America and Europe favor functional bracing with a coaptation splint given the positive results reported with this device, despite the prolonged period of pain and discomfort as well as the need for repeated clinic follow-up visits associated with it.
Presently there are no published prospective comparative studies that systematically evaluate patient function following the operative or nonoperative treatment of humeral shaft fractures.
Clinical evaluations following functional bracing using patient-based outcome tools revealed a 20% nonunion rate in patients suffering a simple (non-comminuted) fracture. Invariably, this led to surgical intervention to achieve union. In those whose fracture healed with the splint, only 50% reported a full recovery while none of those requiring surgery for nonunion did so. This low rate of functional recovery may be due in part to the high rate of shoulder stiffness following functional bracing. Significant stiffness in the shoulder following functional bracing has ranged from 14-60% with an average of 40%.
The advantages of open reduction and plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures include a direct approach to the fracture site with direct visualization and protection of the radial nerve (depending on fracture level and approach), the possibility of rigid compressive fixation, and the opportunity for bone grafting and/or radial nerve exploration if needed. Importantly, it permits rapid mobilization of the shoulder and elbow, obviating the need of immobilization, and ensures anatomic or near anatomic alignment. These advantages must be weighed against the small risk of infection (<1-6%) with most occurring after open fractures or severe crush injury, nonunion (4-6%) especially in high energy injuries, and iatrogenic radial nerve injury (1-3%) the vast majority of which are transient.
Operative care: Fixation with regular or broad 3.5mm or 4.5mm dynamic compression plate (DCP) using standard technique will be applied in cases with normal bone density; in the face of osteopenic bone, locked-plate implants will be employed at the discretion of the surgeon. Bone graft will not be used routinely as these are simple fracture patterns. Postoperative splinting (or sling) will be maintained for 10 - 14 days followed by gentle ROM exercises under physiotherapy supervision. Strengthening and proprioception will be begun once fracture healing has occurred, typically at 6-8 weeks.
Conservative care will entail the application of a plaster sugartong splint for 10-14 days followed by transition to a functional (coaptation) brace, to be applied by a qualified orthotist. Gentle ROM exercises of the elbow and shoulder will begin as tolerated under the supervision of a physiotherapist after 2 weeks with strengthening and proprioception added once fracture healing has occurred, typically at 6-8 weeks.
This multicentre prospective randomized trial will involve the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS), an association of trauma surgeons involved in collaborative outcomes research with a proven track record of research and publication. Patients with a humeral diaphyseal fracture who meet all eligibility criteria and provide consent to participate will be randomly assigned to the operative or splint/brace treatment group. Patients will start physiotherapy at 2 weeks post-randomization (splint/brace group)or 2 weeks post-surgery for gentle ROM exercises. The operative group will progress to strengthening and proprioception at 4-6 weeks. The splint/brace group will only progress at the 6-8 weeks mark once union has occurred. Evaluation at 2 and 6 weeks, 4, 6, and 12 months will include functional, clinical and radiological parameters. Functional evaluation will include the DASH, SMFA questionnaires and the Constant Shoulder Score. Clinical outcome will evaluate range and motion including the shoulder and elbow of both the affected arm and contralateral shoulder and elbow. Standard radiographic parameters will be measured. The primary outcome measure will be functional outcome as measured with the DASH. Appropriate statistical analyses will be performed on the data. Sample size calculation reveals the need for 90 patients per treatment arm. A census of the centers committed to the study predicts a 1-24 month recruitment period. Patient follow-up will end at the 12 month visit.
- Conditions
- Humeral Diaphyseal Fracture
- Being tested
- Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), Non-surgical
- Keywords
- Humeral, diaphyseal (mid-shaft), fracture, operative, non-operative
- Medical subject headings
- Fractures, Bone
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF)Procedure or surgery
Also called Plate with locking screws can be used.
Antero-latero or posterior surgical approach using dynamic compression plate
Non-surgicalOther
Sugartong splint followed by transition to functional co-aptation brace
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Surgical | Active comparator | Surgical intervention: open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) Receives: Procedure: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) |
| Non-surgical | Active comparator | Sugartong splint followed by transition to functional co-aptation brace Receives: Other: Non-surgical |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Validated functional outcome tools to be used: disability shoulder, arm, hand (DASH), short musculoskeletal functional assessment (SMFA) and Constant Shoulder Score.
Measured: 2 and 6 weeks, 4, 6 and 12 months
Secondary outcomes (2)
Range of Motion will be measured with a goniometer for both the shoulder/elbow with comparative values taken for a contralateral shoulder/elbow.
