Is There Increased Polyethylene Wear and Increased Periprosthetic Bone Loss in Femur in Reverse Hybrid Technique Compared With Conventional Cemented Technique in Total Hip Replacement?
1 other identifier
interventional
N/A
0 countries
N/A
Brief Summary
Total hip replacement is a very cost effective procedure to enhance life quality in a group of patients. In the period 2000-2004 7-8000 procedures were preformed, 13% were revisions (1). Historically, many different principles have been used from the first resurfacings to cemented and uncemented total hip replacements as we know them today. In 2000, 28 different femoral stems and 26 different acetabular components were in regular use in Norway. There are several well-documented cemented acetabular components, but no such uncemented cup. On the femoral side there are several well-documented stems both cemented and uncemented. (2). From the late 1990's a reverse hybrid (uncemented stem and cemented cup) is being more frequently used. In 2004 a total of 276 reverse hybrid hips were done and the trend is increasing. (1). This technique is solely based on experience and the fact that one combines the better of two principles (cemented and uncemented). There is no scientific evidence that this technique is as good or better than a cemented THR. One of the potential problems with hydroxyapatite coated components is that it is suspected that it may increase wear due to the particle theory. (3,4). There are no prospective randomised controlled RSA and DXA studies that conclude on this matter. This is such a study and our hypothesis is that there is no difference in wear or osteolysis between the methods.
Trial Health
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
First Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
September 6, 2007
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
September 10, 2007
CompletedJuly 6, 2011
September 1, 2007
September 6, 2007
July 3, 2011
Conditions
Keywords
Interventions
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Osteoarthritis
- Indication for THR
You may not qualify if:
- Significant anatomical abnormalities
- Rheumatoid artheritis, dysplasia, fracture sequela
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Officials
- STUDY CHAIR
Lars Nordsletten, professor, MD, Ph.D
Ullevål University Hospital, N-0407 Oslo
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Einar Lindalen, MD
Lovisenberg Hospital, N- 0440 Oslo
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- NONE
- Purpose
- BASIC SCIENCE
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
September 6, 2007
First Posted
September 10, 2007
Last Updated
July 6, 2011
Record last verified: 2007-09