CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT04576169REINFORCERUpdated Oct 9, 2024

Trial Comparing Treatment Strategies in Triangular Fibrocartilage Complex Ruptures

An interventional study of Arthroscopic Debridement and Placebo surgery in Triangular Fibrocartilage Complex Injury, sponsored by Tampere University Hospital. Recruiting at 9 sites in 3 countries. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 65 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-10-09.

Sponsored by Tampere University Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
204
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 65 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The trial is a multicentre, randomized, superiority, controlled, participant and outcome assessor (debridement versus placebo surgery randomization cohort) and trialist blinded (both arms) superiority, umbrella trial with two randomized cohorts (1. debridement or placebo surgery, 2. repair or physiotherapy) which both include two 1:1 parallel arms. The primary objective is to investigate the superiority of 1) debridement over placebo surgery and 2) repair over physiotherapy in two randomized cohorts using Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) at one year post randomisation as the primary outcome.

Read the detailed description

Triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) injuries are often considered the cause of ulnar wrist pain. TFCC lesions can be traumatic or degenerative according to classification suggested by Palmer and Atzei. Primary treatment is conservative, but if symptoms persist, operative treatment is an option. Depending on the morphology of the tear, the treatment can be either debridement or repair. Trialists have observed improvement of symptoms after TFCC repair but all these trials are observational cohorts without proper controls. Efficacy of surgery has not been studied in randomized controlled trial (RCT) setting.

The investigators planned a multicentre, randomized, superiority, controlled, participant and outcome assessor (debridement versus placebo surgery randomisation cohort) and trialist blinded (both arms) superiority, umbrella trial with two randomized cohorts which both include two 1:1 parallel arms. Participants in the first cohort (central or radial TFCC tear) will undergo randomization to either arthroscopic debridement or placebo surgery. In the second cohort (peripheral TFCC tear), participants will be randomized to arthroscopic/open TFCC repair or physiotherapy. Our primary objective is to investigate the superiority of 1) debridement over placebo surgery for central (Palmer 1A) and radial (Palmer 1D) TFCC tears, and 2) repair over non-operative treatment (physiotherapy) for ulnar (Palmer 1B) TFCC tears in two randomized cohorts using Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) at one year post randomisation as the primary outcome.

Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Tampere university hospital has approved the study protocol. All participants will give written informed consent. The results of the trial will be disseminated as published articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Outcome measures for different studies are often derived from what clinicians, rather than patients, thinks to be important. The investigators chose to base the efficacy assessment on the measure of patient's subjective disability and pain.

There is no clear evidence of the efficacy of the treatments (debridement and repair). It is justified and ethically correct to compare these treatments to placebo surgery and physiotherapy. Placebo surgery and physiotherapy are less invasive than debridement and repair and because of this are even safer to patients than comparable treatments.

02

Conditions studied

  • Triangular Fibrocartilage Complex Injury

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Arthroscopy
  • Surgery
  • Triangular Fibrocartilage
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Placebo
  • Repair
  • Wrist
  • Debridement
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 65 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Ulnar sided wrist pain
  • Age more than 18 years
  • Suspicion of TFCC tear in clinical examination
  • Ability to fill the Danish, Finnish or Swedish versions of questionnaires
  • Symptom duration more than 3 months, and unsuccessful non-operative treatment
  • Central (Palmer 1A), ulnar (Palmer 1B) or radial (Palmer 1D) TFCC tear explaining the pain in arthroscopy

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Gross instability of DRUJ which will be defined as "obvious instability in clinical examination in each forearm and wrist position"
  • Distal (Palmer 1C) TFCC tear in arthroscopy
  • Ulnocarpal or DRUJ arthrosis (Atzei class 5)
  • Ulnar variance ≥ +2 mm in x-ray
  • Age above 65 years
  • Rheumatoid arthritis or other inflammatory disease effecting radio- or ulnocarpal or DRUJ
  • Lunotriquetral instability diagnosed in arthroscopy
  • ECU instability
  • Massive tear and degenerated edges or frayed tear which fails suture (Atzei class 4A-4B)
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
204 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Central or Radial Tear: Arthroscopic debridement

    Arthroscopic debridement

    Procedure: Arthroscopic Debridement

  • Placebo comparator
    Central or Radial Tear: Sham surgery

    Diagnostic arthroscopy only (placebo surgery).