Measured: 2 and 6 weeks; 4, 6 and 12 months
Radiologic Outcome: Antero-posterior and lateral radiographs
Measured: 2 and 6 weeks; 4, 6 and 12 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Apr 2009 (estimated)
- Study start19 Aug 2009
- Primary completion4 Feb 2020
- Study completion1 Feb 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (23)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Humeral Diaphyseal FractureStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health CentreThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 180 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Greg K. Berry, MD, McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre
- Investigators
- Gregory K. Berry, MDCM FRCSC, Principal investigator, McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00878319
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SDR-08-055
- Status last verified
- Feb 2020
- First submitted
- 7 Apr 2009
- Last updated
- 14 Feb 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Crolla RM, de Vries LS, Clevers GJ. Locked intramedullary nailing of humeral fractures. Injury. 1993 Jul;24(6):403-6. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(93)90106-g.
PubMed 8406748Tytherleigh-Strong G, Walls N, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of humeral shaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Mar;80(2):249-53. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b2.8113.
PubMed 9546454Ekholm R, Adami J, Tidermark J, Hansson K, Tornkvist H, Ponzer S. Fractures of the shaft of the humerus. An epidemiological study of 401 fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Nov;88(11):1469-73. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B11.17634.
PubMed 17075092Ekholm R, Tidermark J, Tornkvist H, Adami J, Ponzer S. Outcome after closed functional treatment of humeral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2006 Oct;20(9):591-6. doi: 10.1097/01.bot.0000246466.01287.04.
PubMed 17088659BANDI W. [INDICATION TO AND TECHNIC FOR OSTEOSYNTHESIS IN THE SHOULDER]. Helv Chir Acta. 1964 Jan;31:89-100. No abstract available. German.
PubMed 14128305Sarmiento A, Waddell JP, Latta LL. Diaphyseal humeral fractures: treatment options. Instr Course Lect. 2002;51:257-69.
PubMed 12064111Rosenberg N, Soudry M. Shoulder impairment following treatment of diaphysial fractures of humerus by functional brace. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2006 Sep;126(7):437-40. doi: 10.1007/s00402-006-0167-9. Epub 2006 Jun 21.
PubMed 16810551Koch PP, Gross DF, Gerber C. The results of functional (Sarmiento) bracing of humeral shaft fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Mar-Apr;11(2):143-50. doi: 10.1067/mse.2002.121634.
PubMed 11988725Hunter SG. The closed treatment of fractures of the humeral shaft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982 Apr;(164):192-8.
PubMed 7067285Ruedi T, Moshfegh A, Pfeiffer KM, Allgower M. Fresh fractures of the shaft of the humerus--conservative or operative treatment? Reconstr Surg Traumatol. 1974;14(0):65-74. No abstract available.
PubMed 4843035Sarmiento A, Kinman PB, Galvin EG, Schmitt RH, Phillips JG. Functional bracing of fractures of the shaft of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1977 Jul;59(5):596-601.
PubMed 873955Sarmiento A, Zagorski JB, Zych GA, Latta LL, Capps CA. Functional bracing for the treatment of fractures of the humeral diaphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Apr;82(4):478-86. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200004000-00003.
PubMed 10761938Wallny T, Westermann K, Sagebiel C, Reimer M, Wagner UA. Functional treatment of humeral shaft fractures: indications and results. J Orthop Trauma. 1997 May;11(4):283-7. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199705000-00011.
PubMed 9258827Zagorski JB, Latta LL, Zych GA, Finnieston AR. Diaphyseal fractures of the humerus. Treatment with prefabricated braces. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988 Apr;70(4):607-10.
PubMed 3356728McCormack RG, Brien D, Buckley RE, McKee MD, Powell J, Schemitsch EH. Fixation of fractures of the shaft of the humerus by dynamic compression plate or intramedullary nail. A prospective, randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 Apr;82(3):336-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.82b3.9675.
PubMed 10813165
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Feb 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Randomized Prospective Trial Comparing Operative and Nonoperative Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00878319
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SDR-08-055
- Conditions
- Humeral Diaphyseal Fracture
- Keywords
- Humeral, diaphyseal (mid-shaft), fracture, operative, non-operative
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 180 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health CentreUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society
- Study start
- 19 Aug 2009 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 4 Feb 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Feb 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Apr 2009 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this research study is to compare two different ways of treating a broken arm (fractured humerus) using either, the nonoperative approach or the operative, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The study will examine which treatment will overall give better results in regards to shoulder and elbow function, residual pain and deformity.
Patients who agree to consent to participation in this study will be randomly selected to receive one of the two treatment methods:
- Nonoperative: This method requires the application of a plaster sugartong splint for 10 - 14 days followed by a transition to a functional (coaptation) brace to be worn for 4-6 weeks. Patients will be followed by physiotherapy from the baseline visit at 2 weeks.
- Operative: This treatment option involves an operative procedure for fixation of the broken bone with plates and screws (open reduction internal fixation - ORIF). With this method of treatment, a splint or sling is worn for comfort postoperatively. The patient will be followed by physiotherapy after the post-operative visit at 2 weeks.
