Collared Versus Collarless Femoral Implants for Total Hip Arthroplasty
Primary Purpose
Hip Osteoarthritis, Hip Arthroplasty
Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Canada
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Collared Femoral Implant
Collarless Femoral Implant
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional treatment trial for Hip Osteoarthritis focused on measuring total hip arthroplasty, collarless femoral implant, collared femoral implant, direct anterior approach, direct lateral approach
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- unilateral hip osteoarthritis
- primary total hip arthroplasty
Exclusion Criteria:
- symptomatic osteoarthritis in the contralateral hip
- bilateral total hip arthroplasty
- revision arthroplasty
- cognitive defects/neuromuscular disorders
- inability to understand English (questionnaires are only provided in English)
- live more than 100km from London, Ontario
- BMI greater than 40
Sites / Locations
- London Health Sciences Centre
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Experimental
Active Comparator
Arm Label
Collared Femoral Implant
Collarless Femoral Implant
Arm Description
Participants will have the Corail collared femoral implant used during their surgery.
Participants will have the Corail collarless femoral implant used during their surgery.
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Implant Migration
Movement of the implant measured by radiostereometric imaging analysis.
Secondary Outcome Measures
Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) Test
Measure to assess function.
Activity Level
Activity measured by number of steps taken per day with the use of a FitBit.
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Score
Patient-reported outcome to assess activity level.
12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12)
General health questionnaire. Patient-reported measure to assess quality of life. Scores are calculated based on population averages.
Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)
Used to assess impact of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Patient-reported measure to assess function, pain and stiffness. Higher scores indicate worse pain, stiffness and functional limitations. Scores are separated into 3 subscales: pain, stiffness and function; but can be combined for a total score.
Harris Hip Score
Used to assess impact of hip osteoarthritis. Clinician-reported outcome measure to assess function, pain and range of motion. Higher scores indicate better outcomes and hip function.
EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D)
Used to assess health-related quality of life. Patient-reported measure to assess quality of life.
Cost Questionnaires
Patient-reported measure to assess indirect and direct costs of treatment including ER visits, clinician visits, tests and procedures, lost productivity, caregiver involvement, etc.
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT03558217
First Posted
November 17, 2017
Last Updated
February 3, 2022
Sponsor
Lawson Health Research Institute
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT03558217
Brief Title
Collared Versus Collarless Femoral Implants for Total Hip Arthroplasty
Official Title
Comparing Direct Anterior and Lateral Surgical Approaches for Collared and Collarless Implants and Correlating Joint Motion to Hip Implant Performance
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
February 2022
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
January 15, 2018 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
October 31, 2021 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
October 31, 2021 (Actual)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Lawson Health Research Institute
4. Oversight
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
This is a randomized control trial that will investigate whether a collared hip replacement implant provides greater stability compared to a collarless option. Stability will be measured by implant migration with radiostereometric analysis (RSA) imaging. Secondary objectives will be to compare function, quality of life and cost between the two implant types. We will also compare between two different surgical approaches, the direct anterior and direct lateral.
Detailed Description
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a procedure that has been demonstrated to provide excellent patient satisfaction and improve quality of life while being cost effective. The number of THA's conducted worldwide is expected to continue to grow; in some projections to grow exponentially. However, the environment for health care continues to evolve. Patients continue to demand higher activity levels, decreased recovery times, and greater patient autonomy. Health care economics are increasingly influencing clinical decision making. Bundled health care payments and more stringent evaluations are becoming the norm. Changes in care pathways based on patient input as well as due to health care economics are our new reality.
These two pervasive forces of change have led to a variety of care challenges and thought leaders have proposed solutions to these challenges. One solution that has responded to both changing patient expectations in their THA experience as well as the economic pressures has been rapid recovery pathways. An increase in rapid recovery care pathways and the growing prevalence of outpatient surgery and surgi-centers has enabled patients to increase their autonomy as well as decrease their time away from activities that are important to them such as employment. Rapid recovery care pathways also provide substantial cost savings by diminishing or eliminating inpatient care as well as enabling improved bed management options.
To facilitate rapid recovery programs, a variety of surgical changes have been made. Improved peri-operative care, decreased muscle trauma, improved hemostasis, and multi-modal analgesia have all made positive impacts. The increasing adaptation of the Direct Anterior Approach (DAA) relative to the Direct Lateral Approach (DLA) can be seen as a response to the need for rapid recovery programs as DAA has been demonstrated to enable earlier function and is thought to result in better patient outcomes, less pain, and shorter recovery times. Orthopaedic industry partners have also supported this change in practice by providing improved instrumentation and technologies to potentiate this minimal invasive surgical approach. A key change is the increasing use of implants that facilitate muscle sparing approaches: femoral components that do no require straight femoral reamers as well as broaches and implants with design features such as an angled lateral shoulder, abbreviated stem lengths, easy to control stem tips, and stems that do not require aggressive impaction to create intimate cortical contact. The Corail both has these features that potentiate surgery as well as excellent survivorship on registry and prospective studies.
In addition to the design features that potentiate minimally invasive implantation, the Corail stem has two main designs - the collared and collarless versions. Without question, the collar provides improved axial stability, and it has also been shown to provide improved rotational stability. It is unclear if this stability enables improved early function by providing the patient the sense that their implant is more stable immediately after surgery. Clinicians also appreciate the ability to more precisely control leg length during THA by ensuring the appropriate leg length is maintained when the collar abuts the calcar. The collar is felt to enable greater initial stability to the hip and provide the surgeon with greater confidence that the patient can embark on a rapid recovery care pathway.
However, not all surgeons are as supportive of implants that have a collar nor are they supportive of implants that have a collar, and highlight a lack of literature that is able to demonstrate the benefits. A lack of literature makes it a challenge for surgeons to adopt the change in philosophy. The purpose of this study is to examine the role of surgical approach and implant design on activity and implant fixation following THA.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Hip Osteoarthritis, Hip Arthroplasty
Keywords
total hip arthroplasty, collarless femoral implant, collared femoral implant, direct anterior approach, direct lateral approach
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Model Description
Participants will be randomized to have either the collared or collarless Corail femoral implant used during surgery and randomization will be stratified by surgical approach (determined by surgeon expertise).
Masking
Participant
Masking Description
Participants will be blinded to which group they have been assigned to until the final study visit at which point study personnel will reveal the group allocation.
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
96 (Actual)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
Collared Femoral Implant
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Participants will have the Corail collared femoral implant used during their surgery.
Arm Title
Collarless Femoral Implant
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Participants will have the Corail collarless femoral implant used during their surgery.
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Collared Femoral Implant
Intervention Description
Corail collared femoral implant for total hip arthroplasty
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Collarless Femoral Implant
Intervention Description
Corail collarless femoral implant for total hip arthroplasty
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Implant Migration
Description
Movement of the implant measured by radiostereometric imaging analysis.
Time Frame
2 years
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) Test
Description
Measure to assess function.
Time Frame
baseline and 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years
Title
Activity Level
Description
Activity measured by number of steps taken per day with the use of a FitBit.
Time Frame
baseline and 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years
Title
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Score
Description
Patient-reported outcome to assess activity level.
Time Frame
baseline and 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years
Title
12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12)
Description
General health questionnaire. Patient-reported measure to assess quality of life. Scores are calculated based on population averages.
Time Frame
baseline and 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years
Title
Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)
Description
Used to assess impact of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Patient-reported measure to assess function, pain and stiffness. Higher scores indicate worse pain, stiffness and functional limitations. Scores are separated into 3 subscales: pain, stiffness and function; but can be combined for a total score.
Time Frame
baseline and 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years
Title
Harris Hip Score
Description
Used to assess impact of hip osteoarthritis. Clinician-reported outcome measure to assess function, pain and range of motion. Higher scores indicate better outcomes and hip function.
Time Frame
baseline and 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years.
Title
EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D)
Description
Used to assess health-related quality of life. Patient-reported measure to assess quality of life.
Time Frame
baseline and 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year
Title
Cost Questionnaires
Description
Patient-reported measure to assess indirect and direct costs of treatment including ER visits, clinician visits, tests and procedures, lost productivity, caregiver involvement, etc.
Time Frame
6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
unilateral hip osteoarthritis
primary total hip arthroplasty
Exclusion Criteria:
symptomatic osteoarthritis in the contralateral hip
bilateral total hip arthroplasty
revision arthroplasty
cognitive defects/neuromuscular disorders
inability to understand English (questionnaires are only provided in English)
live more than 100km from London, Ontario
BMI greater than 40
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Brent A Lanting, MD, FRCSC
Organizational Affiliation
London Health Sciences Centre
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
London Health Sciences Centre
City
London
State/Province
Ontario
ZIP/Postal Code
N6A 5A5
Country
Canada
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Plan to Share IPD
No
Learn more about this trial
Collared Versus Collarless Femoral Implants for Total Hip Arthroplasty
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs