An observational study in Pain, sponsored by University of Utah. Enrolling by invitation at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-04-23.
Sponsored by University of Utah · Observational
The investigators aim is to determine if the cannulated Bone Bolt® screw system will provide improved post-operative pain control as compared to standard cannulated screw system fixation for the operative treatment of LC1 fractures (primary outcome). Hypothesis: Patients treated with the cannulated Bone Bolt® screw system will experience a clinically important difference (1.5 points) in post-operative pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) compared to patients treated with standard cannulated screw system fixation.
Lateral Compression type-1 (LC1) fractures of the pelvis represent the most common injury to the pelvic ring, accounting for more than 50% of all pelvic ring injuries. These injuries occur secondary to a lateral compressive force on the pelvic ring causing an internal rotation force coupled with medialization of the impacted hemi-pelvis. Despite their prevalence, treatment algorithms for these injuries remain controversial. When significant deformity exists (>1cm displacement) the preference is typically for operative fixation as this has been listed repeatedly as an indication for surgery. In the setting of a minimally displaced LC1 fractures surgical indications become less clear. Minimally displaced fractures can have instability that is under appreciated on static imaging and can result in displacement with non-operative management. This has prompted many surgeons to treat the minimally displaced fracture more aggressively. Surgical intervention provides the benefit of preventing displacement, improving pain, and potentially progressing post-operative mobility.
Previous work has demonstrated short term benefit to the surgical treatment of these injuries, although the treatment benefits noted have been small. A recent observational study conducted at 16 trauma centers prospectively measured short-term VAS pain scores in 194 patients with unilateral sacral fractures and noted that patients with surgical fixation reported 2.7 points less pain at 24 hours postinjury (p=0.001) and 1.1 points less pain at 3 months as compared to those patients treated without surgery (p=0.02). Subsequent to this, an investigator demonstrated a small improvement in pain and functional outcome for up to 12 months in minimally displaced LC1 fractures with complete sacral injuries that were treated with surgical intervention as compared to those patients managed conservatively.
With this information at hand, the current treatment controversy for these injuries has shifted to determining how to optimize surgical fixation and pelvic stability, improve short-term outcomes such as pain, time to mobilization, discharge disposition, and physical function. Many surgeons now consider the short term benefits of surgical intervention to outweigh the risks of percutaneous pelvic fixation, and are desiring a more structurally reliable way in which surgical management to further improve consistency of patient outcomes. Present data provides little to no guidance as to which type of surgical fixation strategy may prove most beneficial to these patients and few advancements have been made in the technology used to treat pelvic ring injuries over the past several decades.
Standard treatment strategies for operative LC1 injuries includes management with cannulated sacroiliac (SI) or trans-sacral (TS) screws in the posterior pelvic ring with or without anterior pelvic ring fixation. Standard cannulated screw System fixation work reasonably well, but loosening and loss of fixation integrity are not infrequent. New advances in FDA cleared screw designs that offer greater mechanical stability, may give more reliable results from surgical treatment.
Given that improvements have been noted with surgical intervention but current surgical techniques and technology have only offered modest clinical benefits, the next logical step is to determine if new technology such as the Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System with proven increase mechanical strength and stiffness can improve post-operative patient outcomes. Given that these injuries represent the most common pelvic ring fractures but do not yet have a ideal and fully reliable treatment pathway, the results of this prospective study could greatly improve care of these patients. A prospective observational design is preferred given a true equipoise for screw design used in the operative treatments for these patients.
10,054 studies on the registry are indexed under Pain; 1,649 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 100 is close to the median of 100 across 1,252 observational studies indexed under Pain.
Browse Pain studies →University of Utah is the lead sponsor of 994 studies on the registry; 175 are open to participants now.
Of its 114 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 69 (61%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Patients between 18 and 80 years with operative LC1 pelvic ring injury.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Surgeons identifying as users of the Cannulated Bone Bolt® screws will be required to place at least one Cannulated Bone Bolt® screw in each of their operative LC1 injuries.
Other: Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System
Surgeons identifying as users of standard cannulated screws will be able to use the cannulated screw of their choice.
Other: Standard Cannulated Screw System
Patients treated with the Cannulated Bone Bolt® screw system for Lateral Compression Type -1 (LC-1) fractures.
Patients treated with the Standard Cannulated Screw System for Lateral Compression Type -1 (LC-1) fractures.
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain
VAS pain score (0 no pain - 10 severe pain)
Time frame: 2-weeks after surgery
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain
VAS pain score (0 no pain - 10 severe pain)
Time frame: 6-weeks after surgery
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain
VAS pain score (0 no pain - 10 severe pain)
Time frame: 12-weeks after surgery
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Started Jun 2025 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Jun 2028, 36 months after the start.
Of 504 non-industry observational studies under Pain, half reached primary completion within 18 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 8 and three quarters within 42. This study's planned 36 months is above that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 519 studies reached it within 18 months; a quarter within 8 and three quarters within 41.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.