    Procedure: Placebo surgery

  • Experimental
    Ulnar Tear: Arthroscopic or open repair

    Arthroscopic or open repair

    Procedure: Arthroscopic or Open Repair

  • Active comparator
    Ulnar Tear: Physiotherapy

    Diagnostic arthroscopy and physiotherapy

    Procedure: Physiotherapy

Interventions

  • ProcedureArthroscopic Debridement

    Wrist arthroscopy can be performed with or without irrigation. In the debridement arm, a central or radial TFCC tear found during arthroscopy is debrided with a shaver. Portals are closed either with sutures or with medical tape. Immediate mobilization of the wrist is allowed after the operation. Participants are provided with instructions for home exercises, and they are advised to commence the exercises two weeks post-operation.

  • ProcedurePlacebo surgery

    Diagnostic wrist arthroscopy can be performed with or without irrigation. A central or radial TFCC tear found during wrist arthroscopy is left untouched and no other operative interventions are done. Portals are closed either with sutures or with medical tape. The procedure is performed in general or regional anesthesia in operating room. Participants are not able to see to the operation area or monitor. They will listen to music with noise-cancelling headphones throughout the operation. The operative time will be matched, with the surgeon simulating a debridement procedure. Immediate mobilization of the wrist is allowed after the operation. Participants are provided with instructions for home exercises, and they are advised to commence the exercises two weeks post-operation.

  • ProcedureArthroscopic or Open Repair

    An ulnar TFCC tear found during wrist arthroscopy is sutured to the capsule or fovea with one of the separately defined methods choosed by the treating hand surgeon. The procedure is performed in general or regional anesthesia in operating room. Wounds are closed and standardized post-operative treatment is started after six weeks.

  • ProcedurePhysiotherapy

    An ulnar TFCC tear found during wrist arthroscopy is left untouched and no other operative interventions are done. Portals are closed with sutures or medical tape. The procedure is performed in general or regional anesthesia in operating room. Physiotherapy exercises of wrist and DRUJ stabilizers is started after two weeks.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE)

    The PRWE questionnaire is a wrist-specific instrument comprising a 15-item questionnaire assessing pain and disability in daily living. PRWE provides a score ranging from 0 (best) to 100 (worst). This wrist-specific tool demonstrates good reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Translation and validation have been conducted for Danish, Finnish, and Swedish languages. In interpreting the results, we will employ the Minimally Important Difference (MID) value of 14. PRWE as secondary outcome will be measured at all the other time points (6 months, 2, 5 and 10 years) than primary outcome.

    Time frame: 10 year follow-up, primary time point at 1 year

Secondary outcomes

  1. Quality of life (EQ-5D-3L)

    The EQ-5D-3L is a widely employed, health-related quality of life instrument comprising five dimensions and a visual VAS for health level. The five dimensions assessed by EQ-5D-3L include mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. For each dimension, patients rate their current state on each dimension using a 3-point scale, and the VAS scale ranges from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Utility or preference weights, applied with an aggregation formula, yield a single index number used to evaluate overall health-related quality of life. It has been proven to be a reliable and validated tool and it is widely used in healthcare research. The EQ-5D-3L has demonstrated good responsiveness in upper extremity conditions, such as distal radius fractures, its responsiveness in hand surgery has not been measured previously. The MID for the index is 0.085 and for the VAS 6.41. Translation and validation for Danish, Finnish, and Swedish languages have been conducted.

    Time frame: 10 year follow-up

  2. Adverse and serious adverse events

    All wrist-related adverse events will be documented: ligament, nerve, tendon, or vascular injury; fracture; CRPS; infection; chondral lesion; hematoma; or any other condition that can be attributed to the intervention. Participants are instructed to promptly notify the outpatient clinic at their center if they detect a potential adverse event. Additionally, adverse events will be assessed during each follow-up visit. Any events resulting in hospitalization or death will be classified as SAE.

    Time frame: 10 year follow-up

  3. Global improvement

    Patient-rated global improvement will be assessed using the question: "How would you rate the function and pain of your wrist compared to the situation before the treatment?" Participants will provide responses on a 7-step Likert scale, ranging from "Much worse" to "Much better.". This global rating of the treatment effect offers a subjective evaluation of the participant's perception of the treatment's impact on their wrist condition. It enables participants to offer feedback on their overall experience and evaluate the practical significance of the treatment's effect on their wrist. The Likert scale, a simple and effective tool for assessing participant-evaluated global ratings, is widely used in clinical research.

