Skip to content

Unipolar vs Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty for Hip Fracture

Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial of Unipolar vs Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty for Patients With an Intracapsular Hip Fracture

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06689579
Enrollment
400
Registered
2024-11-14
Start date
2014-10-14
Completion date
2019-06-26
Last updated
2024-11-14

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

Conditions

Hip Fractures

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to determine whether significant functional benefits are seen in patients who have a bipolar hemiarthroplasty as treatment for hip fracture compared to those who have a unipolar hemiarthroplasty.

Detailed description

Proposed study design Randomized controlled trial of unipolar vs bipolar hip hemiarthroplasty for intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck The trial will be conducted in accordance with the GCP (Good Clinical Practice) guidelines and will be reported in line with the CONSORT statement Study Centre The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh admits 1000 patients a year with a hip fracture; the largest number in any one centre in Scotland. Of these, 500 have intracapsular fractures, which is the type addressed in this study. Some patients will be better suited to a total hip replacement (5-10% of this group), and others may refuse to consent to the trial (previous experience has suggested a rate of 15-20%). Investigators therefore expect just over 300 patients to be recruitable each year, and so plan to allow up to two years for recruitment, and two years to complete follow up of the last patient Brief Study Method 1. Patients will be identified as requiring a hemiarthroplasty for an intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck 2. Patients will be asked to consent to recruitment to study. Consent by attorney or nearest relative for patients with cognitive impairment 3. Surgery performed via anterolateral approach on standard trauma list. Standard cemented stem implanted. 4. Patient randomized in theatre to receive a unipolar or bipolar hemiarthroplasty head. 5. Tantalum beads will be implanted within the bone of the femur and pelvis (not the hip joint) by a consultant surgeon investigator when operating or assisting personally. These will not implanted where an unsupervised trainee is performing surgery. Fifty patients in each group will have these implants. 6. Patients undergo standard rehabilitation: physiotherapy, occupational therapy and geriatrician services as required. 7. Standard pre-op, post-op and one-year and two-year plain pelvic radiographs will be obtained. 8. Subset of patients: Fifty patients who have received a bipolar hemiarthroplasty will be asked to undergo one additional x-ray of the hip at two years to assess the function of the device. 9. Functional assessment: patients will undergo the Timed up-and-go (TUG) test, physiological measurements of hip muscle recruitment and function, and standardized questionnaires (SF12 and Harris Hip score). Power analysis and number of patients 200 patients in each arm of study (total 400) allowing for expected 27% mortality at one year. DMC (Data Monitoring Committee) A data monitoring committee will review the results during the study period to allow the project to be terminated if statistical significance is reached or if there are any untoward events.

Interventions

DEVICEUnipolar hemiarthroplasty

Sponsors

NHS Lothian
Lead SponsorOTHER_GOV

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients admitted with an intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck who are suitable for a hemiarthroplasty.

Exclusion criteria

* Patients deemed suitable for a total hip arthroplasty, patients with a high energy fracture.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Pain1 yearvisual analogue scale pain score ( on a 10cm baseline fro 'no pain' to 'worst pain imaginable'

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Function1 yearas assessed by 'timed up and go test',
Radiographic assessment1 yearyear evidence of acetabular erosion measured with radiostereometric assessment (RSA)
Complicationsintraoperativeduration of surgery (minutes)
Function and self care1 yearBarthel Index
Pain2 yearsvisual analogue scale pain score ( on a 10cm baseline fro 'no pain' to 'worst pain imaginable'
complicationsup to 2 yearsDeep venous thorombosis
complicationup to 2 yearsPeriprosthetic fracture
Complicationup to 2 yearsprosthesis dislocation
Function and general health1 yearShort form 12

Countries

United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

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