AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

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

Other trials in Canada

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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.

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 groups in NCT00878319
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
SurgicalActive comparatorSurgical intervention: open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF)
Receives: Procedure: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF)
Non-surgicalActive comparatorSugartong 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.

  1. 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)
  1. 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

  2. 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.

  1. First posted8 Apr 2009 (estimated)
  2. Study start19 Aug 2009
  3. Primary completion4 Feb 2020
  4. Study completion1 Feb 2023

Resources

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)
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 8406748
  • Tytherleigh-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 9546454
  • Ekholm 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 17075092
  • Ekholm 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 17088659
  • BANDI W. [INDICATION TO AND TECHNIC FOR OSTEOSYNTHESIS IN THE SHOULDER]. Helv Chir Acta. 1964 Jan;31:89-100. No abstract available. German.

    PubMed 14128305
  • Sarmiento A, Waddell JP, Latta LL. Diaphyseal humeral fractures: treatment options. Instr Course Lect. 2002;51:257-69.

    PubMed 12064111
  • Rosenberg 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 16810551
  • Koch 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 11988725
  • Hunter SG. The closed treatment of fractures of the humeral shaft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982 Apr;(164):192-8.

    PubMed 7067285
  • Ruedi 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 4843035
  • Sarmiento 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 873955
  • Sarmiento 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 10761938
  • Wallny 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 9258827
  • Zagorski 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 3356728
  • McCormack 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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in