Pelvic and Acetabular Fracture: A Prospective Observational Study

Acetabular Fracture Clinical Trial

— PACE  

Official title:

Functional, Clinical, and Performance Outcomes Following Pelvic and Acetabular Fracture: A Prospective Observational Study

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04615104
• Other study ID #: IRB00082574
• Secondary ID: 10-19-18E
• Status: Recruiting
• Start date: January 1, 2020
• Est. completion date: December 2028

Study information

• Verified date: January 2024
• Source: Wake Forest University Health Sciences
• Contact: Christine Churchill, MA
• Phone: 7043556947
• Email: christine.churchill[@]atriumhealth.org
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Observational

Clinical Trial Summary

The purpose of this study is to understand the trajectory of function and self-reported outcomes of patients following pelvic and acetabular, treated both operatively and nonoperatively.

Description:

The goal of the study study is to prospectively capture data from patients following pelvic and acetabular fractures, treated both operatively and nonoperatively, in order to understand the trajectory of functional and self-reported outcomes as well as to answer critical questions about treatment. Performance assessment data and patient-reported outcome measures utilizing the NIH PROMIS tool will be collected and analyzed for patients following pelvic or acetabular fracture, regardless of treatment.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Recruiting
• Enrollment: 200
• Est. completion date: December 2028
• Est. primary completion date: December 2026
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Fracture of the pelvic ring
• Fracture of the acetabulum

Exclusion Criteria:

• Patients unwilling to provide consent to participate.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Acetabular Fracture
• Fractures, Bone
• Hip Fractures
• Pelvic Fracture
• Pubic Rami Fracture

Intervention

Procedure:
• Operative
surgical treatment
• Nonoperative
nonsurgical treatment

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Atrium Health- Carolinas Medical Center	Charlotte	North Carolina

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Wake Forest University Health Sciences

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (21)

Borg T, Berg P, Fugl-Meyer K, Larsson S. Health-related quality of life and life satisfaction in patients following surgically treated pelvic ring fractures. A prospective observational study with two years follow-up. Injury. 2010 Apr;41(4):400-4. doi: 10 — View Citation

Brenneman FD, Katyal D, Boulanger BR, Tile M, Redelmeier DA. Long-term outcomes in open pelvic fractures. J Trauma. 1997 May;42(5):773-7. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199705000-00003. — View Citation

Cole JD, Blum DA, Ansel LJ. Outcome after fixation of unstable posterior pelvic ring injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Aug;(329):160-79. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199608000-00020. — View Citation

Collinge CA, Archdeacon MT, LeBus G. Saddle-horn injury of the pelvis. The injury, its outcomes, and associated male sexual dysfunction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jul;91(7):1630-6. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00477. — View Citation

Demetriades D, Karaiskakis M, Toutouzas K, Alo K, Velmahos G, Chan L. Pelvic fractures: epidemiology and predictors of associated abdominal injuries and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2002 Jul;195(1):1-10. doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(02)01197-3. — View Citation

Dujardin FH, Hossenbaccus M, Duparc F, Biga N, Thomine JM. Long-term functional prognosis of posterior injuries in high-energy pelvic disruption. J Orthop Trauma. 1998 Mar-Apr;12(3):145-50; discussion 150-1. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199803000-00001. — View Citation

Hoffmann MF, Jones CB, Sietsema DL. Persistent impairment after surgically treated lateral compression pelvic injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Aug;470(8):2161-72. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2247-1. — View Citation

Katsoulis E, Giannoudis PV. Impact of timing of pelvic fixation on functional outcome. Injury. 2006 Dec;37(12):1133-42. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2006.07.017. Epub 2006 Nov 7. — View Citation

Lefaivre KA, Slobogean G, Starr AJ, Guy P, O'brien PJ, Macadam SA. Methodology and interpretation of radiographic outcomes in surgically treated pelvic fractures: a systematic review. J Orthop Trauma. 2012 Aug;26(8):474-81. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182323a — View Citation

Lefaivre KA, Slobogean GP, Valeriote J, O'Brien PJ, Macadam SA. Reporting and interpretation of the functional outcomes after the surgical treatment of disruptions of the pelvic ring: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Apr;94(4):549-55. doi: — View Citation

