NCT04660734

Brief Summary

Background: Acetabular fractures result from violent trauma, and their incidence has been increasing in recent years. The Kocher-Langenbeck surgical approach is used for the internal fixation of displaced fractures of the posterior structures of the acetabulum. The quality of the reduction and the stability of osteosynthesis directly influence the function of the repaired acetabulum. In the surgical management of acetabulum fractures, 3D printing of a bone model is increasingly used during preoperative planning by trauma surgeons worldwide. Questions: Is there a difference in the surgical time of the Kocher-langenbeck reduction and fixation of the posterior structures of the acetabulum between 3D printing (which allows for shaping of the reconstruction plate prior to surgery) and the conventional technique? Are there any differences in complications between the two techniques? Are there any short-term differences in the functional and radiographic scores between 3D printing and the conventional technique? Methods: 109 consecutive patients who sustained fractures of the acetabulum were screened for inclusion. 43 patient were studied. The first group (G1) consisted of 20 patients who underwent prior molding of the osteosynthesis plate on a 3D-printed model. The second group (G2 or control group) included 23 patients who underwent surgery using the conventional technique. We compared surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, the difference between pre- and postoperative hemoglobin, and the onset of early infection, paralysis of the sciatic nerve, and deep vein thrombosis.

Trial Health

100
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
109

participants targeted

Target at P50-P75 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Sep 2016

Typical duration for not_applicable

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

September 1, 2016

Completed
2.5 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

February 28, 2019

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

February 28, 2019

Completed
1.7 years until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

November 11, 2020

Completed
28 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

December 9, 2020

Completed
Last Updated

December 9, 2020

Status Verified

November 1, 2020

Enrollment Period

2.5 years

First QC Date

November 11, 2020

Last Update Submit

December 2, 2020

Conditions

Keywords

Acetabulum

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (3)

  • Quality of fracture reduction

    CT scan displacement of fracture as one of three: * Anatomical (residual displacement \<1 mm) * Imperfect (residual displacement 1 to 3 mm) * Poor (residual reduction \>3 mm)

    30 months with minimum of 18 months

  • radiographic criteria

    Matta scoring system a grade of : * Excellent :indicates a normal appearance of the hip; * Good: mild changes, small osteophytes, moderate (one-millimeter) narrowing of the joint, and minimum sclerosis; a grade of * Fair:intermediate changes, moderate osteophytes, moderate (less than 50 per cent) narrowing of the joint, and moderate sclerosis; and a grade of * Poor: advanced changes, large osteophytes, severe (more than 50 per cent) narrowing of the joint, collapse or wear of the femoral head, and acetabular wear.

    30 months with minimum of 18 months

  • Clinical score

    Modified Harris Hip Score includes the pain and function components: The maximum score of 91 is multiplied by 1.1 to give a total score out of 100 Modified Hip Harris score * Excellent: 90-100 * Good: 80-90 * Fair 70-80 * Poor: \<70

    30 months with minimum of 18 months

Study Arms (2)

3D printing group

EXPERIMENTAL

Group 1 (G1) consisted of 20 patients who underwent preoperative molding of the osteosynthesis plate on a 3D printed model of the pelvis. A preoperative scan of the healthy hemi-pelvis was used to create the 3D-printed model for patients in G1 according to the following three-step methodology: 1) A scanographic acquisition of images was performed using a multi-strip scanner in thin sections. These images were recorded as digital images in the standard medical format of digital imaging and communications ; 2) A digital, 3D model of the pelvis in the stereolithography format was created to digitally treat the 2D images. The individualization of the healthy hemi-pelvis, to which a "mirror effect" was applied allowed for the creation of a symmetrical 3D image, as hemi-pelvises are globally symmetrical. 3) A 3D printer was used to create a physical, 3D-printed model of the affected hemi-pelvis using polylactic acid.

Procedure: Fractures of the posterior structures of the acetabulum treated by fixation using the Kocher-Langenbeck approach.

conventional technique group

EXPERIMENTAL

Group 2 (G2 or control group) included 23 patients who underwent surgery using the conventional technique.The patients in the control group (G2) underwent surgery following the conventional procedure based on radiographic and CT images with 3D reconstructions.

Procedure: Fractures of the posterior structures of the acetabulum treated by fixation using the Kocher-Langenbeck approach.

Interventions

Fracture fixation of posterior structures of acetabulum by using the surgical procedure of Kocher-Langenbeck approach

3D printing groupconventional technique group

Eligibility Criteria

Age23 Years - 57 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsAdult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

  • Fractures of the posterior structures of the acetabulum
  • treatment using the Kocher-Langenbeck approach.

You may not qualify if:

  • age over than 60 years
  • treatment approach other than the Kocher-Langenbeck's ( eg orthopedic method)
  • open fractures of the pelvis
  • fractures of the acetabulum older than 3-weeks
  • polytrauma with/or multiple fractures.
  • unavailability for follow-up
  • insufficient clinical and radiographic data.

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Related Publications (3)

  • Wang P, Kandemir U, Zhang B, Fei C, Zhuang Y, Zhang K. The effect of new preoperative preparation method compared to conventional method in complex acetabular fractures: minimum 2-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Feb;141(2):215-222. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03472-w. Epub 2020 May 26.

    PMID: 32458075BACKGROUND
  • Hsu CL, Chou YC, Li YT, Chen JE, Hung CC, Wu CC, Shen HC, Yeh TT. Pre-operative virtual simulation and three-dimensional printing techniques for the surgical management of acetabular fractures. Int Orthop. 2019 Aug;43(8):1969-1976. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4111-8. Epub 2018 Aug 20.

  • Bouabdellah M, Bensalah M, Kamoun C, Bellil M, Kooli M, Hadhri K. Advantages of three-dimensional printing in the management of acetabular fracture fixed by the Kocher-Langenbeck approach: randomised controlled trial. Int Orthop. 2022 May;46(5):1155-1163. doi: 10.1007/s00264-022-05319-y. Epub 2022 Feb 1.

Study Officials

  • Mondher Kooli, PhD

    Orthopedic and traumatologic department of Charles Nicolle Hospital

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
DOUBLE
Who Masked
PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
Masking Details
Clinical and radiographic results at the last follow-up were evaluated by one surgeon who did not participate in the surgical management of the patients
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Model Details: Two techniques for treatment of posterior structure of acetabular fracture
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
MD

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

November 11, 2020

First Posted

December 9, 2020

Study Start

September 1, 2016

Primary Completion

February 28, 2019

Study Completion

February 28, 2019

Last Updated

December 9, 2020

Record last verified: 2020-11

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

No: There is not a plan to make IPD available.