Ultra-Short Anatomic and Conventional Cementless Stems Cementless Stems in Patients Younger Than Fifty-Five Years Old

NCT ID: NCT02338596

Last Updated: 2015-01-14

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

PHASE4

Total Enrollment

111 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2001-06-30

Study Completion Date

2014-03-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

As clinical and radiographic performance of an ultra-short anatomic cementless stem have been investigated only two randomized controlled studies, well-designed trials should aim for a thorough comparison of the outcomes of ultra-short and conventional cementless stems. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of ultra-short and conventional stems in the same young patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral sequential total hip arthroplasties.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conventional cementless femoral stems are known to provide a high rate of satisfactory clinical outcomes at long-term follow-ups. However, they may have potential clinical consequences related to stress shielding, thigh pain, periprosthetic fractures, proximal/distal dimensional mismatch, an easier access pathway for wear debries and removal during revision. In an effort to reduce the risk of stress shielding, thigh pain, periprosthetic fracture, proximal/distal stem mismatch, and to facilitate removal of well fixed stem, a new ultra-short anatomic metaphyseal-fitting cementless femoral stem was developed. It was designed to provide closely mimicking the original functioning hip. The absence of the diaphyseal anchorage attempt proximal load transfer to reduce stress shielding, thigh pain and proximal distal/mismatch. Furthermore, it attempts to preservation of the femoral canal and femoral elasticity and ease of revision. The question thus arises whether it is possible to obtain strong and long-lasting fixation of the femoral component without diaphyseal anchoring.

As clinical and radiographic performances of this ultra-short stem have been investigated only in a few studies and at short-term follow-ups, it remains to be elucidated whether an ultra-short stem shows a low incidence of implant loosening, stem misalignment, intraoperative fractures and revision rate. The purpose of this randomized controlled study to compare: (1) the clinical results, including Harris hip score, thigh pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index score, and patients' satisfaction; (2) radiographic results, including stress shielding, implant loosening, stem misalignment; and (3) intraoperative fractures and revision rates of cementless total hip arthroplasty using an ultra-short anatomic metaphyseal-fitting cementless femoral stem versus a conventional metaphyseal and diaphyseal fitting anatomi proximal porous-coated cementless stem in the same patients who underwent bilateral simultaneous sequential total hip arthroplasty under one anesthetic.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Hip Replacement, Total Osteonecrosis of Femoral Head Coxarthrosis

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Conventional stem

total hip replacement operated with conventional stem (Profile; DePuy, Leeds, United Kingdom)

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Total hip replacement

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

1. Simultaneous bilateral sequential total hip arthroplasties under the same anesthetic.
2. Randomization to treatment with an ultra-short or a convnetional cementless stem was accomplished with use of study numbers in sealed envelope, which were opened in the operating room before the skin incision was made.
3. The pore size was 250㎛. A 28-mm-diameter Biolox forte ceramic femoral head (CeramTec AG, Polchingen, Germany) ) was used in all hips. A cementless cup and a 28mm internal-diameter Biolox forte ceramic liner was used in all hips in both groups.

Ultra-Short stem

total hip replacement operated with ultra-short stem (Proxima; DePuy, Leeds, United Kingdom)

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Total hip replacement

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

1. Simultaneous bilateral sequential total hip arthroplasties under the same anesthetic.
2. Randomization to treatment with an ultra-short or a convnetional cementless stem was accomplished with use of study numbers in sealed envelope, which were opened in the operating room before the skin incision was made.
3. The pore size was 250㎛. A 28-mm-diameter Biolox forte ceramic femoral head (CeramTec AG, Polchingen, Germany) ) was used in all hips. A cementless cup and a 28mm internal-diameter Biolox forte ceramic liner was used in all hips in both groups.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Total hip replacement

1. Simultaneous bilateral sequential total hip arthroplasties under the same anesthetic.
2. Randomization to treatment with an ultra-short or a convnetional cementless stem was accomplished with use of study numbers in sealed envelope, which were opened in the operating room before the skin incision was made.
3. The pore size was 250㎛. A 28-mm-diameter Biolox forte ceramic femoral head (CeramTec AG, Polchingen, Germany) ) was used in all hips. A cementless cup and a 28mm internal-diameter Biolox forte ceramic liner was used in all hips in both groups.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* End stage hip arthritis

Exclusion Criteria

* Age above 50 years old
* Inflammatory arthritis
* Coexisting foot or ankle disorder limiting walking
Minimum Eligible Age

19 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

50 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Ewha Womans University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Young Hoo Kim

Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Young-Hoo Kim, M.D.

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Professor

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

Shortstem005

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Subsidence of Short Stem THA With DORR Type C
NCT06768541 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Exception Cementless Hip Stem
NCT04349046 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING