Dataset Information

Cemented compared to uncemented femoral stems in total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: study protocol for a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (CHANCE-trial).

ABSTRACT: Total hip replacement (THR) is the preferred method for the active and lucid elderly patient with a displaced femoral neck fracture (FNF). But controversy still exists regarding using cemented or uncemented stem in these patients. The aim of this study is to compare a cemented and uncemented femoral stem in patients 65-79 years treated surgically with THR for displaced FNF.In a single-centre, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial, we will include 140 patients aged 65-79 years with an acute displaced FNF and randomize them in a 1:1 ratio to a cemented tapered or a uncemented tapered hydroxyapatite - coated femoral stem. A cemented cup will be used in both groups. The patients will be blinded for allocation. The primary endpoints will be the incidence of all hip-related complications and health-related quality of life evaluated with EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) index up to 2 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes will be overall mortality, general medical complications and hip function. The follow-up will be at 3 months, 1 and 2 years. Further follow-ups after end of study will be at 4 and 10 years. Results will be analysed using 95 % CI's for the effect size. A regression model will also be used to adjust for stratification factor.The ethical committee at Karolinska Institutet has approved the study. An interim analysis on the primary endpoints will be performed when half the sample size is included. The results from the study will be disseminated to the medical community via presentations and publications in relevant medical journals. The study will provide evidence if a cemented or uncemented femoral stem is preferable in THR for elderly patients with a displaced FNF.The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02247791 ), October 21, 2013.

SUBMITTER: Chammout G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5028918 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cemented compared to uncemented femoral stems in total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: study protocol for a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (CHANCE-trial).

Chammout Ghazi G Muren Olle O Bodén Henrik H Salemyr Mats M Sköldenberg Olof O

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20160920 1

<h4>Background</h4>Total hip replacement (THR) is the preferred method for the active and lucid elderly patient with a displaced femoral neck fracture (FNF). But controversy still exists regarding using cemented or uncemented stem in these patients. The aim of this study is to compare a cemented and uncemented femoral stem in patients 65-79 years treated surgically with THR for displaced FNF.<h4>Methods/design</h4>In a single-centre, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial, we will include 1 ...[more]

PMID: 27646142

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe primary aim of this study was to compare the functional outcome of uncemented with cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) for displaced intracapsular hip fractures. The secondary aims were to assess length of surgery, blood loss, complications and revision rate between the two groups.MethodsA prospective double-blind randomised control trial was conducted. Fifty patients with an intracapsular hip fracture meeting the inclusion criteria were randomised to either an uncemented (n = 25) or cemented (n = 25) THA. There were no differences (p > 0.45) in age, gender, health status or preinjury hip function between the groups. The Oxford hip score (OHS), Harris Hip score (HHS), EuroQol 5-dimensional (EQ5D), timed get up-and-go (TUG), pain and patient satisfaction were used to assess outcome. These were assessed at 4, 12 and 72 months after surgery, apart from the TUG which as only assessed as 6 months.ResultsThe study was terminated early due to the significantly (n = 8, p = 0.004) higher rate of intraoperative complications in the uncemented group: three fractures of the proximal femur and five conversions to a cemented acetabular component. There were no significant (p ≥ 0.09) differences in the functional measures (OHS, HSS, EQ5D, TUG and pain) or patient satisfaction between the groups. There was no difference in operative time (p = 0.75) or blood loss (p = 0.66) between the groups. There were two early revisions prior to 3 months post-operatively in the uncemented group and none in the cemented group, but this was not significant (log rank p = 0.16).ConclusionThere was a high rate of intraoperative complications, which may be due to poor bone quality in this patient group. There were no ergonomic or functional advantages demonstrated between uncemented and cemented THA. Cemented THA should remain as the preferred choice for the treatment of intracapsular hip fractures for patients that meet the criteria for this procedure.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Hip fracture is a serious injury in adults, especially those aged over 60 years. The most common type of hip fracture (displaced intracapsular) is treated for the majority of patients with a partial hip replacement (hemiarthroplasty). The hemiarthroplasty implant can be fixed to the bone with or without bone cement. Cement is the current recommended technique but recently some risks have been identified, which could potentially be avoided by using uncemented implants. Controversy, therefore, remains about which type of hemiarthroplasty offers patients the best outcomes.This is the protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing cemented hemiarthroplasty versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for patients 60 years and over with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Multicentre (a minimum of seven UK hospitals), multisurgeon, parallel group, two-arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Patients aged 60 years and older with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty surgery are eligible. Participants will be randomly allocated on a 1:1 basis to either a cemented hemiarthroplasty or a modern hydroxyapatite coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Otherwise all care will be in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. A minimum of 1128 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a 0.075-point difference in the primary endpoint: health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 levels) at 4?months postinjury. The treatment effect will be estimated using a two-sided t-test adjusted for age, gender and cognitive impairment based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications including revision surgery and cause, mobility status, residential status, health-related quality of life at 1 and 12?months and health resource use. A within-trial economic analysis will be conducted. ETHICS, DISSEMINATION AND FUNDING:Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 approved the feasibility phase on 2 December 2016 (16/WA/0351) and the definitive trial on 22 November 2017 (17/WA/0383). This study is sponsored by the University of Oxford and funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit (PB-PG-0215-36043 and PB-PG-1216-20021). A manuscript for a peer-reviewed journal will be prepared and the results shared with patients via local mechanisms at participating centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN18393176.

