Active clinical trials for "Osteoarthritis"

The purpose of this study is to compare two different surgical approaches for total knee replacement surgery. The mini-midvastus approach involves cutting less of the thigh muscle (quadriceps) tendon than the classic approach (median parapatellar) in order to implant the knee components. Both will have the same skin incision.

The purpose of this study is to look at two different referencing systems for total knee replacement surgery. In anterior referencing system, referencing cuts are made from the front surface of the femur. This allows for a more exact cut. The anterior referencing system is more difficult for the surgeon to use. This may increase surgery time. Posterior referencing, on the other hand, references cuts from the back of the femur. The posterior referencing system is quick and easy for the surgeon to use. Posterior referencing may lead to notching of the femur. The risk of notching is very low and may not affect your results. This is a study that has never been done before. Dr. Heekin uses both referencing systems in his practice. He would like to determine which knee referencing system allows for greater knee flexion after surgery. Knee flexion correlates with function and the ability to return to everyday activities. For example, getting up from a chair, going up and down stairs, stooping, and kneeling.

The purpose is to determine if differences exist in the attainment of functional milestones that reflect activities of daily living between mini-posterior and direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (THA). The investigators also hope to determine if the general health outcome after direct anterior total hip arthroplasty was better than that after mini-posterior-incision total hip arthroplasty as measured with Short Form-12 (SF-12) scores, and to evaluate variation of surgical factors of the two procedures on the basis of the operative time, component positioning, and occurrence of early complications.

A study using characteristics on ultrasound to predict response to intraarticular steroid injections in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The hypothesis is that patients with inflammation on ultrasound will have a better response to corticosteroid injections compared to patients without inflammation.

To compare acetaminophen (Tylenol) with rofecoxib (Viox) for the treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis. It can cause pain, swelling, and reduced motion in the joints. That can reduce quality of life. OA can occur in any joint, but usually affects the hands, knees, hips or spine. The purpose of this study is to find out if doctors might be able to use 2% PENNSAID gel to treat OA in the knee.

The purpose of the prospective study was to evaluate the minimum fifteen year follow-up of prospective total knee arthroplasties performed in patients younger than fifty years of age with osteoarthritis, using fixed- and mobile-bearing knee prostheses in the same patients, to compare functional scores rates of radiographic failure revision rates survivorship

The primary objective is to compare buprenorphine transdermal delivery system (BTDS) with standard- treatment in subjects with osteoarthritis (OA).

Aim: to investigate whether the use of several transfusion alternatives (erythropoietin, the cell-saver or postoperative drainage and reinfusion systems) in patients undergoing elective total knee or hip replacement surgery can lead to allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) saving if a restrictive transfusion policy is used. Study design: a prospective, double randomized, open, multicenter study in which patients are stratified according to their preoperative hemoglobin(Hb) level: stratum I= Hb between 6,1 and 8,2 mmol/l. These patients are first randomized for Erythropoetin (Epo) or no Epo. Stratum II= Hb of 6,1 and lower or 8,2 mmol/l and higher, are not eligible for Epo and thus not randomized. Patients in both strata will be randomized for three modalities: a cell saver (CS)(to wash, filter and reinfuse autologous shed blood) which is used intra- and postoperatively or a postoperative autologous reinfusion drainage system (D) only (to filter and reinfuse autologous shed blood) or a restrictive transfusion trigger only (controls). Inclusion criteria: All orthopedic patients of 18 years and older being considered for a primary or revision total knee- (TKR) or total hip replacement (THR). Outcome measures: Primary outcome: number of allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. Secondary outcome: transfusion reactions, rehabilitation time, length of hospital stay (days), peri- and post-operative complications during hospitalization, quality of life, cost analysis

This study will compare two very similar designs of knee replacement device. One device (Sigma CR150) is a slightly modified version of the original (Sigma CR) and has been modified to enhance/accommodate higher flexion. The original device has been in widespread clinical use with excellent results since 1996 and this study will determine whether the design modifications of the newer device add further value. The newer device has been in clinical use with good short-term(unpublished) outcomes since becoming commercially available in January 2009. Achieving higher knee flexion may be required for cultural reasons or by the increasingly younger, more active patient population undergoing knee replacement today. In addition to promoting flexion, it is also possible that this design change may help the knee replacement to last longer than traditional implants in patients who achieve higher flexion. Therefore, the study will compare the two devices in terms of survivorship, flexion and other measures of the success of a total knee replacement (range of motion, knee-related quality of life, activity and generic quality of life) over the short-term. A minimum of one hundred and forty subjects (minimum 70 per group) with osteoarthritis and aged 50-75 years will be included at UK/international hospitals. Study duration is 2 years and patients will complete standard knee outcome scores plus radiological evaluation. Subjects would receive one of the study devices regardless of their involvement in the study, and apart from (possible)additional visits, x-rays and/or questionnaires, treatment and follow-up care will be as per the care they would receive outside of the study.