Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 1:22 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-01-06 @ 3:04 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT00594893
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2012-08-31
First Post:
2008-01-07
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Study Comparing Mini-Incision Versus 2-Incision Approach for Total Hip Replacement
Sponsor:
Rush University Medical Center
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
A Prospective Randomized Trial of Mini Incision and 2-Incision Total Hip Arthroplasty
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2012-08
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The purpose of the research is to determine if there is a difference between two of the commonly used less invasive techniques (surgical methods that use a smaller incision or cut in the skin) used to perform total hip arthroplasty (replacement of your painful hip with a new ball and socket). It is unclear which of these techniques is associated with a faster recovery and lower risk of complications.
Detailed Description:
Recently, surgical techniques and surgical instruments have been developed to limit the dissection required to perform a total hip arthroplasty. Proponents of these procedures feel that it is associated with less perioperative blood loss, less pain and an accelerated recovery while critics have raised concerns that the more limited exposure may negatively impact component position and increase the risk of perioperative complications. Among less invasive surgical techniques, two of the different approaches utilized include a "mini-incision" posterior approach which aims to limit the amount of dissection associated with a standard posterior approach to the hip and a 2-incision technique which seeks to further limit soft tissue disruption by taking advantage of intermuscular planes and the use of fluoroscopic guidance.
While the mini-posterior approach utilizes an abbreviated exposure which is familiar to most surgeons, the 2-incision approach is a more novel approach and critics of this approach feel that its technically demanding nature may be associated with a higher risk of complications and component malposition. Proponents of the 2-incision approach feel that this approach is less invasive, more muscle sparing and leads to substantial improvements in patient rehabilitation and recovery with potential longer-term benefits in terms of improved function. The goal of this project is to compare the use of a mini-incision posterior approach and the 2-incision approach in primary total hip arthroplasty via a prospective randomized trial.
While the mini-posterior approach utilizes an abbreviated exposure which is familiar to most surgeons, the 2-incision approach is a more novel approach and critics of this approach feel that its technically demanding nature may be associated with a higher risk of complications and component malposition. Proponents of the 2-incision approach feel that this approach is less invasive, more muscle sparing and leads to substantial improvements in patient rehabilitation and recovery with potential longer-term benefits in terms of improved function. The goal of this project is to compare the use of a mini-incision posterior approach and the 2-incision approach in primary total hip arthroplasty via a prospective randomized trial.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: