Skip to content

Comparison Between Anterior and Direct Lateral Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Comparison Between Minimally Invasive Anterior Approach and Direct Lateral Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty - A Prospective Randomized Trial

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01578746
Enrollment
120
Registered
2012-04-17
Start date
2012-01-31
Completion date
2016-12-31
Last updated
2013-06-14

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Coxarthrosis

Keywords

Coxarthrosis, Hip arthroplasty, Anterior approach, Direct lateral approach, Hardinge approach, Smith-Petersen approach, Osteoarthrosis

Brief summary

In total hip arthroplasty several approaches can be used. The newly introduced minimally invasive anterior approach is supposed to cause less damage to tendons and muscles. At the same time there are reports that there are more complications when this approach is used. The direct lateral approach is the most used in Norway and is well documented. There are however those who postulate that there is to high risk of damage to the gluteus medius causing Trendelenburg gait. In the investigators hospital both the anterior and direct lateral approach is used with good result. The investigators main study hypothesis is that there is no difference between the use of anterior or direct lateral approach i total hip arthroplasty in regards to postoperative function and pain, complications, radiological finds (X-ray and MRI), markers for muscle damage (i.e CK-total) or other clinical outcomes.

Interventions

PROCEDUREDirect lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty

The use of direct lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty

The use of anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty

Sponsors

Sorlandet Hospital HF
Lead SponsorOTHER_GOV

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
20 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Clinical and radiological diagnosis of coxarthrosis

Exclusion criteria

* Previous surgery on affected hip * No mental disability preventing follow-up

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in function2 yearsFunction of the operated hip will be evaluated after 3, 6, 12 and 24 months using Oxford Hip Score, Harris Hip Score and 6-minute-walk-test. Improvement in general health will be evaluated by using Eq-5D.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Muscle damageDay of operation and next four consecutive daysCK-total is measured direct postoperativly and for the next four consequtive days. CRP is measured the first four postoperative days.
PainFirst four postoperative daysPain using Visual Analog Scale and the use of analgetics (converted to opioid equivalent doses) are recorded.
X-ray assessment3 and 12 monthsPlacement of the acetabular component (inclination and version) and femoral stem (varus/valgus) and migration.
MRI3 and 12 monthsA subselection of about 40 patients will undergo MRI-scans preoperatively and after 3 and 12 months to assess tendon- and muscledamage.

Countries

Norway

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026