Cluster-randomized Study of 394 Patients Operated With Direct Anterolateral Approach.
NCT ID: NCT03468192
Last Updated: 2018-03-16
Study Results
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.
COMPLETED
NA
394 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2010-01-01
2014-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Patient Experience of Acute Rehabilitation After Hip Fracture
NCT03224195
Hip Abductor Strengths, Limping and Trochanteric Tenderness After Hip Arthroplasty Due to Femoral Neck Fracture
NCT02247661
Early Coordinated Rehabilitation After Hip Fracture
NCT03301584
Anterolateral Versus Direct Lateral Approach in Hemiarthroplasty for Hip Fracture
NCT04870151
Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty, Radiological Features Comparing Lateral Versus Anterolateral Approach
NCT03974698
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The four wards managing hip fracture patients were assigned either to provide the standard postoperative hip precaution regime or the non-precaution regime during the entire study period. In two of the wards, the precaution group (PG) had standard postoperative hip precautions included limited flexion of the hip to 90° (avoid reaching down to toes or bringing knee up beyond 90°) and limited adduction of the hip (avoid sleeping on side and avoid crossing legs at knees or ankles). The mandatory assistive equipment to use for at least 3 months were reacher and stocking application aid. The participants were instructed only to use elevated chair, bed and toilet in order not to flex more than 90° in the hip. For the same reason a brace over the knee was prescribed for 6 weeks, particularly in participants with cognitive limitations.
The non-precaution group (NPG) consisted of participants treated in the other two wards. Participants in the NPG had no restrictions on mobility, i.e. they were encouraged to move freely during the recovery phase and assistive equipment were prescribed only if needed.
Admittance of a participant to either ward was only decided by any available bed, i.e. the health status of the participants or any other factors did not influence placement of participants. The investigators recruited 168 participants to the PG and 226 participants to the NPG.
The initial power analysis was directed towards dislocation rate as primary outcome. When designing the trial, the investigators had a dislocation rate of 0.5% at the department. The investigators calculated that, in order to detect an increase of 3.5%, i.e. a clinical relevant effect, the investigators needed 340 participants in each group (p\<0.05). The original plan was to additionally monitor PROM in the first 400 participants, and then dislocation rate only in the remaining 400. In order to monitor the safety of the study, the investigators also calculated a non-inferiority model, with warning levels at which the investigatorswould discontinue the study. This model was based on 200 participants in each group. Due to recruitment difficulties, the study was closed after inclusion of approximately 400 participants.
Both groups had functional assessment by an OT done as part of standard-of-care, usually within the three first postoperative days. The surgical procedure was a bipolar hemiarthroplasty inserted via a direct lateral approach (Hardinge). All implants were cemented, except 5 in the NPG and 2 in the PG (2.2 and 1.2 %).
During hospital stay the investigators registered time from admission to surgery, time of surgery, type of implant, adversities during surgery, the experience of the surgeon, radiological evaluation, length of stay, any deaths and dismissal address. The work burden of the rehabilitation personnel during hospital stay was estimated by themselves as "very short", "short", "normal", "long" or "very long" work effort. No one reported "very long". "Very short" and "short" was grouped together in the analyses. The participants were followed up with postal questionnaire at 6 weeks and 3 months including EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale on pain and satisfaction (0 to 100). A physiotherapist assessed participants with functional tests at 3 months. As only half of participants chose to participate in functional testing, the investigators do not report these data.
Medical records from all somatic departments of the hospital were reviewed and all adverse events (death, dislocation, surgical site infection (SSI), periprosthetic fracture, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, falls and new fractures, stroke and ischemic heart attack) up to 6 months postoperatively were recorded. SSI was divided in to superficial incisional SSI and deep incisional SSI and were defined according to Horan et al.The follow-up cannot consider to be blinded, as some results were gathered during hospital stay were the group belonging of the participants were obvious.
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
PREVENTION
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
non-precaution group
Study Group: Patients in the NPG had no restrictions on mobility, i.e. they were encouraged to move freely during the recovery phase and assistive equipment were prescribed only if needed.
Non-precaution group
Patients in the NPG had no restrictions on mobility, i.e. they were encouraged to move freely during the recovery phase and assistive equipment were prescribed only if needed
precaution group
Control Group: the precaution group (PG) had standard postoperative hip precautions included limited flexion of the hip to 90° (avoid reaching down to toes or bringing knee up beyond 90°) and limited adduction of the hip (avoid sleeping on side and avoid crossing legs at knees or ankles). The mandatory assistive equipment to use for at least 3 months were reacher and stocking application aid. The patients were instructed only to use elevated chair, bed and toilet in order not to flex more than 90° in the hip. For the same reason a brace over the knee was prescribed for 6 weeks, particularly in patients with cognitive limitations.
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.
Non-precaution group
Patients in the NPG had no restrictions on mobility, i.e. they were encouraged to move freely during the recovery phase and assistive equipment were prescribed only if needed
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Lund University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Ammar Jobory
MD, PhD student
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
AmmarJobory
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.