8 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
Hypothesis It is expected that shoulder surgery patients treated with celecoxib (Celebrex) will experience significantly reduced narcotic use as measured by pill count compared with controls at three and six weeks postoperatively. Study Overview The proposed study will determine if there is benefit to the use of a COX-II inhibitor in shoulder surgery. This study will have two arms: Arm 1 (shoulder replacement, both primary and reverse) and Arm 2 (arthroscopic rotator cuff repair). These distinct arms are necessary because each surgery is distinct in terms of type of procedure, indications, and patient population. The patients in Arm 1 will undergo stratified randomization according to the type of arthroplasty (primary or reverse) to ensure a balanced representation of these patients within subgroups. All patients undergoing primary total shoulder replacement, reverse shoulder replacement, or arthroscopic rotator cuff repair will be eligible to participate in the appropriate arm of the study. Revision surgery patients will be excluded from both arms of the study. A maximum of 78 arthroscopic cuff repair patients, and 78 arthroplasty patients will be enrolled in each arm of the study. Baseline information will be obtained on each patient including baseline VAS for pain, baseline shoulder scores as outlined below, and baseline narcotic and anti-inflammatory medication use, if any. Patients will be randomized to receive celecoxib (Celebrex) 400 mg one hour prior to surgery or placebo; they will then continue to receive the same medication daily for 3 weeks postoperatively: celecoxib 200 mg twice daily or a placebo control. The primary outcome measure will be narcotic utilization as measured by narcotic pill count. Secondary outcome measures will include subjective measure of pain as measured by the VAS for pain, range of motion as measured by active forward elevation (at 6 weeks postoperatively) and three patient assessment scores: the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), the UCLA score, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Society score (ASES). Data will be obtained at follow-up visits three and six weeks postoperatively.
This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair augmented with the BioBrace® Implant vs. arthroscopic rotator cuff repair alone in subjects requiring surgical intervention for a full-thickness rotator cuff tear.
The primary objective of this study is to prospectively determine, at 12 months post-surgical repair of full thickness rotator cuff tears, the safety and efficacy of treating full thickness rotator cuff repairs with pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF). The hypothesis states that exposure to a pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) following surgical repair of a full thickness rotator cuff tendon tear reduces tendon re-tear rates. The strength of the shoulder muscles and the levels of pain in subjects after surgical repair of their rotator cuff adjunctively treated with an active PEMF device will also be measured.
The purpose of this randomized-controlled study is to compare outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair augmented with a Bioinductive Implant (study group) to standard arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (control group). The primary outcome of this study is rotator cuff repair integrity (absence of full- or partial-thickness defect) demonstrated on ultrasound at 1-year postoperatively. The investigators hypothesize that the study group will have higher rates of repair integrity demonstrated on ultrasound at 1-year postoperatively.
The primary objective of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without augmentation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Mesenchymal stem cells promote tissue regeneration by differentiating into adult cell lines and by supplying growth factors to their implanted environment. They have been shown to be effective in improving both overall healing and tendon integrity in rotator cuff repair. This study will follow 100 patients in the United States and track their clinical outcomes for at least one year post-operatively.
There are very few level 1 or level 2 evidence studies that examine postoperative rehabilitation of rotator cuff repair and shoulder arthroplasty. A systematic review of level 1 or level 2 evidence studies was performed (Baumgarten et al., Sports Health, 2009) that found only four studies that examined rotator cuff repair rehabilitation. The current study was performed to determine if there is a significant difference in passive glenohumeral joint range of motion, active glenohumeral joint range of motion, scapular substitution, and subjects measured outcome scores (clinimetrics) in patients who undergo rotator cuff repair when treated postoperatively with pulley exercises compared to Jackins' exercises. Null Hypothesis: There will be no significant difference in passive range of motion, active range of motion, scapular substitution, and subject measured outcomes scores in subjects who undergo rotator cuff repair when treated with pulley exercises compared to Jackins' exercises.
The investigators aim to establish whether completing a subacromial decompression before or after repair of a complete rotator cuff tear has any clinical significance. Both the arthroscopic decompression and rotator cuff repair will be completed during the same surgical date. The investigators null hypothesis contends that full-thickness rotator cuff tear repair performed before versus after subacromial decompression will not influence patient's post-operative pain or functionality.
A pivotal study to assess the safety and effectiveness of the InSpace™ device implantation in comparison to surgical partial repair of full thickness Massive Rotator Cuff Tear (MRCT).