ClinicalTrials.gg
Enrolling by invitationNCT07209280Updated Apr 23, 2026

Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System Versus Standard Cannulated Screw System Fixation for Pelvic Fractures

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

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
100
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

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.

Read the detailed description

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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Pain

Keywords

  • Lateral Compression Type-1 (LC-1) fractures
  • Pelvic Ring Injuries
  • Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System
  • Standard Cannulated Screw System
  • Post-operative pain
  • Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
03

In context

Pain

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 →

Lead sponsor

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.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

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.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age at presentation between 18 and 80 years in line with literature from prior investigations.
  • Operative LC1 pelvic ring injury.
  • Glasgow Coma Scale of 15.
  • Willingness to participate in study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Inability to provide .
  • Pregnant or lactating woman.
  • Current incarceration.
  • Associated spinal cord injury.
  • Non-ambulatory patients (including patients with associated lower extremity fracture that may limit post-operative weight bearing).
  • Patient presents with osteoporosis, which in the opinion of the Principal Investigator, may limit the subject's ability to support fracture repair using the study device.
  • Patient has a metabolic disorder that may impair bone formation.
  • Patient has osteomalacia.
  • Patient has distant foci of infections which may spread to the implant site or patient with infection, sepsis or osteomyelitis.
  • Patient has a vascular insufficiency, muscular atrophy, or neuromuscular disease.
  • Patient is a current alcohol or drug abuser.
  • Patients unable to comply with post-operative instruction.
  • Other lower extremity injuries that impact weight bearing recommendation.
  • Injuries that may have a larger impact on pain than the studied pelvic ring.
  • Non-English/Spanish speaking.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

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.

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.

05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
100 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Cannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System

    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

  • Standard Cannulated Screw System Fixation

    Surgeons identifying as users of standard cannulated screws will be able to use the cannulated screw of their choice.

    Other: Standard Cannulated Screw System

Interventions

  • OtherCannulated Bone Bolt® Screw System

    Patients treated with the Cannulated Bone Bolt® screw system for Lateral Compression Type -1 (LC-1) fractures.

  • OtherStandard Cannulated Screw System

    Patients treated with the Standard Cannulated Screw System for Lateral Compression Type -1 (LC-1) fractures.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain

    VAS pain score (0 no pain - 10 severe pain)

    Time frame: 2-weeks after surgery

  2. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain

    VAS pain score (0 no pain - 10 severe pain)

    Time frame: 6-weeks after surgery

  3. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain

    VAS pain score (0 no pain - 10 severe pain)

    Time frame: 12-weeks after surgery

07

Study locations

1 site
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

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.

Registered
Sep 30, 2025
First posted
Oct 6, 2025
StartActual
Jun 11, 2025
Primary completionEst.
Jun 2028
CompletionEst.
Jun 2028
Last update
Apr 23, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 23, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07209280
Lead sponsor
University of Utah
Responsible party
Lucas Marchand (Principle Investigator, University of Utah) — Principal investigator
First posted
Oct 6, 2025
Start date
Jun 11, 2025
Primary completion
Jun 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Jun 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 23, 2026

Study contacts

Lucas Marchand, M.D.
principal investigator · University of Utah Orthopaedics

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.

No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.

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