Hip Arthritis, Hip Arthropathy
Conditions
Keywords
hip arthroplasty, spine hip relation
Brief summary
Background * In the 19th century, Sir John Charnley successfully introduced total joint replacements for hips. In order to prevent implant fixation failure and accelerated polyethylene wear, it was initially recommended that implants were systematically positioned in a biomechanically-friendly way, which disregarded most of the individual anatomy (medialized acetabular cup, systematized cup version and inclination, etc.) * While those initial surgical techniques made popular and clinically successful total joint replacements, many complications (aseptic loosening, pain, excessive wear) have remained and mainly the persistence of frequent instability after THA. In response to those complications, many improvements were developed in the area of joint replacement over the last few decades, with one the most recent dating from 2017 and being the development of a surgical technique Rationale * The kinematic alignment (KA) technique for total hip arthroplasty (THA) aims at restoring the acetabular center of rotation and as much as possible the constitutional acetabular anteversion by using the transverse acetabular ligament (TAL) as a reference landmark. Also, the technique aims (1) at making personalized choice for the hip component design, (2) at defining the cup positioning, and (3) at sometimes considering additional spine surgery based on the assessment of the individual spine-hip relation. * KA techniques for hip replacements are relatively new, likely to become popular over time, and their true value remains to be determined.
Detailed description
* Objective: Evaluation of the kinematic alignment technique for hip prostheses in patient with hip osteoarthritis * Hypothesis: the consideration of hip pathoanatomy and lumbo-pelvic kinematic disorder when planning a hip replacement is likely to decrease the risk of prosthetic dislocation and improve patient function and satisfaction
Interventions
PROCEDUREhip replacement
Osteoarthritic patient undergoing the conventional technique or the kinematically aligned technique
Sponsors
Centre de l'arthrose, Paris
Study design
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Intervention model description
Prospective two-arms consecutive patients study
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Osteoarthritic hip patients eligible for primary total hip arthroplasty (THR). * \> 18 years-old with no upper age limit * Affiliated to a social security scheme
Exclusion criteria
* Pregnant or lactating women or in age to procreate without contraceptive treatment * History of mental illness or neurological deficit or adults lacking capacity to consent for themselves * Prisoners or young offenders * Persons who might not adequately understand verbal explanations or written information given in French, or who have special communication needs * Subjects having been or being frequently x-ray examination * Heart failure with risk of exercise angina or comorbidity(ies) significantly affecting patient function * Any participants who are involved in current research or have recently been involved in any research prior to recruitment.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Dislocation rate | Occurrence within the first year after primary total hip replacement | The rates of occurrence of hip dislocation (treated in the hospital or in an outpatient setting). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| EuroQualityOfLife 5 dimension index (EQ5D) | Preoperative, postoperative 6 months and 12 months . assessment for all parameters. | EQ5D is a generic QoL scale from -0.6 to 1 |
| Oxford hip score (OHS) | Preoperative, postoperative 6 months and 12 months . assessment for all parameters. | OHS is a rate of hip function from 0 to 48 |
| satisfaction visual analogic scale (VAS) | Preoperative, postoperative 6 months and 12 months . assessment for all parameters. | satisfaction is a VAS score from 0 to 100 |
| Implant positioning parameter | Preoperative, postoperative 6 months and 12 months . assessment for all parameters. | Implant positioning parameters (inclination, version, offset) are computed on post-operative X rays acquisition. |
Countries
France
Contacts
Primary ContactCedric Maillot
Outcome results
None listed