Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=40 Randomized Double-blind Treatment

Effectiveness Between Two Surgical Techniques for Reconstruction of Humeral Proximal Extremity Fractures

A02.835.232.087.090.400.400

Enrolled (actual)
40
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Apr 2020
Primary outcome: Primary: Effectiveness Will be Measured for AMERICAN SHOULDER AND ELBOW (ASES) Score — 66; 77 score on a scale — p=0.048

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Hemiarthroplasty (Procedure); reverse arthroplasty (Procedure)
Age
Older Adult · 70+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
Carlos Alvarez
Primary completion
Aug 2015

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Effectiveness Will be Measured for AMERICAN SHOULDER AND ELBOW (ASES) Score
66; 77 0.048 sig
PRIMARY
Effectiveness Will be Measured for Constant Score
53; 70 0.001 sig
PRIMARY
Effectiveness Will be Measured for DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Score
26; 13 0.011 sig

Summary

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two surgical techniques for the treatments of proximal extremity humeral fractures and fractures luxation in three o four fragments of Neer's classification.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Patients with humeral proximal extremity fracture or fracture luxation in three or four fragments of Neer's classification.
  • Patient 70 years older
  • Signed informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria

  • Any condition to make worse the functional recovery or avoid the patient collaboration with the rehabilitation program ( cognitive disability, neurological pathology…)
  • Glenohumeral osteoarthritis
  • Inflammatory arthropathies
  • Previous cuff arthropatyy
  • High surgical or anesthesia risk
  • Any disease or condition that the investigator finds decisive for exclusion.
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02075476). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search