Accuracy of Sonography in Elbow Trauma

NCT ID: NCT05602077

Last Updated: 2023-03-15

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

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

130 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2022-11-01

Study Completion Date

2025-03-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

X-rays (XR) are today the standard modality for the diagnosis of bone fractures in the lower or upper limbs in the emergency room. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an alternative with some obvious advantages especially in the emergency room setting: It does not require the patient to fix the bone of interest in a stable position, allows observing the bone and joints under movement by the patient, can be performed at bedside, and avoids the exposure to radiation.

The advances in ultrasound technology has increased the interest in using POCUS as an alternative to XR in recent years. POCUS is used routinely prior to XR at the ORTHO-NOTFALL of the Merian Iselin Klinik Basel (MIK) in patients with suspicion for an indirect elbow trauma. It is the aim of this project to use this constellation in order to contribute to a systematic comparison of the value of the two modalities with the long-term aim to establish POCUS as the first-line diagnostic tool.

As a fist project, the SONOELB study was initiated. This study aims at a comparison of the diagnostic accuracy between XR and POCUS using CT as reference. The project started in October 2022 and aims at enrolling 130 patients until March 2025. The project is financially supported by the Merian Iselin Science Research PLC.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Objective:

The primary objective is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS and XR with respect to diagnosing fractures of the elbow after an indirect elbow trauma in the ED setting and to investigate the rate of agreement between the two modalities.

The primary outcome is the difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two modalities with respect to diagnosing a radial head fracture and the degree of agreement between the two modalities.

Secondary outcomes are the difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two modalities and the rate of agreement with respect to the other fracture types, to the decisions "any fracture", and to the decision "any fracture other than radial head".

Experimental Intervention (medical device) POCUS: The ultrasound examination of the injured elbow includes seven standard settings. The probe is placed on the joint in four ventral and in three posterior positions. If hemarthrosis is detected, this is always suspicious of a possible intra-articular fracture. Even the smallest amounts of blood can be detected sonographically.

The surfaces of the bones involved in the joint (humerus, ulna, radius) are accurately displayed in all seven sonography settings. Disrupted bone surface indicates a fracture.

POCUS will be performed according to the local SOP.

Control Intervention (standard/routine/comparator) XR: The conventional radiograph of the injured elbow consists of three standard views: ap, lateral and Norman oblique. This X-ray examination is the most commonly performed technique to date to diagnose an injured elbow.

CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography): The injured elbow is placed in an almost most extended position in the CBCT tube. For this purpose, the affected arm is placed and fixed on a carbon-splint. The examination time is about 40 seconds XR will be performed according to the standard procedures of the ED of the MIK. The same holds for CBCT.

Any of the three diagnostic procedures applied can be discontinued in the case of patient discomfort, harm, or risk of harm according to the standard procedures of the MIK.

Compliance of the staff of the ED with performing the three modalities is supported by SOPs and internal training.

In the case of withdrawal of a patient, the reasons are recorded on the CRF. The data of these patients will not be included in the statistical analysis. The data will not be deleted in the data management system. Patients who withdraw themselves are offered a chat with the PI and further consultations.

Patients included in the trial will follow the standard management at the MIK. There are only two changes:

* a CBCT is performed in addition after having performed both POCUS and XR, if there are no positive findings on POCUS or XR.
* an additional blinded evaluation of all CBCTs will be done by one independent rater.

CBCT will be ordered by the staff of the ED in all patients and may be preliminary evaluated. However, these evaluations will not be documented as part of this study. They are also not accessible for the staff at the Radiology Department in the routine evaluation of the XRs.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Elbow Fracture Radial Head Fracture Elbow Sprain Coronoid Process Fracture Distal Humerus Fracture

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

NA

Intervention Model

SINGLE_GROUP

Prospective single centre comparative diagnostic accuracy study
Primary Study Purpose

DIAGNOSTIC

Blinding Strategy

NONE

The two modalities to be compared (POCUS and XR) and the reference standard (CBCT) will be applied in a consecutive series of 130 patients with a suspicion of an indirect elbow fracture at the emergency department of a single center. All investigations will be part of the initial, single visit of the patient at the emergency department.

The modalities will be evaluated blinded for each other. The design is well known as a comparative, paired accuracy study. The design allows to estimate the accuracy of the two diagnostic modalities and the corresponding difference as well as the agreement between the two modalities.

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

POCUS and Control Intervention

POCUS: Point of care ultrasound

Control-Intervention: X-ray examination and Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

POCUS

Intervention Type DEVICE

POCUS: The ultrasound examination of the injured elbow includes seven standard settings. The probe is placed on the joint in four ventral and in three posterior positions. If hemarthrosis is detected, this is always suspicious of a possible intra-articular fracture. Even the smallest amounts of blood can be detected sonographically. The surfaces of the bones involved in the joint (humerus, ulna, radius) are accurately displayed in all seven sonography settings. Disrupted bone surface indicates a fracture.

XR: The conventional radiograph of the injured elbow consists of three standard views: ap, lateral and Norman oblique.

CBCT: The injured elbow is placed in an almost most extended position in the CBCT tube.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

POCUS

POCUS: The ultrasound examination of the injured elbow includes seven standard settings. The probe is placed on the joint in four ventral and in three posterior positions. If hemarthrosis is detected, this is always suspicious of a possible intra-articular fracture. Even the smallest amounts of blood can be detected sonographically. The surfaces of the bones involved in the joint (humerus, ulna, radius) are accurately displayed in all seven sonography settings. Disrupted bone surface indicates a fracture.

