CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT05847062Updated May 6, 2023

Clinical Trial to Analyze Lateralized Models and Medializations of Inverted Arthroplasty.

An interventional study of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in Rotator Cuff Arthropathy and Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis, sponsored by Yaiza Lopiz Morales. Recruiting at 1 site in Spain. Open to participants aged 65 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-05-06.

Sponsored by Yaiza Lopiz Morales · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Mar 2025, 1 year 7 months ago, but the record still lists the study as recruiting.
  • Registered 11 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Mar 2022, registered Feb 2023).
  • Started Mar 2022; still recruiting 4 years 7 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
42
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
65 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

To determine the functional outcomes, complications and muscle performance by isokinetic study of two reverse arthroplasty systems (one with medialized center of rotation and the other with lateralized center of rotation) in the treatment of rotator cuff arthropathies or irreparable cuff tears.

Read the detailed description

This is an experimental, prospective, unblinded, randomized, comparative clinical trial between patients with two types of prosthetic implants (inverted arthroplasty with medialized center of rotation vs inverted arthroplasty with lateralized center of rotation). Those male or female patients who meet the inclusion criteria will be selected to form part of one of the two randomly distributed study groups. Sample size Based on studies with similar characteristics but where lateralization is not performed with the implant but with a bone graft would require a sample size of 34 patients (17 in each group) assuming 20% losses with a Type I error of 0. 05 and a statistical power of 80% to show a difference of 10 points on the Constant scale (the minimal clinically important difference on the Constant scale for reverse arthroplasty is described as 8 points in previous comparative studies so we consider the detection of a difference of 10 to be sufficient. The minimal clinically important difference for function and strength in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The final N needed would be 42 patients (21 per group). A randomization of patients will be performed to assign them to one or the other study group, which will be carried out by an independent assistant, who will generate a random sequence that will be unknown to the investigators. Each patient will be given a sealed and numbered envelope to choose from, in which the randomized group in which he/she has been included will be determined. The study will be blinded for the patient and rehabilitator but not for the surgeon.

02

Conditions studied

  • Rotator Cuff Arthropathy
  • Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis
03

In context

Osteoarthritis

4,398 studies on the registry are indexed under Osteoarthritis; 582 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 42 is below the median of 70 across 3,440 interventional studies indexed under Osteoarthritis.

Browse Osteoarthritis studies →

Lead sponsor

This is the only study on the registry with Yaiza Lopiz Morales as lead sponsor.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
65 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  1. Male or female patients over 65 years of age with rotator cuff arthropathy refractory to conservative treatment after six months.
  2. Ability to understand the information sheet, informed consent and evaluation scales.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

Patients with sequelae of fractures, rheumatoid arthritis, avascular necrosis, primary glenohumeral arthrosis, revision surgeries that have required conversion to a ATHI

  1. Patients in whom another surgical procedure has been associated with ATHI such as a tendon transfer
  2. Glenoid bone defects in the horizontal plane (Type B2 and C of the Walch classification) or in the vertical plane (E3 Sirveaux).
05

Study design

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

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    patients operated on by means of an inverted shoulder prosthesis with medialized component

    patients meeting the inclusion criteria who underwent surgery for a rotator cuff tear using an inverted shoulder prosthesis with a medially rotated center of rotation.

    Procedure: reverse shoulder arthroplasty

  • Active comparator
    patients operated by means of inverted shoulder prosthesis with lateralized component

    patients meeting the inclusion criteria who underwent surgery for a rotator cuff tear using an inverted shoulder prosthesis with a lateralized center of rotation.

    Procedure: reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Interventions

  • Procedurereverse shoulder arthroplasty

    The patient will be admitted to undergo reconstructive surgery of the arthropathy, by means of one of the two mentioned Inverted Arthroplasty implants. The patient will be operated following always the same surgical technique with the same protocol (position, anesthesia, antibiotic prophylaxis...) and by one of the three surgeons of the shoulder unit, being always at least two of them present in each of the interventions. Both the implants used and the complications occurring during surgery or in the immediate postoperative period will be recorded.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. to compare functional outcomes in patients with cuff arthropathies treated with medialized ATHI or lateralized ATHI.

    To compare functional outcomes (Constant scale score) 24 months after surgery in patients over 65 years of age with cuff arthropathies treated with either of two options: Medialized ATHI or lateralized ATHI. the score ranges from 0-100 points. The higher the score the better the functional result

    Time frame: 24 Months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Comparison of the results of the visual analog pain scale (VAS)

    Comparison of the results obtained in the other functional assessment scale: the visual analog pain scale (VAS).(0-10). The higher the score, the more painful

    Time frame: 24 Months

  2. Comparison of Joint Range of Motion between the two prosthetic systems under study.

    Comparison of the joint range of motion (joint balance in degrees in abduction, external and internal rotation, anteversion) between the two prosthetic systems under study.

    Time frame: 24 Months

  3. Analysis and comparison of the Maximum recorded muscle force.

    Maximum muscle force at any time during a repetition. Indicative of muscle force capacity (N-M, newtons per meter).