Standard follow-up clinic visits at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 4 months, 6 months and 12 months will be arranged from the date of randomization. The patient will be asked to complete two questionnaires, reporting the level of wellbeing and physical function. These questionnaires will be given to the patient at the time of baseline visit at 2 weeks and again at 6 weeks, 4 months, 6 months and 12 months. They should take approximately 10 - 20 minutes to complete. At each appointment, the patients will be x-rayed until healing has occurred, examined and evaluated (Constant Shoulder Score) by the surgeon and followed by physiotherapy for gentle range of motion (ROM) exercises progressing to strengthening and proprioception of the elbow and shoulder.
Detailed description
Fractures of the humeral diaphysis occur in a bimodal distribution and represent 3-5% of all fractures. Overall the incidence is higher in women and typically presents at a more advanced age in this population, rendering fixation more difficult due to osteoporosis. The majority of fractures of the humeral diaphysis occur in the mid-shaft and proximal third and the majority are simple (or non-comminuted) in pattern.
Presently, the standard treatment of isolated humeral diaphysis fractures is nonoperative care using splints, braces, casts and slings. Most centres in North America and Europe favor functional bracing with a coaptation splint given the positive results reported with this device, despite the prolonged period of pain and discomfort as well as the need for repeated clinic follow-up visits associated with it.
Presently there are no published prospective comparative studies that systematically evaluate patient function following the operative or nonoperative treatment of humeral shaft fractures.
Clinical evaluations following functional bracing using patient-based outcome tools revealed a 20% nonunion rate in patients suffering a simple (non-comminuted) fracture. Invariably, this led to surgical intervention to achieve union. In those whose fracture healed with the splint, only 50% reported a full recovery while none of those requiring surgery for nonunion did so. This low rate of functional recovery may be due in part to the high rate of shoulder stiffness following functional bracing. Significant stiffness in the shoulder following functional bracing has ranged from 14-60% with an average of 40%.
The advantages of open reduction and plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures include a direct approach to the fracture site with direct visualization and protection of the radial nerve (depending on fracture level and approach), the possibility of rigid compressive fixation, and the opportunity for bone grafting and/or radial nerve exploration if needed. Importantly, it permits rapid mobilization of the shoulder and elbow, obviating the need of immobilization, and ensures anatomic or near anatomic alignment. These advantages must be weighed against the small risk of infection (<1-6%) with most occurring after open fractures or severe crush injury, nonunion (4-6%) especially in high energy injuries, and iatrogenic radial nerve injury (1-3%) the vast majority of which are transient.
Operative care: Fixation with regular or broad 3.5mm or 4.5mm dynamic compression plate (DCP) using standard technique will be applied in cases with normal bone density; in the face of osteopenic bone, locked-plate implants will be employed at the discretion of the surgeon. Bone graft will not be used routinely as these are simple fracture patterns. Postoperative splinting (or sling) will be maintained for 10 - 14 days followed by gentle ROM exercises under physiotherapy supervision. Strengthening and proprioception will be begun once fracture healing has occurred, typically at 6-8 weeks.
Conservative care will entail the application of a plaster sugartong splint for 10-14 days followed by transition to a functional (coaptation) brace, to be applied by a qualified orthotist. Gentle ROM exercises of the elbow and shoulder will begin as tolerated under the supervision of a physiotherapist after 2 weeks with strengthening and proprioception added once fracture healing has occurred, typically at 6-8 weeks.
This multicentre prospective randomized trial will involve the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS), an association of trauma surgeons involved in collaborative outcomes research with a proven track record of research and publication. Patients with a humeral diaphyseal fracture who meet all eligibility criteria and provide consent to participate will be randomly assigned to the operative or splint/brace treatment group. Patients will start physiotherapy at 2 weeks post-randomization (splint/brace group)or 2 weeks post-surgery for gentle ROM exercises. The operative group will progress to strengthening and proprioception at 4-6 weeks. The splint/brace group will only progress at the 6-8 weeks mark once union has occurred. Evaluation at 2 and 6 weeks, 4, 6, and 12 months will include functional, clinical and radiological parameters. Functional evaluation will include the DASH, SMFA questionnaires and the Constant Shoulder Score. Clinical outcome will evaluate range and motion including the shoulder and elbow of both the affected arm and contralateral shoulder and elbow. Standard radiographic parameters will be measured. The primary outcome measure will be functional outcome as measured with the DASH. Appropriate statistical analyses will be performed on the data. Sample size calculation reveals the need for 90 patients per treatment arm. A census of the centers committed to the study predicts a 1-24 month recruitment period. Patient follow-up will end at the 12 month visit.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Surgical | Active comparator | Procedure: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF)Surgical intervention: open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) |
| Non-surgical | Active comparator | Other: Non-surgicalSugartong splint followed by transition to functional co-aptation brace |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 90 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Over 18 y/o with skeletal maturity, and consenting to participate
- A displaced fracture of the humeral diaphysis amenable to fixation with a plate with no other injuries to the same limb
- 21 days or less between injury and surgery
- Medically fit for anaesthesia
- The mental faculties to participate in post-op evaluation
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Open fracture
- Neurovascular injury requiring repair in the same limb (excluding radial nerve palsy)
- Active infection in the area of the surgical approach
- Prior injury, degenerative condition, or congenital condition to the shoulder, arm or elbow
- Bone disorder which may impair bone healing
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF)Also: Plate with locking screws can be used.Antero-latero or posterior surgical approach using dynamic compression plate | Procedure or surgery | Surgical |
| Non-surgicalSugartong splint followed by transition to functional co-aptation brace | Other | Non-surgical |
Primary outcome
Validated functional outcome tools to be used: disability shoulder, arm, hand (DASH), short musculoskeletal functional assessment (SMFA) and Constant Shoulder Score.
