Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
RECRUITING
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
334 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2023-04-09
Study Completion Date
2028-08-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
This protocol describes a multicenter, prospective randomized superiority trial comparing functional outcomes between children treated with sedated reduction versus no formal reduction.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Distal Radius Buckle Fracture Follow up Study
NCT03248687
Distal Radius Fracture
COMPLETED
NA
Management of Pediatric Distal Radius Fractures : Conservative Treatment Versus Surgical Reduction
NCT06459557
Fracture, Radius
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
A Clinical Trial for the Surgical Treatment of Elderly Distal Radius Fractures
NCT01589692
Distal Radius Fracture
COMPLETED
NA
Is Casting of Displaced Pediatric Distal Forearm Fractures Non-inferior to Reduction in General Anesthesia?
NCT05736068
Distal Forearm Fracture
Distal Radius Fracture
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Distal Radius Buckle Fracture RCT
NCT04032873
Distal Radius Fracture
COMPLETED
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
INTRODUCTION
Distal radius fractures (DRFs) make up 20-25% of all pediatric fractures (Brudvik 2003, Cooper 2004), and are the most common fractures seen in the emergency department in children in the United States. (Naranje 2016)
The available evidence on distal radius fracture (DRF) reduction/non-reduction is based on case series, observational comparisons, and expert opinions. Displaced metaphyseal distal radius fracture (DRFs) have historically been treated with attempts at closed reduction (under conscious sedation or anesthesia). This approach was supported by retrospective studies and consensus opinion that anatomical alignment was necessary for normal function.(Rockwood 2010 text, Bae 2012 JPO) Furthermore, it is unsettling for physicians and families to see bones overlapped on a radiograph when a straightening procedure can be completed in a straightforward fashion. However, simple immobilization without attempted reduction has recently been reported for management of DRFs in children under age 10.(Crawford 2012) This approach is conceptually supported by the fracture's proximity to the distal radial physis and the remaining growth of the child, which provides significant remodeling potential and can allow for improvement of malalignment as the child grows.(Crawford 2010 JBJSAm, Price 1990 JPO) There is a paucity of literature comparing reduced to non-reduced fractures to guide management. No established or standardized guidelines exist for the optimal management of completely displaced fractures. Surveys have identified widely discrepant recommendations and high practice variation for treatments for identical DRF patterns.(Georgiadis 2019 POSNA or JPO 2020) Although these studies provide preliminary data to support clinical management, the studies lack a control population for comparison, are retrospective, lack randomization, have variable follow-up times and have no standard definitions of outcomes. In addition, the studies used radiographic or non-validated outcome measures to make conclusions, limiting their utility in identifying optimal management.
It appears that children may be undergoing unnecessary procedures, sedations, and anesthetics. The use of anesthesia and sedation has recently come into question as studies examine their effects on cognitive development. (Loepke 2013, Flick 2011) There could be a significant cost savings in terms of procedure costs, hospital costs, and lost time from work if non-procedure management is found to be a non-inferior treatment regimen. The physician investigators want to tell patients that they know why they are proposing treatments, the risks and benefits of the treatment, and use evidence to inform these recommendations and the family's decisions. The proposed trial will compare the effectiveness of alignment under sedation/anesthesia with simple immobilization for management of displaced DRFs in children, providing critical data regarding optimal management of this common fracture. Therefore, this study's primary question is: does anatomic reduction under sedation/anesthesia of DRF result in improved patient outcomes at six months compared to immobilization without attempted reduction?
Multiple reasons exist for comparing these treatment strategies for DRF, including: 1) these are the most common treatments for DRF, 2) the strategies are widely divergent (operative vs. non-operative), and 3) there is a large potential to change clinical practice.
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
Quality control (QC) procedures will be implemented beginning with the data entry system and data QC checks that will be run on the database will be generated. Any missing data or data anomalies will be communicated to the site(s) for clarification/resolution.