    Time frame: 24 Months

  4. Determination and comparison of the prevalence of complications with each of the prosthetic systems.

    Determination and comparison of the prevalence of complications with each of the prosthetic systems used, including radiographic evaluation.

    Time frame: 24 Months

  5. Comparison of the results of the Quick Disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand (Quick-DASH) score.

    Comparison of the results obtained in the other functional assessment scale: Quick Disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand (Quick-DASH) score. The score ranges from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the greater shoulder disability

    Time frame: 24 Months

  6. Comparison of the results of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score

    Comparison of the results obtained in the other functional assessment scales: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. the the score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates a worse shoulder condition and 100 indicates best shoulder condition, so the greater the score, the lower the level of shoulder disability

    Time frame: 24 Months

  7. Analysis and comparison of the Maximum strength as a function of weight

    Maximum strength as a function of weight: percentage of muscle strength recorded and normalized by body weight and compared to the set goal ( %).

    Time frame: 24 Months

  8. Analysis and comparison of the Total work per repetition

    Total work per repetition: total muscle force for the repetition with the greatest amount of work. Work is indicative of the muscle's ability to produce force throughout the range of motion (measured in Joules (J)).

    Time frame: 24 Months

  9. Analysis and comparison of the isokinetic parameter (Coefficient of variation )

    Coefficient of variation : Statistical representation of the validity of the test based on the reproducibility of the exercise. Low values show higher reproducibility (%).

    Time frame: 24 Months

  10. Analysis and comparison of the isokinetic parameters (Average power)

    Average power: total work divided by time. Power represents how fast a muscle can produce force (W, watts).

    Time frame: 24 Months

  11. Analysis and comparison of the Acceleration rate

    Acceleration rate: total time to reach the Isokinetic speed. Indicative of the neuromuscular capacity to move the limb at the beginning of the Range of Motion (msec. milliseconds).

    Time frame: 24 Months

  12. Analysis and comparison of the Deceleration speed

    Deceleration speed: total time to go from Isokinetic speed to zero speed. Indicative of the neuromuscular capacity to control the limb eccentrically at the end of the Range of Motion (msec, milliseconds).

    Time frame: 24 Months

  13. Analysis and comparison of the isokinetic parameters (Agonist/antagonist ratio)

    Agonist/antagonist ratio: The ratio of the reciprocal muscle group. Excessive imbalances may predispose to joint injury.%

    Time frame: 24 Months

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Hospital Clinico San Carlos de Madrid
    Madrid, 28040, Spain
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Lopiz Y, Garcia-Fernandez C, Arriaza A, Rizo B, Marcelo H, Marco F. Midterm outcomes of bone grafting in glenoid defects treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Sep;26(9):1581-1588. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.01.017. Epub 2017 Apr 10. PubMed 28408254 ↗
  • Lopiz Y, Rodriguez-Gonzalez A, Martin-Albarran S, Marcelo H, Garcia-Fernandez C, Marco F. Injury to the axillary and suprascapular nerves in rotator cuff arthropathy and after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective electromyographic analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jul;27(7):1275-1282. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.12.030. Epub 2018 Feb 21. PubMed 29475786 ↗
  • Garcia-Fernandez C, Lopiz Y, Rizo B, Serrano-Mateo L, Alcobia-Diaz B, Rodriguez-Gonzalez A, Marco F. Reverse total shoulder arhroplasty for the treatment of failed fixation in proximal humeral fractures. Injury. 2018 Sep;49 Suppl 2:S22-S26. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.06.042. PubMed 30219143 ↗
  • Lopiz Y, Alcobia-Diaz B, Galan-Olleros M, Garcia-Fernandez C, Picado AL, Marco F. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus nonoperative treatment for 3- or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Dec;28(12):2259-2271. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.06.024. Epub 2019 Sep 6. PubMed 31500986 ↗
  • Lopiz Y, Garcia-Fernandez C, Vallejo-Carrasco M, Garriguez-Perez D, Achaerandio L, Tesoro-Gonzalo C, Marco F. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture in the elderly. Cemented or uncemented stem? Int Orthop. 2022 Mar;46(3):635-644. doi: 10.1007/s00264-021-05284-y. Epub 2022 Jan 16. PubMed 35034145 ↗

Study documents

  • Protocol, analysis plan and consent form · Feb 27, 2023

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 6, 2023, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05847062
Lead sponsor
Yaiza Lopiz Morales
Responsible party
Yaiza Lopiz Morales (Principal Investigator, Hospital San Carlos, Madrid) — Sponsor-investigator
First posted
May 6, 2023
Start date
Mar 8, 2022
Primary completion
Mar 1, 2025 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 31, 2025 (estimated)
Last update
May 6, 2023

Study contacts

Yaiza Lopiz Morales, professor
Contact
yaizalopiz@gmail.com
+34 609564029
Andres Bartrina, Resident
Contact
a.bartrina16@gmail.com
+34 679202084

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
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