    Time frame: 10 year follow-up

  4. Pain in activity

    Pain during activity will be evaluated using the VAS, a validated and reliable tool for pain assessment. Widely employed in pain assessments, the VAS scale ranges from 0 to 100 mm, with higher values indicating more severe pain. The MID for VAS-pain is reported to fall between 16-19 mm.

    Time frame: 10 year follow-up

  5. Grip strength

    Grip strength will be assessed using the Jamar dynamometer, known for its good within-instrument reliability (Spearman Rho correlation coefficient test 0.82). The strength measurement will be performed with the handle in two positions: with the elbow in 90° flexion and the arm in adduction. Results will be reported in kilograms. The MID of grip strength is reported to be 5.5 kg.

    Time frame: 2 year follow-up

  6. ROM of forearm and wrist

    Passive ROM of the forearm and wrist are commonly employed as outcomes in studies addressing the treatment of wrist pathologies. Prosupination, recorded as forearm ROM, will be measured with the elbow at 90° flexion. Wrist ROM measurements will include extension, flexion, ulnar deviation, and radial deviation. MID of forearm and wrist ROM have not been determined.

    Time frame: 2 year follow-up

06

Study locations

9 of 9 sites recruiting
  • Herlev/Gentofte University Hospital of Copenhagen
    Copenhagen, 2900, Denmark
    Recruiting
  • Hospital Sønderjylland
    Sønderborg, Denmark
    • Jerzy Stiasny, M.D. · Contact
    Recruiting
  • Hospital Nova of Central Finland
    Jyväskylä, Keski-Suomi 40620, Finland
    Recruiting
  • Tampere University Hospital
    Tampere, Pirkanmaa 33521, Finland
    Recruiting
  • Oulu University Hospital
    Oulu, Pohjois-Pohjanmaa 90220, Finland
    Recruiting
  • Kuopio University Hospital
    Kuopio, Pohjois-Savo 70029, Finland
    Recruiting
  • Helsinki University Hospital
    Helsinki, Uusimaa 00029, Finland
    Recruiting
  • Turku University Hospital
    Turku, Varsinais-Suomi 20521, Finland
    Recruiting
  • Karolinska University Hospital
    Stockholm, 171 76, Sweden
    Recruiting
07

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — All the IPD will be shared with other researchers by request.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap, Icf, Csr, Analytic code

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04576169
Lead sponsor
Tampere University Hospital
Collaborators
Helsinki University Central Hospital, Turku University Hospital, Kuopio University Hospital, Oulu University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Hospital Sønderjylland, Herlev/Gentofte University Hospital of Copenhagen, Hospital Nova of Central Finland
Responsible party
Jarkko Jokihaara (Associate professor of hand surgery, Tampere University Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Oct 6, 2020
Start date
Oct 27, 2020
Primary completion
Mar 31, 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Mar 31, 2035 (estimated)
Last update
Oct 9, 2024

Study contacts

Ville M Mattila, M.D., Ph.D., Professor
Contact
ville.mattila@tuni.fi
+3583311611
Jarkko Jokihaara, M.D., Ph.D., Professor
Contact
jarkko.jokihaara@tuni.fi
+3583311611
Antti Kaivorinne, M.D.
principal investigator · Tampere University Hospital
Mikko P Räisänen, M.D.
principal investigator · Tampere University Hospital
Teemu Karjalainen, M.D., Ph.D.
principal investigator · Hospital Nova of Central Finland
Aleksi Reito, M.D., Ph.D., Adjunct professor
principal investigator · Tampere University Hospital
Robert Gvozdenovic, M.D., Ph. D.
principal investigator · Herlev/Gentofte University Hospital of Copenhagen
Maria Wilcke, M.D., Ph.D.
principal investigator · Karolinska Institutet
Turkka Anttila, M.D.
principal investigator · Helsinki University Central Hospital
Annele Pönkkö, M.D.
principal investigator · Oulu University Hospital
Jerzy Stiasny, M.D.
principal investigator · Hospital Sønderjylland
Tuukka Tanskanen, M.D.
principal investigator · Turku University Hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion