[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"fragility-fractures-of-the-pelvis-ffp\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:fragility-fractures-of-the-pelvis-ffp":26},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,4,0,[8,45,72,92],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":18,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":22,"briefSummary":24,"conditions":25,"keywords":28,"overallStatus":32,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":33,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":34,"startDateStruct":37,"completionDateStruct":39,"leadSponsor":41,"locationsCount":44},"100643506","robot-assisted-minimally-invasive-treatment-versus-conventional-surgery-for-ffp3-4-fragility-fractures-of-the-pelvis-in-elderly-patients-100643506",false,"NCT07639619","Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Versus Conventional Surgery for FFP3-4 Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis in Elderly Patients","Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Versus Conventional Surgery in Elderly Patients With FFP3-4 Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 60 years\n* Low energy trauma\n* Diagnosis of osteoporosis\n* Diagnosis of FFP3 or FFP4 fragility fractures of the pelvis\n* Injury duration less than 3 weeks\n* Ability to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Severe open injury or skin infection at the surgical site\n* Hemodynamic instability preventing anesthesia or surgery\n* Severe psychiatric disorders or dementia\n* Severe obesity affecting imaging quality\n* Severe systemic diseases preventing surgery\n* Pathological fracture\n* Current chemotherapy, radiotherapy, systemic corticosteroid therapy, or growth factor therapy","ALL","60 Years",{"count":19,"type":20},88,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[23],"NA","This prospective randomized controlled trial aims to compare the efficacy and safety of robot assisted minimally invasive treatment versus conventional surgery in elderly patients with FFP3-4 fragility fractures of the pelvis. Eligible patients will be stratified according to FFP classification and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either robot assisted minimally invasive fixation or conventional surgical treatment. Primary and secondary outcomes include pain relief, early mobilization, functional recovery, perioperative complications, venous thromboembolism events, laboratory parameters, imaging outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization. The study aims to provide evidence for optimizing surgical treatment strategies in elderly patients with unstable pelvic fragility fractures.",[26,27],"Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP)","Osteoporosis",[29,30,31],"Fragility Fracture","Robot Assisted Surgery","pelvis","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-09",{"date":35,"type":36},"2026-06-10","ACTUAL",{"date":38,"type":20},"2026-06-01",{"date":40,"type":20},"2028-12-30",{"name":42,"class":43},"Junbo Liang","OTHER",1,{"id":46,"slug":47,"hasResults":11,"nctId":48,"briefTitle":49,"officialTitle":49,"acronym":50,"eligibilityCriteria":51,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":52,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":54,"phases":4,"briefSummary":55,"conditions":56,"keywords":58,"overallStatus":62,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":63,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":64,"startDateStruct":66,"completionDateStruct":68,"leadSponsor":70,"locationsCount":44},"100619938","assessment-of-treatment-variability-for-pelvic-ring-fragility-fractures-100619938","NCT07351123","Assessment of Treatment Variability for Pelvic Ring Fragility Fractures","Pelvis ATV","The inclusion criteria are:\n\n1. Patient 60 years of age or older.\n2. Low energy injury mechanism.\n3. LC1 pelvis fracture (AO\u002FOTA 61B1.1,61B2.1, or 61B3.2) confirmed with antero-posterior, inlet, and outlet pelvis radiographs, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging.\n4. Fracture displacement of \\\u003C10 mm of the posterior pelvic ring on computed tomography of the pelvis.\n5. Injury occurred within 21 days of screening.\n\nThe exclusion criteria are:\n\n1. Patient did not ambulate prior to injury.\n2. Severely frail patients (Clinical Frailty Scale ≥7).\n3. Patient has another condition, injury, or fracture that prevents post-operative weightbearing on any extremity.\n4. Retained implants around the pelvis that precludes or limits either study treatment.\n5. Infection around the hip (soft tissue or bone).\n6. Pathologic fracture with a lytic lesion in the pelvis or sacrum that precludes internal fixation.\n7. Patient is too ill, in the judgement of the attending surgeon, for internal fixation.\n8. Patient is too ill, in the judgement of the attending surgeon, for nonoperative care.\n9. Problems, in the judgment of study personnel, with maintaining follow-up with the patient.\n10. Expected injury survival of less than 12 months.\n11. Terminal illness with expected survival of less than 12 months.\n12. Currently enrolled in a study that does not permit co-enrollment.\n13. Prior enrollment in the study.\n14. Unable to obtain informed consent due to language barriers.\n15. Unable to obtain informed consent because a legally authorized representative (LAR) was unavailable.\n16. Did not provide informed consent (declined participation).\n17. Patient or LAR not approached to participate in the trial (missed patient).\n18. Other reason to exclude the patient, as approved by the Principal Investigator.",{"count":53,"type":20},120,"OBSERVATIONAL","Fragility fractures of the pelvic ring are a common injury associated with poor patient outcomes and high healthcare costs. Management of these injuries is evolving with increasing frequency of operative stabilization of the pelvic ring, despite a lack of evidence supporting operative versus nonoperative treatment. This multicenter prospective cohort study will evaluate 120 patients to determine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing operative and nonoperative treatment, by evaluating patient willingness to enroll in a trial, surgeon willingness to randomize their patients' treatment, and the completeness of data collection.",[57,26],"Pelvic Fractures",[59,60,61],"Pelvic fracture","Fragility fracture of the pelvis","Pelvic ring injury","RECRUITING","2026-06-04",{"date":65,"type":36},"2026-06-08",{"date":67,"type":36},"2026-05-25",{"date":69,"type":20},"2027-09-30",{"name":71,"class":43},"University of Maryland, Baltimore",{"id":73,"slug":74,"hasResults":11,"nctId":75,"briefTitle":76,"officialTitle":77,"acronym":78,"eligibilityCriteria":79,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":80,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":82,"briefSummary":83,"conditions":84,"keywords":85,"overallStatus":32,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":87,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":88,"startDateStruct":89,"completionDateStruct":90,"leadSponsor":91,"locationsCount":4},"100643300","robot-assisted-minimally-invasive-treatment-versus-conservative-treatment-for-fragility-fractures-of-the-pelvis-type-1-2-in-elderly-patients-100643300","NCT07636616","Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Versus Conservative Treatment for Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis Type 1-2 in Elderly Patients","Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Robot Assisted Minimally Invasive Treatment Versus Conservative Treatment in Elderly Patients With FFP1-2 Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis","FFP","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nAge ≥ 60 years Low energy trauma Diagnosis of osteoporosis Diagnosis of FFP1 or FFP2 fragility fractures of the pelvis Injury duration less than 3 weeks Ability to walk independently or with assistance before injury Ability to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nSevere open injury or skin infection at the surgical site Long term bedridden status or severe disability Severe psychiatric disorders or dementia Severe obesity affecting imaging quality Severe systemic diseases preventing surgery Pathological fracture Current chemotherapy, radiotherapy, systemic corticosteroid therapy, or growth factor therapy",{"count":81,"type":20},152,[23],"This prospective randomized controlled trial aims to compare the efficacy and safety of robot assisted minimally invasive treatment versus conservative treatment in elderly patients with FFP1-2 fragility fractures of the pelvis. Eligible patients will be stratified according to FFP classification and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either robot assisted minimally invasive fixation or standardized conservative treatment. Primary and secondary outcomes include pain relief, functional recovery, fracture progression, venous thromboembolism events, complications, and healthcare resource utilization. The study aims to provide evidence for optimizing treatment strategies in elderly patients with pelvic fragility fractures.",[26],[29,31,30,86],"Conservative Treatment","2026-06-03",{"date":33,"type":36},{"date":38,"type":20},{"date":40,"type":20},{"name":42,"class":43},{"id":93,"slug":94,"hasResults":11,"nctId":95,"briefTitle":96,"officialTitle":97,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":98,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":99,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":100,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":54,"phases":4,"briefSummary":102,"conditions":103,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":32,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":106,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":107,"startDateStruct":109,"completionDateStruct":111,"leadSponsor":113,"locationsCount":4},"100557609","a-snapshot-audit-of-traumatic-pelvic-ring-injuries-100557609","NCT06540339","A Snapshot Audit of Traumatic Pelvic Ring Injuries","SnapPelvis: International Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Traumatic Pelvic Ring Injuries","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients (≥18 years of age) admitted for traumatic pelvic ring injuries (AO\u002FFFP-Classification).\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Concomitant acetabular fractures","18 Years",{"count":101,"type":20},500,"Multicenter, snapshot cohort studies or audits have the ability to gather large patient numbers in short time periods from many healthcare systems with different resources or practices of care concerning one specific surgical condition. This type of studies allows exploration of differences in patient populations and management across the sampled cohort to identify areas of practice variability that may result in apparent differences in outcome. As such, whilst not providing true evidence of efficacy or the impact of a single variable on overall outcome, these studies can be hypothesis-generating and identify areas warranting further study in future randomized controlled trials (1). Snapshots also shed light on the real world practice, rather than the presumed or guideline suggested patient care (2).\n\nTraumatic Pelvic Ring Injuries (TPRI) represent a broad spectrum of trauma-associated pathologies with a distinct bimodal age distribution in patients admitted through the Emergency Departments of all acute care hospitals. In younger patients, this type of injury is often associated with high-energy trauma, hemodynamic instability, high mortality and morbidity rates (3-6). In the elderly population, pelvic fractures result from low energy trauma mechanisms (e.g. ground level fall) and can affect the long-term independency and life quality of geriatric patients (7).\n\nThere is substantial variation in the management of pelvic ring injuries among pelvic trauma surgeons; these variations include but are not limited to the timing of definitive fixation, the indications and protocols of conservative treatment, and the appropriate osteosynthesis of the anterior and\u002For posterior pelvic fractures (8).\n\nThis 'ESTES snapshot audit' -a prospective observational cohort study- has a dual purpose. Firstly, as an epidemiological study, it aims to report the burden of injury in specific hospitals, distributed widely throughout Europe. Secondly, this study aims to demonstrate current strategies for both, younger (after high-energy trauma) and geriatric patients (after low-energy trauma) employed to assess and treat these patients. These twin aims will serve to provide a 'snapshot' of current medical practice, but will also be hypothesis-generating while providing a rich source of patient-level data to allow further analysis of particular clinical questions. The acquired study data can be subsequently evaluated and compared to patient data of established pelvic trauma registries across Europe.",[104,105,26],"Pelvic Trauma","Pelvic Fracture","2024-12-07",{"date":108,"type":36},"2024-12-12",{"date":110,"type":20},"2025-03-01",{"date":112,"type":20},"2026-11-30",{"name":114,"class":43},"University Hospital, Aachen"]