Scandinavian Humeral Diaphyseal Fracture Trial
For patients and families
In plain language
An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.
- What is being studied
- The protocol lists: Surgical treatment, Non-surgical treatment.
- Who it may be relevant to
- Registry conditions: Fracture Humerus of Shaft. Basic parameters: from 18 years · All.
- What needs checking
- Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
- Where it takes place
- Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden
- Next step
- Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Unsure about the terms? Read our patient guide →
Official title
Scandinavian Humeral diAphyseal Fracture Trial - A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial
Overview
This pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) includes adult participants with an acute humeral shaft fracture to compare surgical fixation of humeral shaft fracture to non-surgical treatment with early identification and treatment of delayed union by a patient-reported outcome after 52 weeks. The trial population of 287 participants The trial population is divided in two age-groups due to the changes in DASH score by age. The definition of delayed union differs in the young and elderly population to consider dissimilarity in bone healing rates and the timepoint for crossover is therefor different between the groups. Participants will be randomized 1:1 between non-surgical treatment and surgical treatment. The primary outcome is the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 52 weeks, and is assessor blinded. The secondary outcomes are DASH score earlier than 52 weeks, EQ-5D-5L, pain assessed by visual analogue score, Constant-Murley score including elbow range of motion and anchor-questions collected at all timepoints throughout the trial. All complications will be reported including; infection, nerve or vascular injury, surgical revisions (implant malpositioning, hardware failure, aseptic loosening and peri-implant fracture), major adverse cardiovascular events, other major adverse events and mortality. SHAFT will provide information on the effectiveness of two standard treatments for humeral shaft fractures, while taking the dilemmas within the population into account.
Detailed description
We will conduct a pragmatic multicenter, randomized, controlled, outcome assessor-blinded, clinical superiority trial. The objective is to compare surgical fixation of humeral shaft fracture to non-surgical treatment with early identification and treatment of delayed union by a patient-reported outcome after 52 weeks. .
Null-hypothesis:
The DASH score at 52 weeks after surgical treatment is not superior to non-surgical treatment with the option of early crossover surgery in patients with humeral shaft fractures
The trial population is divided in two age-groups due to the changes in DASH score by age. The definition of delayed union differs in the young and elderly population to consider dissimilarity in bone healing rates:
1. SHAFT-Y for the young with an age cut-off of 18 to 64 years. The early identification and treatment of delayed union is set to 6 to 12 weeks 2. SHAFT-E for the elder with an age cut-off +65 years. The early identification and treatment of delayed union is set to 12 to 26 weeks
Sites from Denmark, Sweden and Norway have been recruited and spans from academic level I to level III trauma centers
287 patients (n=163 for SHAFT-Y, n=124 for SHAFT-E) with a humeral shaft fracture will be equally randomized to surgical treatment or non-surgical treatment in each group.
Patients admitted to the emergency department in one of the trial sites and fulfil the eligibility criteria, will be invited to enroll into the trial. They will be given time to consider and be scheduled for a consultation with a trial worker within 10 days. If written consent is obtained at the consultation, randomization will occur immediately after.
Treatment will be performed within 14 days after injury
* Surgical treatment. The specific treatment is decided by the treating surgeon/department * Non-surgical treatment with the option of early secondary surgery from 6-12 weeks for SHAFT-Y and 12-26 weeks for SHAFT-E
Patients can be offered to undergo early crossover fixation with a surgical procedure of the surgeon's choice, if one of these criteria are met:
* Unacceptable pain experienced by the patient * Severe pain with gross instability of the fracture site assessed by: * Unable to en bloc elevate the arm due to clear fracture instability * Gentle manipulation of the fracture site. Gentle manipulation should respect the risk of callus breakage * Severe problems tolerating the brace, e.g. discomfort, skin irritation, wounds, hygiene problems.
The patients that undergo early crossover surgery will have the reason for crossover thoroughly noted. We anticipate the surgical procedures will be similar to the ones previously mentioned with the possible addition of bone graft.
A computerized database software, Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) will be used to generate an irreversible random allocation sequence and perform block randomization with selected block sized of 2 and 4, which will be stratified on site and age (18-64 and +65). Patients will be assigned to the trial with an allocation of 1:1 to either surgical treatment or non-surgical treatment. The trial worker acquires the allocated treatment from the central coordinator with randomization rights to REDCap. The trial worker then initiates the treatment, either by scheduling the surgery date or applying the chosen non-surgical method.
