Biomechanical Reconstruction of Three Different Hip Stem Designs in Hip Dysplasia Using a 3D CT-based Planning Software (CTdevice)

September 6, 2021 updated by: Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli

Evaluation of the Reconstruction of Biomechanical Parameters Provided by Three Different Hip Stem Designs in Developmental Hip Dysplasia Using a 3D CT-based Software for Surgical Planning

A random population of 200 CT scans of pelvis and thigh in an adult population affected by hip dysplasia will be selected. The aim of this study is to evaluate the biomechanical reconstruction of the hip anatomy provided by three different hip stem designs in dysplastic cases, using a 3D CT based software for pre-operative planning.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Pre-operative planning in hip arthroplasty with dedicated software is a useful guide to provide a better reconstruction of the biomechanical parameters of the replaced hip and to optimize the choice of component, improving the geometric understanding of the hip anatomy and the interaction between the native morphological structure and the prosthetic component.

The use of a 3D CT-based software for pre-operative planning may provide a better knowledge of the hip anatomy, simulating the biomechanical parameters more closely than a 2D X-ray-based software. In addition, it is the only way to anticipate the correct interaction between the prosthetic components, or the combined anteversion, a key factor in preventing implant instability.

Severe hip deformities, like developmental hip dysplasia, may not be adequately reconstructed by every implant and 3D pre-operative CT may increase the three-dimensional anatomical knowledge of the hip, improving the choice of the correct implant and possibly reducing the possible consequences of intra and post-operative complications.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to pre-operatively plan, in a random series of 200 native pelvis and thigh CT scans performed in patients with hip dysplasia, 3 different types of hip stem designs using the 3D Hip-Op software, with the aim of analyzing, on the CT simulations, the percentage of adequate reconstruction of the optimal biomechanical parameters (combined anteversion between 25°-50°, global offset not inferior to 12% of the native offset, leg lengthening not superior to 3 cm, sagittal and coronal tilt not superior to +/-5°, canal filling not inferior to 80%). The percentage of every stem design providing the optimal reconstruction in dysplastic hips (all the 5 parameters matched) will be assessed. The single parameters, especially the combined anteversion, the offset restoration and the leg lengthening, will be assessed for every simulation.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
150

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Italy
      • Bologna, Italy, 40136
        • Chirurgia Protesica e dei Reimpianti di Anca e Ginocchio, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Probability Sample

Study Population

A random population of 200 CT scans (from the fourth lumbar vertebra to the tibial plateaus) involving adult patients with developmental hip dysplasia.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • definition of developmental hip dysplasia according to Wiberg (center edge angle <20°)
  • pre-operative CT scan extended from the fourth lumbar vertebra to the tibial plateaus

Exclusion Criteria:

