Surgical Versus Non-surgical Treatment of Humeral SHAFT Fractures Compared by a Patient-reported Outcome: the Scandinavian Humeral DiAphyseal Fracture Trial (SHAFT)-a Study Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview

Journal Trials

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties General Medicine
Pharmacology

Date 2022 Jun 2

PMID 35655280

Authors

Dennis Karimi

Stig Brorson

Kaare S Midtgaard

Tore Fjalestad

Aksel Paulsen

Per Olerud

Carl Ekholm

Olof Wolf

Bjarke Viberg

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The outcome of non-surgical treatment is generally good, but the treatment course can be long and painful with approximately a quarter of the patients acquiring a nonunion. Both surgical and non-surgical treatment can have disabling consequences such as nerve injury, infection, and nonunion. The purpose of the study is to compare patient-reported outcomes after surgical and non-surgical treatment for humeral shaft fractures.

Methods: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) is planned with two study groups (SHAFT-Young and SHAFT-Elderly). A total of 287 eligible acute humeral shaft fractures are scheduled to be recruited and randomly allocated to surgical or non-surgical treatment with the option of early crossover due to delayed union. The surgical method within the allocation is decided by the surgeon. The primary outcome is the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score at 52 weeks, and is assessor blinded. The secondary outcomes are DASH score, EQ-5D-5L, pain assessed by visual analog score, Constant-Murley score including elbow range of motion, and anchor questions collected at all timepoints throughout the trial. All complications will be reported including; infection, nerve or vascular injury, surgical revisions (implant malpositioning, hardware failure, aseptic loosening, and peri-implant fracture), major adverse cardiovascular events, and mortality.

Discussion: The SHAFT trial is a pragmatic multicenter RCT, that will compare the effectiveness of the main strategies in humeral shaft fracture treatment. This will include a variety of fracture morphologies, while taking the dilemmas within the population into account by splitting the population by age and providing the orthopedic society with an interval for early crossover surgery.

Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04574336 . Registered on 5 October 2020.

Citing Articles

Validity and reliability of the Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) in one-year postoperative ankle fracture patients-a validation study.

Nguyen M, Iversen M, Harboe K, Dalen I, Paulsen A J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2025; 9(1):14.

PMID: 39907904 PMC: 11799495. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-025-00845-w.

Functional Outcomes in Aseptic Humeral Shaft Nonunion Treated With Plate Osteosynthesis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Mukhopadhaya J, Bhadani J, Ranjan R, Kushwaha S Indian J Orthop. 2025; 59(2):218-230.

PMID: 39886270 PMC: 11775364. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-024-01317-x.

Operative Management of Aseptic Humeral Shaft Nonunion: A Retrospective Study from Eastern India.

Mukhopadhaya J, Bhadani J, Ranjan R, Kushwaha S Indian J Orthop. 2024; 58(12):1793-1805.

PMID: 39664349 PMC: 11628460. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-024-01290-5.

Chest wall soft tissue thickness is associated with humeral shaft non-union: A radiographic study.

Chowdhury A, Peters K, Colaco H, MacLeod I Shoulder Elbow. 2024; 16(6):611-620.

PMID: 39650268 PMC: 11622316. DOI: 10.1177/17585732231190325.

References

Hudak P, Amadio P, Bombardier C . Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996; 29(6):602-8. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L. View

Walters S, Brazier J . Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14(6):1523-32. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0. View

Zhou Q . [Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals]. Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2015; 22(10):781-91. View

Ding L, He Z, Xiao H, Chai L, Xue F . Factors affecting the incidence of aseptic nonunion after surgical fixation of humeral diaphyseal fracture. J Orthop Sci. 2014; 19(6):973-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-014-0640-1. View

Kurup H, Hossain M, Andrew J . Dynamic compression plating versus locked intramedullary nailing for humeral shaft fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (6):CD005959. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005959.pub2. View

Bahreini M, Safaie A, Mirfazaelian H, Jalili M . How much change in pain score does really matter to patients?. Am J Emerg Med. 2019; 38(8):1641-1646. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.158489. View

Sarmiento A, Zagorski J, Zych G, Latta L, Capps C . Functional bracing for the treatment of fractures of the humeral diaphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82(4):478-86. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200004000-00003. View

Denard Jr A, Richards J, Obremskey W, Tucker M, Floyd M, Herzog G . Outcome of nonoperative vs operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a retrospective study of 213 patients. Orthopedics. 2010; 33(8). DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20100625-16. View

Mahabier K, Den Hartog D, Theyskens N, Verhofstad M, Van Lieshout E . Reliability, validity, responsiveness, and minimal important change of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and Constant-Murley scores in patients with a humeral shaft fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016; 26(1):e1-e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.07.072. View

10.

Chan A, Tetzlaff J, Gotzsche P, Altman D, Mann H, Berlin J . SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013; 346:e7586. PMC: 3541470. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e7586. View

11.

Koch P, Gross D, Gerber C . The results of functional (Sarmiento) bracing of humeral shaft fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002; 11(2):143-50. DOI: 10.1067/mse.2002.121634. View

12.

Matsunaga F, Tamaoki M, Matsumoto M, Netto N, Faloppa F, Belloti J . Minimally Invasive Osteosynthesis with a Bridge Plate Versus a Functional Brace for Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99(7):583-592. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00628. View

13.

Serrano R, Mir H, Sagi H, Horwitz D, Borade A, Tidwell J . Modern Results of Functional Bracing of Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2020; 34(4):206-209. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001666. View

14.

Sargeant H, Farrow L, Barker S, Kumar K . Operative versus non-operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures: A systematic review. Shoulder Elbow. 2020; 12(4):229-242. PMC: 7400715. DOI: 10.1177/1758573218825477. View

15.

Hendrickx L, Hilgersom N, Alkaduhimi H, Doornberg J, van den Bekerom M . Radial nerve palsy associated with closed humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review of 1758 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020; 141(4):561-568. PMC: 7966639. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03446-y. View

16.

Harris P, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde J . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2008; 42(2):377-81. PMC: 2700030. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. View

17.

Lee A, Weintraub S, Xi I, Ahn J, Bernstein J . Predicting life expectancy after geriatric hip fracture: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2021; 16(12):e0261279. PMC: 8673659. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261279. View

18.

EKHOLM R, Adami J, Tidermark J, Hansson K, Tornkvist H, Ponzer S . Fractures of the shaft of the humerus. An epidemiological study of 401 fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88(11):1469-73. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B11.17634. View

19.

Toivanen J, Nieminen J, Laine H, Honkonen S, Jarvinen M . Functional treatment of closed humeral shaft fractures. Int Orthop. 2004; 29(1):10-3. PMC: 3456948. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-004-0612-8. View

20.

Calvert M, Kyte D, Mercieca-Bebber R, Slade A, King M, Hunn A . Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension. JAMA. 2018; 319(5):483-494. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.21903. View