Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Recruiting
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT05214651 |
Other study ID # |
M2021389 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Recruiting |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
June 8, 2022 |
Est. completion date |
May 2026 |
Study information
Verified date |
January 2024 |
Source |
Peking University Third Hospital |
Contact |
Ping Liu, M.D. |
Phone |
01082267020 |
Email |
bjusmlp[@]126.com |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
The study is designed as a randomized controlled trial, a total of 52 participants with large
- massive rotator cuff tears will be prospectively enrolled and randomly divided into 2
groups according to the applied repairing technique: novel double row technique group and
suture bridge double row technique group. The functional outcome was measured at the
preoperatively, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively, using the visual analog scale (VAS)
for pain, active and passive ROM, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES)
score, and University of California Los Angeles shoulder score (UCLA). The anatomic outcome
was evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The
clinical results were compared between the novel double row technique group and suture bridge
double row technique group.
Description:
The purpose of this study is to compare a novel double row technique with suture bridge
double row technique in the arthroscopic repair of massive-large rotator cuff tears
clinically. The study is designed as a randomized controlled trial. A total of 52
participants with large - massive rotator cuff tears will be prospectively enrolled and
randomly divided into 2 groups according to the applied repairing technique: novel double row
technique group and suture bridge double row technique group.
The investigators prospectively enrolled participants who met the following inclusion
criteria: preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis of a large - massive sized
rotator cuff tear (>3cm), which was confirmed during operation; chronic tear; older than 17
years and younger than 75 years; without surgical contraindications and willing to
participate. The investigators excluded patients with poor quality rotator cuff and
irreparable tear; severe glenohumeral arthritis; previous shoulder surgery; accompanied by
dislocation or fracture of shoulder; refusal to participate.
Each participant, assigned using a randomization table, was assessed by a clinical
researcher, who was blinded to the grouping, at the following time points: preoperatively; 3,
6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, active and
passive ROM, and functional scores were assessed at each time point. The functional scores
including the Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and
University of California Los Angeles shoulder score (UCLA). Anatomic healing was evaluated
using MRI at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. An experienced musculoskeletal
radiologist interpreted the MRI and determined the healing failure rate. On the basis of the
MRI findings, type IV or V of the Sugaya classification was regarded as healing failure.
Based on the previous study, the retear rate of large to massive rotator cuff tears treated
with suture bridge double row technique was assumed to be 28.3%. Based on the investigators'
previous clinical data on large to massive rotator cuff tears, it is assumed that the retear
rate of large to massive rotator cuff tears treated with novel double row technique is 1.0%.
Differences in primary end points between the two groups were analyzed using chi-square
tests. Set α=0.05, power is 0.80, the sample ratio of the two groups was 1:1. The sample size
was estimated with PASS 15.0. A total of 46 patients, with 23 in each group, had sufficient
power to detect statistical differences between groups. In consideration of the uncertainty
of the effect and the possible loss of follow-up, the design effect was assumed to 10%.
Therefore, the total sample size of this study should be more than 46÷90%≈51. To facilitate
randomization, the sample size was determined to be 52 patients, with 26 patients in each
group.
Variables such as age, sex, tear size, and functional scores were analyzed, and their mean
values were obtained. Continuous data were presented as the mean ± SD, and were analyzed
using the independent t test. The retear rates between the two groups were analyzed using
chi-square tests. Differences in values between the 2 groups were set at P < .05 to be
statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 15.0