Time frame: 2 and 6 weeks, 4, 6 and 12 months
2 secondary outcomes
Range of Motion will be measured with a goniometer for both the shoulder/elbow with comparative values taken for a contralateral shoulder/elbow.
Time frame: 2 and 6 weeks; 4, 6 and 12 months
Radiologic Outcome: Antero-posterior and lateral radiographs
Time frame: 2 and 6 weeks; 4, 6 and 12 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Feb 2025.
- Background: PubMed 8406748Crolla RM, de Vries LS, Clevers GJ. Locked intramedullary nailing of humeral fractures. Injury. 1993 Jul;24(6):403-6. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(93)90106-g.
- Background: PubMed 9546454Tytherleigh-Strong G, Walls N, McQueen MM. The epidemiology of humeral shaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Mar;80(2):249-53. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b2.8113.
- Background: PubMed 17075092Ekholm R, Adami J, Tidermark J, Hansson K, Tornkvist H, Ponzer S. Fractures of the shaft of the humerus. An epidemiological study of 401 fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Nov;88(11):1469-73. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B11.17634.
- Background: PubMed 17088659Ekholm R, Tidermark J, Tornkvist H, Adami J, Ponzer S. Outcome after closed functional treatment of humeral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2006 Oct;20(9):591-6. doi: 10.1097/01.bot.0000246466.01287.04.
- Background: PubMed 14128305BANDI W. [INDICATION TO AND TECHNIC FOR OSTEOSYNTHESIS IN THE SHOULDER]. Helv Chir Acta. 1964 Jan;31:89-100. No abstract available. German.
- Background: PubMed 12064111Sarmiento A, Waddell JP, Latta LL. Diaphyseal humeral fractures: treatment options. Instr Course Lect. 2002;51:257-69.
- Background: PubMed 16810551Rosenberg N, Soudry M. Shoulder impairment following treatment of diaphysial fractures of humerus by functional brace. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2006 Sep;126(7):437-40. doi: 10.1007/s00402-006-0167-9. Epub 2006 Jun 21.
- Background: PubMed 11988725Koch PP, Gross DF, Gerber C. The results of functional (Sarmiento) bracing of humeral shaft fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Mar-Apr;11(2):143-50. doi: 10.1067/mse.2002.121634.
- Background: PubMed 7067285Hunter SG. The closed treatment of fractures of the humeral shaft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982 Apr;(164):192-8.
- Background: PubMed 4843035Ruedi T, Moshfegh A, Pfeiffer KM, Allgower M. Fresh fractures of the shaft of the humerus--conservative or operative treatment? Reconstr Surg Traumatol. 1974;14(0):65-74. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 873955Sarmiento A, Kinman PB, Galvin EG, Schmitt RH, Phillips JG. Functional bracing of fractures of the shaft of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1977 Jul;59(5):596-601.
- Background: PubMed 10761938Sarmiento A, Zagorski JB, Zych GA, Latta LL, Capps CA. Functional bracing for the treatment of fractures of the humeral diaphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Apr;82(4):478-86. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200004000-00003.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Humeral Diaphyseal Fracture
RecruitingObservational study
Early Fixation for Diaphyseal Humeral Shaft Fractures in the Elderly Patients
Humerus Shaft Fracture, Elderly (People Aged 65 or More)
Recruiting
Scandinavian Humeral Diaphyseal Fracture Trial
Fracture Humerus of Shaft
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Gregory K. Berry, MDCM FRCSC principal investigator
McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and Non-surgical in people with Humeral Diaphyseal Fracture, run by McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Feb 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Validated functional outcome tools to be used: disability shoulder, arm, hand (DASH), short musculoskeletal functional assessment (SMFA) and Constant Shoulder Score. (time frame: 2 and 6 weeks, 4, 6 and 12 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00878319, which also lists 23 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Feb 2025.