Metze M, Tiemann AH, Josten C. Male sexual dysfunction after pelvic fracture. J Trauma. 2007 Aug;63(2):394-401. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000241145.02748.df. — View Citation

Mullis BH, Sagi HC. Minimum 1-year follow-up for patients with vertical shear sacroiliac joint dislocations treated with iliosacral screws: does joint ankylosis or anatomic reduction contribute to functional outcome? J Orthop Trauma. 2008 May-Jun;22(5):29 — View Citation

Nepola JV, Trenhaile SW, Miranda MA, Butterfield SL, Fredericks DC, Riemer BL. Vertical shear injuries: is there a relationship between residual displacement and functional outcome? J Trauma. 1999 Jun;46(6):1024-9; discussion 1029-30. doi: 10.1097/0000537 — View Citation

Oliver CW, Twaddle B, Agel J, Routt ML Jr. Outcome after pelvic ring fractures: evaluation using the medical outcomes short form SF-36. Injury. 1996 Nov;27(9):635-41. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(96)00100-3. — View Citation

Papakostidis C, Kanakaris NK, Kontakis G, Giannoudis PV. Pelvic ring disruptions: treatment modalities and analysis of outcomes. Int Orthop. 2009 Apr;33(2):329-38. doi: 10.1007/s00264-008-0555-6. Epub 2008 May 7. — View Citation

Pohlemann T, Gansslen A, Schellwald O, Culemann U, Tscherne H. Outcome after pelvic ring injuries. Injury. 1996;27 Suppl 2:B31-8. — View Citation

Reilly MC, Zinar DM, Matta JM. Neurologic injuries in pelvic ring fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Aug;(329):28-36. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199608000-00005. — View Citation

Suzuki T, Shindo M, Soma K, Minehara H, Nakamura K, Uchino M, Itoman M. Long-term functional outcome after unstable pelvic ring fracture. J Trauma. 2007 Oct;63(4):884-8. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000235888.90489.fc. — View Citation

Tornetta P 3rd, Matta JM. Outcome of operatively treated unstable posterior pelvic ring disruptions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Aug;(329):186-93. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199608000-00022. — View Citation

Vallier HA, Cureton BA, Schubeck D. Pelvic ring injury is associated with sexual dysfunction in women. J Orthop Trauma. 2012 May;26(5):308-13. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31821d700e. — View Citation

Wong JM, Bucknill A. Fractures of the pelvic ring. Injury. 2017 Apr;48(4):795-802. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.11.021. Epub 2013 Dec 2. — View Citation

* Note: There are 21 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Return to work/activities	Average time to return to work and activities	0-24 months following injury
Secondary	Change in patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS 29) scores	The PROMIS-29 assesses seven health domains: physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain interference, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Each of the seven domains has four questions which are scored on a five-point Likert scale. The PROMIS-29 scales will be scored using a T-score metric method available at the Assessment Center website (http://assessmentcenter.net). A score of 50 points represents the population average for each scale, and 10 points represent one standard deviation. Higher scores mean more of the specific scale's construct, which may indicate a desirable or an undesirable outcome.	baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months
Secondary	Fracture Healing	Union rates as measured clinically and radiographically. Xrays will be collected from the electronic medical record.	0-24 months following injury
Secondary	Complications	Rates of readmission, reoperations and complications	0-24 months following injury
Secondary	Performance Measure- 10 meter walk test	Participants complete a modified 10 meter walk test which involves the subject starting from a standing position, walking 5 meters at a comfortable pace, turning around, and then walking back 5 meters to the original starting point. The test is repeated twice for each subject.	3, 6, 12 and 24 months
Secondary	Performance Measure- Five Time Sit to Stand Test	Participants begin from a seated position and are directed to come to a full standing position without push off assistance from upper extremities and then return to a seated position without upper extremity assist.	3, 6, 12 and 24 months
Secondary	Performance Measure- Timed Up and Go Test	Participants begin in a seated position. They are directed to stand and walk 3 meters to a cone on the floor. They are to round the cone in a continuous motion, walk back to the chair, turn again and be seated. The entire test is performed at a comfortable and safe speed for the patient.	3, 6, 12 and 24 months