The two groups (SHAFT-Y and SHAFT-E) require individual sample size calculations. Two standard deviations (SDs) were obtained from the data of the FISH trial(13) and were separated in age groups of 18-64 years and 65 years and above. By the distribution-based approach, one half a SD corresponds to the minimal important change (MIC). The calculations are powered to detect a MIC of 7 points in the young and 10 points in the elderly group in DASH, respectively. Two independent means sample size calculation were performed. For SHAFT-Y the following data were included: Mean difference= 7.0, SD= 14.91, α= 0.05 and power= 0.8. For SHAFT-E the following data were included: Mean difference= 10.0, SD= 18.59, α= 0.05 and power= 0.8. Based on the preceding assumptions and including an attrition of 15%, the total sample size is estimated to 163 patients for SHAFT-Y and 124 patients for SHAFT-E.
Primary analysis Descriptive statistics will be used to report demographic data. Demographic data and outcome measures will be tested visually and statistically (i.e. Shapiro Wilks test). Numeric variables will be summarized by means, standard deviations and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Median and interquartile ranges will be used when normal distribution is not met. Categorical variables will be summarized by frequency and proportion. For group comparison with numerical data, a student's t-test will be used if data is normally distributed, otherwise a non-parametric test will be used. For categorical data a Chi-square test will be used for group comparison. An intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the primary outcome will be conducted by univariable linear regression, including all patients that do not meet the withdrawal criteria and will be conducted to minimize bias within results. A sensitivity analysis will test the effects of non-adherence to protocol by conducting a per-protocol analysis and includes only patients who comply with the protocol. For missing data points in an outcome measure, a multiple imputation analysis using predictive covariates (age, sex, smoking, alcohol, UCLA activity, ASA grade)(50-52) will be conducted to deal with nonresponse bias. For comparison we will carry out a sensitivity analysis excluding all the missing values.
Data will be considered statistically significant if p-values \< 0.0471.
Secondary analysis In order to validate data a linear regression analysis will be computed with DASH score as the dependent variable and treatment modality as the independent variable. Additional regression analysis will be carried out between the early crossover group and the primary treatments. A multivariate regression analysis will be conducted to adjust for potential confounders. Variables adjusted for are: age, sex, smoking, alcohol, UCLA activity, ASA grade. Furthermore, we will analyze the longitudinal observations by applying a linear mixed effects regression model, including modality and time as well as a modality-time interaction as fixed effects and a random intercept for each patient. Data will be summarized as coefficients with 95% CIs and variance will be summarized as r-squares, adjusted r-squares, predicted r-squares, standard errors. Coefficients will be considered statistically significant if p-values \< 0.05.
Outcome timepoints Subjective and objective outcome measures will be obtained at following time points: pre-injury, baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks, 52 weeks, 2 years and 5 years.
Interventions
- Procedure Surgical treatment
We anticipate that surgical treatment will include plate osteosynthesis (MIPO and ORIF), intramedullary nailing (antegrade and retrograde) and external fixation. Plate and nail types, screw configuration and surgical approaches will be decided by the surgeon. The procedure will be conducted or supervised by a senior consultant. - Device Non-surgical treatment
Non-surgical treatment will include sugar tong, splint, plaster splints, hanging casts, or functional bracing as the Sarmiento brace and will be worn until a surgeon removes it. If the surgeon deems it appropriate, participants will be offered to undergo early secondary surgery with a surgical procedure of their choice. The participants will be recorded and the reason will be noted. We anticipate the surgical procedures will be similar to the previous mentioned and perhaps with the addition of b
Primary outcome measures
- Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score [Time frame: 52 weeks]
Secondary outcome measures (7)
- EuroQol-5 Domain (EQ-5D-5L) [Time frame: Pre-Injury, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks, 52 weeks]
- Rate of complications [Time frame: Up to 52 weeks]
- Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [Time frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks, 52 weeks]
- Anchor question [Time frame: 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks, 52 weeks]
- Constant-Murley score [Time frame: 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks, 52 weeks]
- Elbow range of motion [Time frame: 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks, 52 weeks]
- Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score [Time frame: Pre-injury, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks]
Eligibility criteria
- Fracture types 12A-C (OTA/AO classification)
a. Includes minimal displaced extra-articular fracture extensions to the proximal humerus (less than a 1 cm or 45 degree angulation)
- Treatment within 14 days from trauma
- Age 18-64 years for SHAFT-Y and ≥65 years for SHAFT-E
- Patients must understand the information given and be able to read and speak Danish, Swedish or Norwegian to complete the study paperwork
All fracture extensions involving the distal humerus and displaced fracture extensions involving the proximal humerus will not be included. Isolated fractures to the proximal or the distal end of the humerus are not eligible for screening. The proximal and distal end segments of the humerus are defined by squares of which the sides are the widest length of the epiphysis/metaphysis in question on the anterior-posterior view.