XR: The conventional radiograph of the injured elbow consists of three standard views: ap, lateral and Norman oblique.

CBCT: The injured elbow is placed in an almost most extended position in the CBCT tube.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Control Intervention: XR / CBCT

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Informed Consent signed by the subject
* Suspicion for an indirect elbow trauma as part of the routine management at the ED of the MIK.

Exclusion Criteria

* Age below 18
* Patients who are lacking capacity of judgment
* Patients with (temporary) cognitive impairment which makes an understanding of the patient information unlikely
* Patients with limited knowledge of German or English which makes an understanding of the patient information unlikely
* Patients with contraindications for US, XR or CT.
* Lack of informed consent
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Basel Academy for Quality and Research in Medicine; Prof. Dr. Werner Vach (Statistician)

UNKNOWN

Sponsor Role collaborator

Merian Iselin Klinik; Anja Mair (medical specialist)

UNKNOWN

Sponsor Role collaborator

Merian Iselin Klinik; Dr. Thomas Egelhof (head of radiology)

UNKNOWN

Sponsor Role collaborator

Eckehart SCHÖLL

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Eckehart SCHÖLL

Head of Emergency Department

Responsibility Role SPONSOR_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Merian Iselin Klinik

Basel, , Switzerland

Site Status RECRUITING

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Switzerland

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Eckehart Schöll, MD

Role: CONTACT

0049 151 423 01 556

Werner Vach, PhD

Role: CONTACT

0041 61 285 10 34

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Eckehart Schöll, MD

Role: primary

+41 61 305 1497

Werner Vach, PhD

Role: backup

+41 61 285 10 34

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Tsou PY, Ma YK, Wang YH, Gillon JT, Rafael J, Deanehan JK. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for upper extremity fractures in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Jun;44:383-394. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.04.071. Epub 2020 Apr 27.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 32507477 (View on PubMed)

Pourmand A, Shokoohi H, Maracheril R. Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in detecting upper and lower extremity fractures: An evidence-based approach. Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;36(1):134-136. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.06.052. Epub 2017 Jun 27. No abstract available.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 28669695 (View on PubMed)

Champagne N, Eadie L, Regan L, Wilson P. The effectiveness of ultrasound in the detection of fractures in adults with suspected upper or lower limb injury: a systematic review and subgroup meta-analysis. BMC Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 28;19(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s12873-019-0226-5.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 30691395 (View on PubMed)

Hanlon DP, Mavrophilipos V. The Emergent Evaluation and Treatment of Elbow and Forearm Injuries. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2020 Feb;38(1):81-102. doi: 10.1016/j.emc.2019.09.005.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 31757256 (View on PubMed)

Bianchi S. Ultrasound and bone: a pictorial review. J Ultrasound. 2020 Sep;23(3):227-257. doi: 10.1007/s40477-020-00477-4. Epub 2020 May 17.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 32419074 (View on PubMed)

De Maeseneer M, Jacobson JA, Jaovisidha S, Lenchik L, Ryu KN, Trudell DR, Resnick D. Elbow effusions: distribution of joint fluid with flexion and extension and imaging implications. Invest Radiol. 1998 Feb;33(2):117-25. doi: 10.1097/00004424-199802000-00010.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 9493728 (View on PubMed)

Rutten MJ, Collins JM, de Waal Malefijt MC, Kiemeney LA, Jager GJ. Unsuspected sonographic findings in patients with posttraumatic shoulder complaints. J Clin Ultrasound. 2010 Nov-Dec;38(9):457-65. doi: 10.1002/jcu.20745.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 20848574 (View on PubMed)

Malahias MA, Manolopoulos PP, Kadu V, Shahpari O, Fagkrezos D, Kaseta MK. Bedside Ultrasonography for Early Diagnosis of Occult Radial Head Fractures in Emergency Room: A CT-Comparative Diagnostic Study. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2018 Nov;6(6):539-546.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 30637310 (View on PubMed)

Avci M, Kozaci N, Beydilli I, Yilmaz F, Eden AO, Turhan S. The comparison of bedside point-of-care ultrasound and computed tomography in elbow injuries. Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Nov;34(11):2186-2190. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.08.054. Epub 2016 Aug 27.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 27645809 (View on PubMed)

Waterbrook AL, Adhikari S, Stolz U, Adrion C. The accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound to diagnose long bone fractures in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2013 Sep;31(9):1352-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.06.006. Epub 2013 Jul 26.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 23891601 (View on PubMed)

Avci M, Kozaci N, Tulubas G, Caliskan G, Yuksel A, Karaca A, Doganay F, Etli I. Comparison of Point-of-Care Ultrasonography and Radiography in the Diagnosis of Long-Bone Fractures. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Jul 9;55(7):355. doi: 10.3390/medicina55070355.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 31324028 (View on PubMed)

Eckert M, Vach W. On the use of comparison regions in visualizing stochastic uncertainty in some two-parameter estimation problems. Biom J. 2020 May;62(3):598-609. doi: 10.1002/bimj.201800232. Epub 2019 Oct 29.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 31661558 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

SONOELB_Vs_2022_09_12_1.1

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.