Following written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), the monitors will verify that the clinical trial is conducted and data are generated and biological specimens are collected, documented (recorded), and reported in compliance with the protocol, International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH GCP), and applicable regulatory requirements (e.g., Good Laboratory Practices (GLP), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)).
The investigational site will provide direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, and reports for the purpose of monitoring and auditing by the sponsor, and inspection by local and regulatory authorities.
For specific details regarding quality assurance and quality control, please see the data management plan.
DATA HANDLING AND RECORD KEEPING
DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Data collection is the responsibility of the clinical trial staff at the site under the supervision of the site investigator. The investigator is responsible for ensuring the accuracy, completeness, legibility, and timeliness of the data reported.
Clinical data and patient reported outcomes will be entered into REDCap, a 21 CFR Part 11-compliant data capture system provided by the DCRI. The data system includes password protection and internal quality checks, such as automatic range checks, to identify data that appear inconsistent, incomplete, or inaccurate. Clinical data will be entered directly from the source documents.
SAFETY OVERSIGHT
Safety oversight will be under the direction of a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) composed of individuals with the appropriate expertise and knowledge of pediatric orthopaedic surgery usually obtained via an accredited pediatric orthopaedic fellowship. Members of the DSMB should be independent from the study conduct and free of conflict of interest, or measures should be in place to minimize perceived conflict of interest. The DSMB will meet at least semiannually to assess safety data on each arm of the study. The DMSB will operate under the rules of an approved charter that will be written and reviewed at the organizational meeting of the DSMB. At this time, each data element that the DSMB needs to assess will be clearly defined. The DSMB will provide its input to NIAMS.
Statistical Hypotheses:
• Primary Efficacy Endpoint(s):
The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PROMIS UE (CAT) at 1 year between arms. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference between arms.
SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION
Sample size calculations were based on detecting a clinically meaningful difference in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper extremity computer adaptive test (CAT) of 4 points. PROMIS measures use a T-score metric with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 in a reference population. A sample size of 133 per am, assuming a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05, will provide 90% power to detect a difference between arms of 4 points.
To conservatively account for 20% lost-to-follow-up or missing data on the primary outcome at 12 months, the investigators have inflated the sample size to 167 per arm, for a total target enrollment of 334.
A blinded sample size re-estimation based on the standard deviation of the primary outcome, after 100 participants have completed the 6 month follow-up, will be performed.
GENERAL APPROACH
Note: Statistical Analyses are described in depth in the Statistical Analysis Plan.
Descriptive statistics will summarize all baseline variables by arm. Specifically, continuous variables will be summarized using mean and standard deviation, for normally distributed variables, and median and IQR, for non-normally distributed variables. Categorical variables will be summarized with frequency and percentages. There will be no formal hypothesis testing for comparison of baseline characteristics between treatment arms.
Primary analyses of the primary outcome at 1 year will be assessed with a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05 for a MCID of 4 points. A false discovery rate (FDR) correction will be applied to analyses of all secondary outcomes to account for multiplicity.
ANALYSIS OF THE PRIMARY EFFICACY ENDPOINT(S)
Analysis for the primary aim will utilize a mixed effect model for the primary outcome, PROMIS Upper Extremity Function at 12 months, with a fixed effect for treatment arm and a random effect for site. Fixed effects will also include all variables considered in the randomization (site, sex, age), to control for imbalances in both the design and analysis. Incorporation of a random center effect will allow for separation of between site and within site variance components. Distributional assumptions will be assessed and transformations or inclusions of higher order terms may be considered, as appropriate.
ANALYSIS OF THE SECONDARY ENDPOINT(S)
Secondary analyses will employ similar methods for all secondary continuous outcomes. A generalized linear mixed effect model with Poisson distribution and log link will be used for the secondary count outcome, number of revisions, refractures, re-reductions, and reoperations. Distributional assumptions will be assessed, and a dichotomous version may be used instead if appropriate (any revisions, refractures, reductions, and reoperations vs never). Descriptive statistics will be used summarize satisfaction survey by treatment arm. Simple non-parametric test statistics or chi-squared test statistics may be used to compare ordinal and binary variables, respectively.