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of our study is to assess the methodology of overlapping systematic reviews related to cemented vs uncemented hip hemiarthroplasties for the treatment of femoral neck fractures to find the study with the best evidence. Also, we assess the gaps in methodology and information to help with direction of future studies.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in September 2022 using Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Clinical outcome data and characteristics of each study were extracted to see which treatment had better favorability. The outcomes and characteristics extracted from each study includes, first author, search date, publication journal and date, number of studies included, databases, level of evidence, software used, subgroup analyses that were conducted, and heterogeneity with the use of I2 statistics Methodological quality information was extracted from each study using four different methodologic scores (Oxford Levels of Evidence; Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); Quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUROM); Oxman and Guyatt. After that, the Jadad decision algorithm was used to identify which studies in our sample contained the best available evidence. Finally, overlap of each systematic review was assessed using Corrected Covered Area (CCA) to look at redundancy and research waste among the systematic reviews published on the topic.ResultsAfter screening, 12 studies were included in our sample. For the Oxford Levels of Evidence, we found that all the studies were Level I evidence. For the QUORUM assessment, we had 1 study with the highest score of 18. Additionally, we did the Oxman and Guyatt assessment, where we found 4 studies with a maximum score of 6. Finally, we did an AMSTAR assessment and found 2 studies with a score of 9. After conducting the methodological scores; the authors determined that Li. L et al 2021 had the highest quality. In addition, it was found that the CCA found among the primary studies in each systematic review calculated to .22. Any CCA above .15 is considered "very high overlap".ConclusionsThe best available evidence suggests that Cemented HAs are better at preventing Prosthesis-related complications. Conversely, the best evidence also suggests that Cemented HA also results in longer operative time and increased intraoperative blood loss. When conducting future systematic reviews related to the topic, we ask that authors restrict conducting another systematic review until new evidence emerges so as not to confuse the clinical decision-making of physicians.

Project description:BackgroundThe choice of primary hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty in patients ≥80 years of age with a displaced femoral neck fracture has not been adequately studied. As the number of healthy, elderly patients ≥80 years of age is continually increasing, optimizing treatments for improving outcomes and reducing the need for secondary surgery is an important consideration. The aim of the present study was to compare the results of hemiarthroplasty with those of total hip arthroplasty in patients ≥80 years of age.MethodsThis prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial included 120 patients with a mean age of 86 years (range, 80 to 94 years) who had sustained an acute displaced femoral neck fracture <36 hours previously. The patients were randomized to treatment with hemiarthroplasty (n = 60) or total hip arthroplasty (n = 60). The primary end points were hip function and health-related quality of life at 2 years. Secondary end points included hip-related complications and reoperations, mortality, pain in the involved hip, activities of daily living, surgical time, blood loss, and general complications. The patients were reviewed at 3 months and 1 and 2 years.ResultsWe found no differences between the groups in terms of hip function, health-related quality of life, hip-related complications and reoperations, activities of daily living, or pain in the involved hip. Hip function, activities of daily living, and pain in the involved hip deteriorated in both groups compared with pre-fracture values. The ability to regain previous walking function was similar in both groups.ConclusionsWe found no difference in outcomes after treatment with either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty in active octogenarians and nonagenarians with a displaced femoral neck fracture up to 2 years after surgery. Hemiarthroplasty is a suitable procedure in the short term for this group of patients.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Dataset Information

Cemented compared to uncemented femoral stems in total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: study protocol for a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (CHANCE-trial).

Publications

Cemented compared to uncemented femoral stems in total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: study protocol for a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (CHANCE-trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets