Hip Dislocation
Conditions
Keywords
Post-Arthroplasty Hip Dislocation
Brief summary
About ten percent of revision hip replacements will dislocate. Although dislocation is not a life-threatening problem, it is stressful and costly and requires hospitalization to treat. Subjects who have repeated dislocations live with the constant fear of another dislocation. The purpose of this study is to test the effectiveness of a large ball prosthesis in preventing post-surgical dislocation. A large diameter ball has greater freedom of movement before it impinges; therefore, theoretically, it should not dislocate as easily.
Interventions
DEVICELarge Diameter Femoral Head
Sponsors
University of British Columbia
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
19 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. Eligible patients will be those undergoing revision hip arthroplasty, either first revision or subsequent re-revision. 2. Revision must require replacement of both the acetabular component and femoral component, except when revising femur only with well-fixed Trilogy socket. 3. The acetabular component must have a minimum outer diameter of 50 mm. 4. The femoral component inserted should be a Zimmer Versys™ beaded full-coated stem or Zimmer ZMR™ stem or collarless polished taper (CPT™) 5. Patients must be able to reply to questionnaires in either French or English.
Exclusion criteria
1. Patients who are undergoing revision for recurrent dislocation. 2. Revision of the acetabulum requiring structural allograft or reconstruction ring. 3. Revision of the acetabulum requiring the use of cemented all-polyethylene cups. 4. Revision of the acetabulum using a liner cemented into an existing metal shell. 5. Intra-operative decision to use a constrained liner.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| To compare the difference in dislocation rate between those receiving a large ball (36/40 mm femoral head) versus those receiving a 32 mm femoral head in patients who undergo revision hip arthroplasty | at two years |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| To compare polyethylene wear in the two groups | — |
| To compare the difference in functional and quality of life measures in the two groups | at 3, 12 and 24 months post surgery |
| To compare radiographic findings in the two groups | — |
| To estimate the rate of re-revision in the two groups | — |
Countries
Canada
Outcome results
None listed