Exploratory analyses may also consider trajectories of the primary outcome measured over time. Fixed effects for baseline PROMIS Upper Extremity Function, time, treatment arm, and the interaction will be included in a linear mixed effect model with random patient nested in center effects.
A False Discovery Rate (FDR) correction will be applied to all secondary analyses to account for multiplicity.
Distal radius fractures (DRFs) make up 20-25% of all pediatric fractures (Brudvik 2003, Cooper 2004), and are the most common fractures seen in the emergency department in children in the United States. (Naranje 2016)
The available evidence on distal radius fracture (DRF) reduction/non-reduction is based on case series, observational comparisons, and expert opinions. Displaced metaphyseal distal radius fracture (DRFs) have historically been treated with attempts at closed reduction (under conscious sedation or anesthesia). This approach was supported by retrospective studies and consensus opinion that anatomical alignment was necessary for normal function.(Rockwood 2010 text, Bae 2012 JPO) Furthermore, it is unsettling for physicians and families to see bones overlapped on a radiograph when a straightening procedure can be completed in a straightforward fashion. However, simple immobilization without attempted reduction has recently been reported for management of DRFs in children under age 10.(Crawford 2012) This approach is conceptually supported by the fracture's proximity to the distal radial physis and the remaining growth of the child, which provides significant remodeling potential and can allow for improvement of malalignment as the child grows.(Crawford 2010 JBJSAm, Price 1990 JPO) There is a paucity of literature comparing reduced to non-reduced fractures to guide management. No established or standardized guidelines exist for the optimal management of completely displaced fractures. Surveys have identified widely discrepant recommendations and high practice variation for treatments for identical DRF patterns.(Georgiadis 2019 POSNA or JPO 2020) Although these studies provide preliminary data to support clinical management, the studies lack a control population for comparison, are retrospective, lack randomization, have variable follow-up times and have no standard definitions of outcomes. In addition, the studies used radiographic or non-validated outcome measures to make conclusions, limiting their utility in identifying optimal management.
It appears that children may be undergoing unnecessary procedures, sedations, and anesthetics. The use of anesthesia and sedation has recently come into question as studies examine their effects on cognitive development. (Loepke 2013, Flick 2011) There could be a significant cost savings in terms of procedure costs, hospital costs, and lost time from work if non-procedure management is found to be a non-inferior treatment regimen. The physician investigators want to tell patients that they know why they are proposing treatments, the risks and benefits of the treatment, and use evidence to inform these recommendations and the family's decisions. The proposed trial will compare the effectiveness of alignment under sedation/anesthesia with simple immobilization for management of displaced DRFs in children, providing critical data regarding optimal management of this common fracture. Therefore, this study's primary question is: does anatomic reduction under sedation/anesthesia of DRF result in improved patient outcomes at six months compared to immobilization without attempted reduction?
Multiple reasons exist for comparing these treatment strategies for DRF, including: 1) these are the most common treatments for DRF, 2) the strategies are widely divergent (operative vs. non-operative), and 3) there is a large potential to change clinical practice.
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
Quality control (QC) procedures will be implemented beginning with the data entry system and data QC checks that will be run on the database will be generated. Any missing data or data anomalies will be communicated to the site(s) for clarification/resolution.
Following written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), the monitors will verify that the clinical trial is conducted and data are generated and biological specimens are collected, documented (recorded), and reported in compliance with the protocol, International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH GCP), and applicable regulatory requirements (e.g., Good Laboratory Practices (GLP), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)).
The investigational site will provide direct access to all trial related sites, source data/documents, and reports for the purpose of monitoring and auditing by the sponsor, and inspection by local and regulatory authorities.
For specific details regarding quality assurance and quality control, please see the data management plan.
DATA HANDLING AND RECORD KEEPING
DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Data collection is the responsibility of the clinical trial staff at the site under the supervision of the site investigator. The investigator is responsible for ensuring the accuracy, completeness, legibility, and timeliness of the data reported.
Clinical data and patient reported outcomes will be entered into REDCap, a 21 CFR Part 11-compliant data capture system provided by the DCRI. The data system includes password protection and internal quality checks, such as automatic range checks, to identify data that appear inconsistent, incomplete, or inaccurate. Clinical data will be entered directly from the source documents.
SAFETY OVERSIGHT
Safety oversight will be under the direction of a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) composed of individuals with the appropriate expertise and knowledge of pediatric orthopaedic surgery usually obtained via an accredited pediatric orthopaedic fellowship. Members of the DSMB should be independent from the study conduct and free of conflict of interest, or measures should be in place to minimize perceived conflict of interest. The DSMB will meet at least semiannually to assess safety data on each arm of the study. The DMSB will operate under the rules of an approved charter that will be written and reviewed at the organizational meeting of the DSMB. At this time, each data element that the DSMB needs to assess will be clearly defined. The DSMB will provide its input to NIAMS.
Statistical Hypotheses:
• Primary Efficacy Endpoint(s):
The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PROMIS UE (CAT) at 1 year between arms. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference between arms.
SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION
Sample size calculations were based on detecting a clinically meaningful difference in the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper extremity computer adaptive test (CAT) of 4 points. PROMIS measures use a T-score metric with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 in a reference population. A sample size of 133 per am, assuming a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05, will provide 90% power to detect a difference between arms of 4 points.
To conservatively account for 20% lost-to-follow-up or missing data on the primary outcome at 12 months, the investigators have inflated the sample size to 167 per arm, for a total target enrollment of 334.
A blinded sample size re-estimation based on the standard deviation of the primary outcome, after 100 participants have completed the 6 month follow-up, will be performed.
GENERAL APPROACH
Note: Statistical Analyses are described in depth in the Statistical Analysis Plan.
Descriptive statistics will summarize all baseline variables by arm. Specifically, continuous variables will be summarized using mean and standard deviation, for normally distributed variables, and median and IQR, for non-normally distributed variables. Categorical variables will be summarized with frequency and percentages. There will be no formal hypothesis testing for comparison of baseline characteristics between treatment arms.
Primary analyses of the primary outcome at 1 year will be assessed with a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05 for a MCID of 4 points. A false discovery rate (FDR) correction will be applied to analyses of all secondary outcomes to account for multiplicity.
ANALYSIS OF THE PRIMARY EFFICACY ENDPOINT(S)
Analysis for the primary aim will utilize a mixed effect model for the primary outcome, PROMIS Upper Extremity Function at 12 months, with a fixed effect for treatment arm and a random effect for site. Fixed effects will also include all variables considered in the randomization (site, sex, age), to control for imbalances in both the design and analysis. Incorporation of a random center effect will allow for separation of between site and within site variance components. Distributional assumptions will be assessed and transformations or inclusions of higher order terms may be considered, as appropriate.
ANALYSIS OF THE SECONDARY ENDPOINT(S)
Secondary analyses will employ similar methods for all secondary continuous outcomes. A generalized linear mixed effect model with Poisson distribution and log link will be used for the secondary count outcome, number of revisions, refractures, re-reductions, and reoperations. Distributional assumptions will be assessed, and a dichotomous version may be used instead if appropriate (any revisions, refractures, reductions, and reoperations vs never). Descriptive statistics will be used summarize satisfaction survey by treatment arm. Simple non-parametric test statistics or chi-squared test statistics may be used to compare ordinal and binary variables, respectively.
