Comparison of Metal on Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty and Metal on Metal Total Hip Resurfacing.

NCT ID: NCT04516239

Last Updated: 2021-03-16

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

48 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2005-09-30

Study Completion Date

2020-07-31

Brief Summary

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

The goal of this double-blind prospective randomized study is to compare subjective outcome measures and gait parameters between conventional THA using large diameter femoral heads and total hip resurfacing

Detailed Description

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

In the early 1960's Sir John Charnley revolutionized total hip arthroplasty (THA) with the introduction of polyethylene as a bearing surface. This innovation allowed THA to become a very successful procedure to treat degeneration of the hip joint, with excellent long term clinical outcome and patient satisfaction.

However, this technique requires sacrifice of the whole femoral head and part of the neck. This bone will not be available for future revision surgery, which seems inevitable in the younger patient. THA does not always allow precise reconstitution of normal hip biomechanics. The femoral canal is also violated, fat and cement embolism can occur and thrombogenic material is released in the bloodstream. Postoperatively the femoral stem can cause thigh pain, proximal stress shielding, and periprosthetic fracture may occur . Finally the use of a 28 millimeter non anatomic femoral head during conventional THA increases the risk of hip impingement and dislocation while limiting hip range of motion.

There is renewed interest in the concept of hip resurfacing and the use of large diameter femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty, since both these options recreate more optimal hip biomechanics. Total hip resurfacing is less invasive than conventional THA using a femoral stem and allows restoration of normal hip anatomy. Additionally, compared to conventional THA, hip resurfacing has the following advantages: preservation of the femoral head and neck, better hip stability, improved hip biomechanics (leg length, offset) and possibly better proprioception. Since the femoral canal is not violated, there is less risk of residual thigh pain, and patients probably have the sensation of a more normal feeling joint.

As for conventional THA with large diameter femoral heads, the use of a near anatomic head size (compared to the small 28mm diameter head use with conventional THA) restores normal stability, helps reduce the incidence of impingement and increases range of motion to a greater extent than hip resurfacing, and might improve proprioception as well. The investigators believe these advantages will have a positive influence on clinical function and gait pattern compared to conventional THA.

Gait analysis has demonstrated that gait pattern is modified after THA and patients do not recover normal gait. Kinematics analysis further showed that abnormal gait pattern is not only observed in the operated hip but also in other articulations, including the contra lateral limb. Walking kinetics are affected to some extent, especially the force generated by the lower limb and synchronization of muscle activity. Finally a subjective feeling of an abnormal hip function may still persists after THA.

The goal of this double-blind prospective randomized study is to compare subjective outcome measures and gait parameters between conventional THA using large diameter femoral heads and total hip resurfacing

Conditions

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

Arthroplasty Replacement Hip

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

This study is a prospective randomized clinical trial with two parallel treatment groups. At the preoperative teaching session, the study objectives and the risks and benefits of surgery will be explained to the patient by the research assistant or the surgeon in order to obtain consent. A randomization table will be generated by the SPSS 10 software and sealed numerated envelopes will be assigned to each patient entering the study. A research assistant will coordinate the study and data collection.
Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants
The patient will be informed of the randomization group, 6 months after surgery.

Study Groups

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

LDH THA

large diameter head total hip arthroplasty

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

THA

Intervention Type DEVICE

Three surgeons performed the surgeries through a posterior surgical approach in both groups. The fascia lata was opened and the gluteus maximus was split in line with its muscle fibers. The short external rotators were released from the greater trochanter. A posterior capsulotomy was performed and the hip dislocated. For the THA, the standard techniques proposed by the manufacturer for insertion of the stem were followed. Neck sleeve adapters and three different prosthetic neck-shaft angles (125, 135, and 145) were available to adjust leg length and femoral offset with the large-diameter head THA system.

HR

metal-on-metalhip resurfacing

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

HR

Intervention Type DEVICE

Three surgeons performed the surgeries through a posterior surgical approach in both groups. The fascia lata was opened and the gluteus maximus was split in line with its muscle fibers. The short external rotators were released from the greater trochanter. A posterior capsulotomy was performed and the hip dislocated. In the HR group, the capsulotomy was completed circumferentially, and the gluteus tendinous insertion on the femur was released in all men, but only when needed in women, to improve femur mobilization.

Interventions

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

THA

Three surgeons performed the surgeries through a posterior surgical approach in both groups. The fascia lata was opened and the gluteus maximus was split in line with its muscle fibers. The short external rotators were released from the greater trochanter. A posterior capsulotomy was performed and the hip dislocated. For the THA, the standard techniques proposed by the manufacturer for insertion of the stem were followed. Neck sleeve adapters and three different prosthetic neck-shaft angles (125, 135, and 145) were available to adjust leg length and femoral offset with the large-diameter head THA system.

Intervention Type DEVICE

HR

Three surgeons performed the surgeries through a posterior surgical approach in both groups. The fascia lata was opened and the gluteus maximus was split in line with its muscle fibers. The short external rotators were released from the greater trochanter. A posterior capsulotomy was performed and the hip dislocated. In the HR group, the capsulotomy was completed circumferentially, and the gluteus tendinous insertion on the femur was released in all men, but only when needed in women, to improve femur mobilization.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

1. Patient with degenerative disease of the hip in need for total hip or total hip resurfacing arthroplasty
2. Patient who understands the study protocol and willing to comply with the planned clinical follow-up
3. Patient can give informed consent

Exclusion Criteria

1. Age older than 65 years old or younger than 18 years old
2. Charnley class B (both hip diseased) or C (polyarticular disease) patients
3. Spinal or lower limb disease other than the degenerated hip that could influence gait and walking performance
4. Neuromuscular disorder
5. Known or suspected metal allergy
6. Pregnancy
7. Renal insufficiency
8. Known or suspected osteopenia or osteoporosis of the hip
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

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

Ciusss de L'Est de l'Île de Montréal

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Pascal-André Vendittoli

Orthopedist

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Kostretzis L, Lavigne M, Kiss MO, Shahin M, Barry J, Vendittoli PA. Despite higher revision rate, MoM large-head THA offers better clinical scores than HR: 14-year results from a randomized controlled trial involving 48 patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Apr 30;22(1):400. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04286-6.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 33941155 (View on PubMed)

Related Links

Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19543863/

The John Charnley Award: The functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same: a randomized, double-blind study

Other Identifiers

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

04132

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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