Exclusion criteria
- Inability to give informed consent
- Undisplaced shaft fracture (less than a cortex-wide displacement in all radiographic plane)
- Vascular injury in ipsilateral arm
- Polytrauma (defined as a trauma with one or more concurrent fractures to the upper extremities or other trauma absolute indications for surgical intervention)
- Pathological fracture
- Open fracture
- BMI > 40
- Health conditions preventing either treatment
Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.
Healthy volunteers: No
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Model
- Parallel assignment
- Masking
- Single blind
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
Study locations
Denmark · 14 centers
- Aabenraa Hospital — Aabenraa
- Aarhus Hospital — Aarhus
- Bispebjerg Hospital — Copenhagen
- Hvidovre Hospital — Copenhagen
- Esbjerg Hospital — Esbjerg
- Aalborg-Farsø Hospital — Farsø
- Herlev-Gentofte Hospital — Gentofte Municipality
- New North Zealand Hospital — Hillerød
- … and 6 more centers
Sweden · 4 centers
- Danderyd University Hospital — Stockholm
- Karolinska University Hospital — Stockholm
- Umeå University Hospital — Umeå
- Uppsala University Hospital — Uppsala
Finland · 2 centers
- Helsinki University Hospital — Helsinki
- Tampere University Hospital — Tampere
Norway · 2 centers
- Oslo University Hospital (Ullevål) — Oslo
- Stanvanger University Hospital — Stavanger
Publications
- Kim SH, Szabo RM, Marder RA. Epidemiology of humerus fractures in the United States: nationwide emergency department sample, 2008. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Mar;64(3):407-14. doi: 10.1002/acr.21563. PMID 22162357
- 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. PMID 17075092
- Gosler MW, Testroote M, Morrenhof JW, Janzing HM. Surgical versus non-surgical interventions for treating humeral shaft fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jan 18;1(1):CD008832. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008832.pub2. PMID 22258990
- Harkin FE, Large RJ. Humeral shaft fractures: union outcomes in a large cohort. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Nov;26(11):1881-1888. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.07.001. PMID 29054684
- Matsunaga FT, Tamaoki MJ, Matsumoto MH, Netto NA, Faloppa F, Belloti JC. Minimally Invasive Osteosynthesis with a Bridge Plate Versus a Functional Brace for Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Apr 5;99(7):583-592. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00628. PMID 28375891
- van Middendorp JJ, Kazacsay F, Lichtenhahn P, Renner N, Babst R, Melcher G. Outcomes following operative and non-operative management of humeral midshaft fractures: a prospective, observational cohort study of 47 patients. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2011 Jun;37(3):287-96. doi: 10.1007/s00068-011-0099-0. Epub 2011 Apr 1. PMID 21837261
- Gottschalk MB, Carpenter W, Hiza E, Reisman W, Roberson J. Humeral Shaft Fracture Fixation: Incidence Rates and Complications as Reported by American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Candidates. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Sep 7;98(17):e71. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.01049. PMID 27605696
- Ramo L, Sumrein BO, Lepola V, Lahdeoja T, Ranstam J, Paavola M, Jarvinen T, Taimela S; FISH Investigators. Effect of Surgery vs Functional Bracing on Functional Outcome Among Patients With Closed Displaced Humeral Shaft Fractures: The FISH Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020 May 12;323(18):1792-1801. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3182. PMID 32396179
Identifiers
NCT: NCT04574336 · SHAFT