Exploratory analyses may also consider trajectories of the primary outcome measured over time. Fixed effects for baseline PROMIS Upper Extremity Function, time, treatment arm, and the interaction will be included in a linear mixed effect model with random patient nested in center effects.
A False Discovery Rate (FDR) correction will be applied to all secondary analyses to account for multiplicity.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Fracture Distal Radius
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Non-sedated Immobilization
Immobilization in a cast without reduction
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Immobilization
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
immobilization in cast without reduction
Formal Reduction
closed reduction under conscious sedation followed by casting
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Reduction
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
closed reduction under conscious sedation followed by casting
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Reduction
closed reduction under conscious sedation followed by casting
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Immobilization
immobilization in cast without reduction
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
1. Provision of signed and dated informed consent form by parent or legal guardian
2. Stated willingness to comply with all study procedures and availability for the duration of the study
3. Male or female, aged 4-10 years
4. Diagnosis of 100% dorsally displaced radius metaphyseal fracture with any or no ulna involvement
5. Fracture is less than 5cm from the distal radial growth plate
6. Willing to adhere to the immobilization regimen
7. Fracture is acute (occurred less than 10 days prior to consent and assignment of treatment arm AND with ability to be taken to operating room (OR) or reduced in the emergency department (ED)
2. Stated willingness to comply with all study procedures and availability for the duration of the study
3. Male or female, aged 4-10 years
4. Diagnosis of 100% dorsally displaced radius metaphyseal fracture with any or no ulna involvement
5. Fracture is less than 5cm from the distal radial growth plate
6. Willing to adhere to the immobilization regimen
7. Fracture is acute (occurred less than 10 days prior to consent and assignment of treatment arm AND with ability to be taken to operating room (OR) or reduced in the emergency department (ED)
Exclusion Criteria
1. Physeal involvement of fracture
2. Presence of open fracture, pathologic fracture, neuromuscular disease, or metabolic disease
3. Fracture cannot be treated with acute reduction due to being older than 10 days
4. Patient and parents are unable to adhere to procedures or complete follow-up due to insufficient comprehension of consent form or surveys or developmental delay.
2. Presence of open fracture, pathologic fracture, neuromuscular disease, or metabolic disease
3. Fracture cannot be treated with acute reduction due to being older than 10 days
4. Patient and parents are unable to adhere to procedures or complete follow-up due to insufficient comprehension of consent form or surveys or developmental delay.
Minimum Eligible Age
4 Years
Maximum Eligible Age
10 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
NIH
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Ann & Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Joseph Janicki
Attending Surgeon
Responsibility Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Jospeh Janicki, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Phoenix Children's Hospital
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Children's Hospital of Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
University of California- Los Angeles Medical Center
Los Angeles, California, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Nemours Children's Hospital
Wilmington, Delaware, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Niklaus Children's Hospital
Miami, Florida, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Riley Children's Hospital
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Riley Children's
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Johns Hopkins Hospital
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Boston Children's Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
TRIA Health Partners
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare
Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Jackson, Mississippi, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
University Hospital- Rutgers
New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
University of New Mexico - Carrie Tingley
Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
New York University-Langone Health
New York, New York, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Hospital of Special Surgery
New York, New York, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
University of Rochester Medical Center
Rochester, New York, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Montefiore Medical Center
The Bronx, New York, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Cincinnati's Children's Hospital
Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Oregon Health and Science University
Portland, Oregon, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children
Dallas, Texas, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
Texas Children's Hospital
Houston, Texas, United States
Site Status
RECRUITING
The Hospital for Sick Children
Toronto, Canada, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
United States
Canada
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Karen Brtko
Role: primary
Abigail Schlosser, RN BSN
Role: primary
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Balmert Bonner L, Janicki J, Georgiadis A, Truong W, Harris Beauvais D, Belthur M, Daley EL, Franzone J, Howard A, May C, Rockhold F, Schulz J, Bailey M, Chiswell K, DeLaRosa J, Brooks JT, Cantanzano AA, Chan A, Chu A, Dodwell ER, El-Hawary R, Ellis H, Fitzgerald R, Frick S, Ganley TJ, Gargiulo D, Gauthier L, Gill CS, Goldstein R, Halsey MF, Hardesty C, Ho C, Kaushal N, Lawrence JT, Lee RJ, Leitch KK, Masrouha K, Mitchell S, OMalley N, Payares-Lizano M, Perry D, Ramalingam W, Rhodes J, Sanders J, Shah AS, Sharkey M, Silva M, Silva S, Thompson R, Vorhies J, Wright JG, Young C, Burgess J; IMPACCT Consortium. Distal Radius Interventions for Fracture Treatment (DRIFT) trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical trial of completely translated distal radius fractures at paediatric hospitals in North America. BMJ Open. 2025 Oct 29;15(10):e088273. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088273.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2021-4883
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Closed Reduction of Distal Forearm Fractures by Pediatric Emergency Medicine Physicians: A Prospective Study
NCT01101607
COMPLETED
NA
Comparing Forearm and Upper Arm Combi Cast for Distal Forearm Fractures in Children
NCT03297047
COMPLETED
NA
Cast Versus Splint in Children With Acceptably Angulated Wrist Fractures
NCT00610220
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Management of Distal Radius Fractures in Children Younger Than 11 Years Old.
NCT02670629
COMPLETED
NA
Dislocated Stable Distal Both-Bone Forearm Fractures in Children
NCT00397852
UNKNOWN
NA
Distal Radius Fractures in Patients Over 65 Years, Operation or Cast?
NCT02336035
UNKNOWN
NA
Investigation of a Medical Device for the Immobilisation of Radius and Ulna Fractures in Paediatric Patients
NCT06312995
RECRUITING
NA
Removable Splint Versus Cast in the Treatment of Distal Radius Fracture in Children
NCT05244317
WITHDRAWN
NA
Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures in Elderly Patients
NCT00788190
WITHDRAWN
NA
Dislocated Unstable Distal Both-Bone Forearm Fractures in Children
NCT00398268
UNKNOWN
NA
Immobilization Without Reduction vs. Reduction Under General Anesthesia in Metaphyseal Fractures of the Distal Radius
NCT05008029
TERMINATED
NA
Cast OFF Trial: One Versus Four-five Weeks of Plaster Cast Immobilization
NCT03240471
COMPLETED
NA
Type II Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fracture Management and Outcomes: A Prospective Multi-centre Cohort Study
NCT02963233
UNKNOWN
The FDR (Femoral Derotaton) Trail.
NCT04086368
RECRUITING
NA
Study of Tibial Shaft Fractures in Children
NCT01238523
COMPLETED
NA
Ultrasound Directed Reduction of Colles Type Distal Radial Fractures in ED (UDiReCT)
NCT03868696
COMPLETED
NA
Cast or Operation for Medial Epicondyle Fracture Treatment in Children
NCT05131672
RECRUITING
NA
Distal Radial Fractures in the Late Middle Aged
NCT02353338
COMPLETED
NA
Pediatric Femur Fracture Registry
NCT03211546
COMPLETED
Long Arm Vs Short Arm Fiberglass Cast for Treatment of Displaced Distal Radius Fractures
NCT03835065
WITHDRAWN
NA
Treatment of Stable Both-Bone Midshaft Forearm Fractures in Children
NCT00398242
UNKNOWN
NA
"Supracondylar Radial Nerve Block Guided by Ultrasound Versus Hematoma Block for Analgesic Management in Closed Reduction of Distal Radius Fractures"
NCT06857110
RECRUITING
NA
BFR Therapy Following DRF
NCT05396521
COMPLETED
NA
Waterproof Casting for Pediatric Distal Radius Fractures
NCT02095106
COMPLETED
NA
Treatment of Distal Radius Buckle Fractures
NCT01762605
TERMINATED
NA