Study Results
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
TERMINATED
NA
36 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2014-06-30
2015-01-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The investigators predict that those patients with 3D imaging and bone model will have better acetabular shell placement than those with standard preoperative planning.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Real-Time Instrument for Acetabular Shell Positioning
NCT02006251
Acetabular Shell Positioning Using Patient Specific Instruments
NCT01791738
Healthy Hip Study: Conservative Management for Pre-arthritic Hip Disorders
NCT04069507
Survivorship, Radiographic, and Functional Outcomes of the Multihole Revision Acetabular Cup
NCT03031964
Primary Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty Using a Metal-on-Metal Couple in the Young Active Patient
NCT00285948
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Eligible subjects for inclusion in the study will be able to receive a pelvic CT scan at the Cleveland Clinic. Additionally, we will obtain standard of care pre- and post-operative x-rays (AP view). For subjects randomized into the experimental group, their CT scan DICOM images will be uploaded into the Cleveland Clinic developed surgical simulator specifically designed for THA at least 10 days prior to surgery. For each experimental subject, the Cleveland Clinic pre-operative planning software will be used to define the optimal size and location of the acetabular components (acetabular shell, and the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene bearing - UHMWPE). The treating surgeon will virtually place the implant in the simulator software. The specification for shell placement will vary depending on the subject's individual pathology and pelvic morphology, but is expected to fall within the range of 10-35 degrees of anteversion and 30-50 degrees of abduction.
In the control group, each surgeon will use their standard methods of pre-operative planning using the pre-operative x-rays. To prepare the acetabulum and place the implants on the day of surgery, surgeons will use standard surgical alignment instruments provided by the manufacturer of the implant. For the experimental group, the surgeon will use CT scan and a 3D preoperative planning software to place the implants virtually. The surgeons are provided with a surrogate bone model with a fabricated acetabular implant placed in the same orientation as was planned in the surgical simulator software, and will use standard surgical instruments provided by the manufacturer of the implant.
The images obtained from the post-operative CT scans will be uploaded into the simulator software for 3D reconstruction. The 3D image of the post-operative pelvis with the implants will be superimposed onto the image of the pre-operative pelvis with the virtually placed implants. Using measurement tools within the software we will compare the position of the actual acetabular component placed in the patient with the desired position specified by the plan. The measurements that will be made are for angular orientations in 3D space (anteversion and inclination). Measurements are accurate to within a fraction of a degree.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
3D imaging, surrogate bone model
3D imaging \& surrogate bone model
3D imaging & surrogate bone model
3D imaging \& surrogate bone model to assist with acetabular shell placement. Different that standard of care preoperative imaging
Standard of Care Preoperative Imaging
Patients receiving standard of care preoperative planning prior to total hip arthroplasty.
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
3D imaging & surrogate bone model
3D imaging \& surrogate bone model to assist with acetabular shell placement. Different that standard of care preoperative imaging
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Primary, unilateral Total hip arthroplasty (THA)
* 18 to 85 years old at time of surgery
* Able to get a pre- and post-operative CT scan at the Cleveland Clinic Main Campus at least 10 days prior to surgery
Exclusion Criteria
* Pregnancy
* Incarceration
* Condition deemed by physician or medical staff to be non-conducive to patient's ability to complete the study, or a potential risk to the patient's health and well-being.
18 Years
85 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
The Cleveland Clinic
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Carlos Higuera, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
The Cleveland Clinic
Alison Klika, MS
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
The Cleveland Clinic
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Codsi MJ, Bennetts C, Gordiev K, Boeck DM, Kwon Y, Brems J, Powell K, Iannotti JP. Normal glenoid vault anatomy and validation of a novel glenoid implant shape. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 May-Jun;17(3):471-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.08.010. Epub 2008 Mar 7.
Scalise JJ, Bryan J, Polster J, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. Quantitative analysis of glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis using three-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Mar-Apr;17(2):328-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.07.013. Epub 2008 Jan 22.
Scalise JJ, Codsi MJ, Bryan J, Iannotti JP. The three-dimensional glenoid vault model can estimate normal glenoid version in osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 May-Jun;17(3):487-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.09.006. Epub 2008 Feb 20.
Scalise JJ, Codsi MJ, Bryan J, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. The influence of three-dimensional computed tomography images of the shoulder in preoperative planning for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Nov;90(11):2438-45. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.01341.
Eisler T, Svensson O, Tengstrom A, Elmstedt E. Patient expectation and satisfaction in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002 Jun;17(4):457-62. doi: 10.1054/arth.2002.31245.
Furnes O, Lie SA, Espehaug B, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI. Hip disease and the prognosis of total hip replacements. A review of 53,698 primary total hip replacements reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1987-99. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 May;83(4):579-86. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.83b4.11223.
Older J. Charnley low-friction arthroplasty: a worldwide retrospective review at 15 to 20 years. J Arthroplasty. 2002 Sep;17(6):675-80. doi: 10.1054/arth.2002.31973.
Phillips CB, Barrett JA, Losina E, Mahomed NN, Lingard EA, Guadagnoli E, Baron JA, Harris WH, Poss R, Katz JN. Incidence rates of dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and deep infection during the first six months after elective total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jan;85(1):20-6. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200301000-00004.
Parvizi J, Wade FA, Rapuri V, Springer BD, Berry DJ, Hozack WJ. Revision hip arthroplasty for late instability secondary to polyethylene wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jun;447:66-9. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000218751.14989.a6.
Alberton GM, High WA, Morrey BF. Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty : an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Oct;84(10):1788-92.
Dorr LD, Wolf AW, Chandler R, Conaty JP. Classification and treatment of dislocations of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983 Mar;(173):151-8.
McCollum DE, Gray WJ. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Causes and prevention. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 Dec;(261):159-70.
Robinson RP, Simonian PT, Gradisar IM, Ching RP. Joint motion and surface contact area related to component position in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Jan;79(1):140-6. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.79b1.6842.
Mahomed NN, Barrett JA, Katz JN, Phillips CB, Losina E, Lew RA, Guadagnoli E, Harris WH, Poss R, Baron JA. Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jan;85(1):27-32. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200301000-00005.
Hafez MA, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB, Sherman KP. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific templating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Mar;444:184-92. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000201148.06454.ef.
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
Medical Device Materials
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
14-555
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.