The goal of this clinical trial is to assess the feasibility of conducting a larger study comparing single implant fixation (SIF) and dual implant fixation (DIF) for treating distal femur fractures (DFF) in older or compromised adults. It will also evaluate the safety and effectiveness of these treatments. The main questions it aims to answer are: * Can DIF improve patient outcomes compared to SIF in older or compromised adults? * How feasible is it to recruit and retain participants for this trial? Participants will: 1. Be randomly assigned to receive either SIF or DIF for their DFF treatment 2. Visit the clinic for follow-ups and assessments of their recovery and bone healing, including potential ultrasound imaging for detecting complications like non-union.
The Investigators aim to conduct a multi-centre, preliminary RCT to determine the feasibility and inform the design of a definitive trial comparing patient-important outcomes between patients aged 40 years and older with distal femur fractures managed with SIF vs. DIF. Primary Aim: Evaluate the feasibility of conducting a larger, definitive trial examining outcomes following SIF vs. DIF for DFFs in older or compromised adults. Our primary outcomes for this objective will be 1) recruitment and retention at the participating sites; and 2) site investigator feedback regarding barriers to protocol adherence. Secondary Aims: Pilot the collection of candidate outcome measures to determine the optimal primary end point and sample size for a definitive trial. Our primary outcome for this objective will be the Oxford Knee Score, and secondary outcomes will include a range of patient-reported quality of life (QOL) measures, and objective clinical measures. In addition, the study includes an ultrasound sub-study aimed at evaluating the feasibility of using ultrasound imaging to monitor bone healing and detect complications like non-union in patients with DFF. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either SIF or DIF, with SIF generally involving a single implant (such as a lateral locked plate or retrograde intramedullary nail) and DIF using a combination of implants (e.g., dual plates or a nail and plate). This randomized design will enable us to assess whether dual implant fixation offers improved clinical outcomes, such as reduced morbidity and faster weight-bearing recovery, compared to the more traditional single implant fixation. Non-Randomized Participation: The investigators will collect data surrounding the number of eligible patients approached for consent, eligible patients not approached for consent and reason why, along with the proportion of patients who do not consent and reasons why to refine our strategy for the definitive trial. For patients who are excluded due to a lack of clinical equipoise, the investigators will provide the option of participating in a concurrent cohort study.This study will record the same variables as the RCT. The trial will take place at four major trauma centers across Canada: London Health Sciences Centre - Victoria Hospital, St. Michael's Hospital, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Alberta Health Services Centre. Participants will receive follow-up visits at these centers, which will include clinical check-ups, rehabilitation sessions, and imaging assessments to track their recovery progress. The data gathered from this feasibility study will provide critical insights into the practicality of a larger-scale trial and will help inform future treatment strategies for distal femur fractures.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
44
This intervention involves using one implant for fracture fixation. The implant can be either a lateral locked plate or a retrograde intramedullary nail, based on the surgeon's preference.
This intervention involves using two implants for fracture fixation. The combination can be either dual plate fixation (DPF) or combination nail plate fixation (NPF) .
Fraser Orthopaedic Institute
New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
NOT_YET_RECRUITINGLondon Health Sciences Centre
London, Ontario, Canada
RECRUITINGFeasibility Outcomes - Recruitment
Recruitment - 1) Recruitment (number of patients enrolled per-month). Success will be considered as each site enrolling a minimum mean of 0.6 patients per-month. This is a conservative estimate based on our previous trials in similar populations, and we expect that each site will screen a minimum of twice this number. * Number of patients enrolled per month * Success if each site able to enroll mean of 0.6 patients per month
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year.
Feasibility Outcomes - Retention
Retention - (proportion of patients that complete one-year follow-up). Success will be considered a minimum of 85% of patients with complete one-year data. * Proportion of patients that complete 1 year follow up * Success: 85%
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year.
Functional Ability
Via the validated Oxford Knee Score. It ranges from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating better outcomes (i.e., less pain and better function).
Time frame: 2 year
Pain rating
Via the numeric pain rating scale (NRS). 0-10; higher scores = worse pain.
Time frame: 2 years
Functional ability
Via the PROMIS-Physical Function Short. Higher = better for function domains Higher = worse for symptom domains (e.g., pain, fatigue). Form.
Time frame: 2 years
Weight-bearing
Using the Function IndeX for Trauma (FIX-IT) score.0-100; higher scores = better function.
Time frame: 2 years
Mobility
Via the Extended Timed Up and Go (TUG) test starting at 3-months.
Time frame: 3, 6, 12 and 24 months.
Health-related quality of life (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression).
via Euro-Qol 5 Dimension (EQ5D). Higher scores = better health-related quality of life.
Time frame: 2 years
Health-resource utilization
Using the patient-reported Ambulatory and Home Care Record.
Time frame: 2 years
Complications
Including non-union, malunion, infection, implant failure and arthritis.
Time frame: 2 years
Re-operations (Type)
Reviewing the type of secondary procedure
Time frame: 2 years
Re-operations (Reason)
Reviewing the reason for the secondary procedure
Time frame: 2 years
Radiographic
To assess fracture healing and union. Anteroposterior and lateral x-rays of all patients will be obtained at the standard follow-up intervals. The independent adjudication committee will assess fracture healing and union.
Time frame: 2 years
Successful initiation of sites
Site fully approved, trained, and ready to begin recruiting participants.
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 24 months.
Data quality
Proportion of CRFs with no missing data/outstanding queries
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 24 months.
Randomization errors/cross-overs
Success: \<5%, at least 90% adherence to allocated surgical technique
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 24 months.
The proportion of patients instructed to WBAT in each group
Success: a minimum of 80% of patients are instructed to WBAT postoperative in each group
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 24 months.
Barriers to protocol adherence
qualitative
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 24 months.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.