  • other types of hip pathologies
  • inadequate Ct scans

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort

Group / Cohort

A group or subgroup of participants in an observational study that is assessed for biomedical or health outcomes.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
CLS stem
CLS Zimmer stem implantation (single wedge, tapered stem) using the 3D CT based software for surgical pre-operative planning
Device: Hip stem
In every hip (with appropriate CT scan), 3 different stem designs will be positioned using a 3D Ct based software for surgical pre-operative planning.
Wagner cone stem
Wagner cone Zimmer stem implantation (conical tapered stem) using the 3D CT based software for surgical pre-operative planning
Device: Hip stem
In every hip (with appropriate CT scan), 3 different stem designs will be positioned using a 3D Ct based software for surgical pre-operative planning.
Aptafix stem
Aptafix Ortho stem implantation (anatomical stem) using the 3D CT based software for surgical pre-operative planning
Device: Hip stem
In every hip (with appropriate CT scan), 3 different stem designs will be positioned using a 3D Ct based software for surgical pre-operative planning.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Correct Reconstruction CLS
Time Frame: Day 0
Percentage of hips correctly reconstructed using CLS stem: the correctly reconstructed hip should have combined anteversion between 25° and 50°, global offset not inferior to 12% of the native offset, leg lengthening not superior to 3 cm, sagittal and coronal tilt not superior to +/-5°, canal filling not inferior to 80% (all the 5 parameters should be present at the same time). Minimum-maximum values (as percentage %): 0-100. 100 is the best result, 0 the worst
Day 0
Correct Reconstruction Wagner Cone
Time Frame: Day 0
Percentage of hips correctly reconstructed using CLS stem: the correctly reconstructed hip should have combined anteversion between 25° and 50°, global offset not inferior to 12% of the native offset, leg lengthening not superior to 3 cm, sagittal and coronal tilt not superior to +/-5°, canal filling not inferior to 80% (all the 5 parameters should be present at the same time). Minimum-maximum values (as percentage %): 0-100. 100 is the best result, 0 the worst
Day 0
Correct Reconstruction Aptafix
Time Frame: Day 0
Percentage of hips correctly reconstructed using CLS stem: the correctly reconstructed hip should have combined anteversion between 25° and 50°, global offset not inferior to 12% of the native offset, leg lengthening not superior to 3 cm, sagittal and coronal tilt not superior to +/-5°, canal filling not inferior to 80% (all the 5 parameters should be present at the same time). Minimum-maximum values (as percentage %): 0-100. 100 is the best result, 0 the worst
Day 0

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Combined Anteversion CLS
Time Frame: Day 0
Percentage of hips with adequate combined anteversion according to Dorr (25-50°) and Widmer (<37°) using CLS stems. Minimum-maximum values (as percentage %): 0-100. 100 is the best result, 0 is the worst
Day 0
Combined Anteversion Wagner Cone
Time Frame: Day 0
Percentage of hips with adequate combined anteversion according to Dorr (25-50°) and Widmer (<37°) using CLS stems. Minimum-maximum values (as percentage %): 0-100. 100 is the best result, 0 is the worst
Day 0
Combined Anteversion Aptafix
Time Frame: Day 0
Percentage of hips with adequate combined anteversion according to Dorr (25-50°) and Widmer (<37°) using CLS stems. Minimum-maximum values (as percentage %): 0-100. 100 is the best result, 0 is the worst
Day 0
Offset CLS
Time Frame: Day 0
Percentage of hips with acetabular+femoral offset not inferior to 12% of the native value using CLS stems. Minimum-maximum values (as percentage %): 0-100. 100 is the best result, 0 is the worst
Day 0
Offset Wagner Cone
Time Frame: Day 0
Percentage of hips with acetabular+femoral offset not inferior to 12% of the native value using CLS stems. Minimum-maximum values (as percentage %): 0-100. 100 is the best result, 0 is the worst
Day 0
Offset Aptafix
Time Frame: Day 0
Percentage of hips with acetabular+femoral offset not inferior to 12% of the native value using CLS stems. Minimum-maximum values (as percentage %): 0-100. 100 is the best result, 0 is the worst
Day 0
Leg Lengthening CLS
Time Frame: Day 0
Percentage of hips with leg lengthening not superior to 3 cm using CLS stems. Minimum-maximum values (as percentages %): 0-100. 100 is the best result, 0 is the worst
Day 0
Leg Lengthening Wagner Cone
Time Frame: Day 0
Percentage of hips with leg lengthening not superior to 3 cm using CLS stems. Minimum-maximum values (as percentages %): 0-100. 100 is the best result, 0 is the worst
Day 0
Leg Lengthening Aptafix
Time Frame: Day 0
Percentage of hips with leg lengthening not superior to 3 cm using CLS stems. Minimum-maximum values (as percentages %): 0-100. 100 is the best result, 0 is the worst
Day 0

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Study Director: Francesco Traina, Professor, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Helpful Links

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
May 10, 2021

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
July 10, 2021

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
July 10, 2021

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
May 21, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
May 24, 2021

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
May 27, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
September 9, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
September 6, 2021

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
February 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 29/2021/Oss/IOR

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings