Skip to content

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Surgical Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures. Randomized Controlled Trial

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Surgical Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures. Randomized Controlled Trial.

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01719887
Enrollment
82
Registered
2012-11-01
Start date
2012-11-04
Completion date
2028-01-31
Last updated
2025-04-11

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Fracture

Keywords

humerus, humeral, shaft, diaphysis, fracture, RCT

Brief summary

Humeral shaft fractures represent 1-3% of all fractures and 20% of the humeral fractures. These fractures have historically been treated mainly conservatively with good results. Recent development in fracture treatment and findings that certain fracture types are more prone to non-union and bracing-related functional problems of adjacent joints are somewhat common have caused increasing interest in treating these fractures surgically. Return to activities is also considered to be quicker among surgically treated patients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Patients with an unilateral humeral shaft fracture who are willing to participate in the study after informed consent are randomly assigned to two different treatment methods: 1. Surgical treatment with an open reduction and internal fixation with a 4,5mm locking plate. 2. Conservative treatment with functional bracing The randomization is done using blocked randomization (block sizes are not known by the enrolling or assigning physician) and stratification is done according to fracture type (AO-OTA type A vs. type B/C) and radial nerve status (total/subtotal motor palsy vs. no palsy). Standard follow-up visits at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months are arranged. Later follow-up visits are arranged at 2, 5 and 10 years for the study purpose. Patients fill evaluation forms and clinical and radiological assessments are made. The physiotherapist doing objective functional measurements is blinded to treatment method. Both study groups receive physiotherapy after the initial treatment.

Interventions

DEVICEConservative treatment

Conservative treatment with functional brace.

Operative treatment with open reduction and internal fixation using 4,5mm locking compression plate.

OTHERPhysiotherapy

Physiotherapy is arranged to both groups at 3 and 9 wks.

Sponsors

Helsinki University Central Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Tampere University Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare
CollaboratorOTHER_GOV
Töölö Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Over 18 years old patient who agrees to the consent to participation in this study * Unilateral dislocated humeral shaft fracture (dislocation over thickness of the bone cortex, fracture below the level of insertion of pectoralis major muscle and 5 cm above the olecranon fossa) * Randomization can be done within 10 days and operation within 14 days after the initial trauma * Patient is willing to participate all follow-up visits

Exclusion criteria

* Bilateral humeral shaft fracture * A significant concomitant trauma of the same upper extremity that warrants operative treatment (fracture, tendon injury, soft tissue trauma) * Other fracture or abdominal/thoracal trauma that warrants operative treatment * Open fracture * Pathological fracture * Multi-trauma patient * Vascular injury * Plexus injury * Previous trauma in the same upper extremity that causes functional deficit * Trauma or condition that warrants use of walking aid (crutches, wheelchair etc) * Disease that affects significantly general condition of the patient * Significantly impaired ability to co-operate for any reason (substance abuse, mental disorder, dementia) * Unwilling to accept both treatment methods

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH)at 12 months

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Cost-effectiveness6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 yearsQuality-adjusted life years/months measured as a change in 15D tool, pain-NRS and other outcome measures.
Subjective assessment of the function of the upper extremity6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 yearsNumerical Rating Scale (NRS) 0-10
Constant Score6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Elbow ROM6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Complications6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 yearsIncidence of complications (i.e. non-union, malunion, re-fracture, reoperation, infection and iatrogenic radial palsy) is recorded and compared between study groups.
Subjective assessment of the function of the elbow6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 yearsNumerical Rating Scale (NRS) 0-10
The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH)at 6 wks, 3, 6 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Pain at rest and in activity, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) 0-10at 6 wks, 3, 6 mo, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Percentage of patients with acceptable symptom state (PASS)at 6 wks, 3, 6 mo, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years
Health-related quality of life (15D)6 wks, 3, 6, 12 mo, 2, 5, 10 years

Countries

Finland

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 2, 2026