"How do Contrast Medias in Bone Cement Affect DXA Measurements After THR"

May 14, 2007 updated by: Ullevaal University Hospital

Joint replacement is a well-documented and cost effective treatment of degenerative diseases in the hip (1,2). There are two different principles of fixation of prosthesis components; cemented and uncemented. The most common mode of fixation in Scandinavia has historically been with bone cement. In the recent years a reverse hybrid combination (uncemented stem and cemented cup) is gaining popularity, especially in Norway.

Beside luxation, infection and venous thromboembolism, the problem with aseptic loosening is a known complication. A marker for aseptic loosening is local bone loss around the components. This is measured with a densiometer and the method is Dual Energy X-ray Absorbtiometry (DXA). Periprosthetic bone loss is evaluated by series of DXA scans around the components over time. This enables us to follow changes in bone mineral density (BMD) close to the prosthesis.

We want to compare cemented and uncemented prostheses with this technique. This is a problem since we don't know how much different contrast medias in bone cement affect DXA scans. This area is poorly investigated. Attempts have been made to exclude the cement-mantle from the measurements both digitally and manually, but these have showed poor precision. A kind of consensus of assuming that contrast medias in bone cement give an increase in measured BMD of 20% (4). This is used when comparing cemented and uncemented components.

We have preformed laboratory tests of different cements. Zirconium oxide (ZrO2) and Barium sulphate (BaSO4) are used as radiopacifiers. These contrast medias have different properties. Our test showed that Zirconium give 63% higher BMD when we scanned cement alone.

This is supported by a cadaver study showing significant differences between contrast free cement and ZrO2 /BaSO4 containing cements.

It is our opinion that it is necessary to perform a prospective study to investigate this more thoroughly.

The hypothesis of this study is that it is not accurate enough to add 20% in BMD for cemented implants when comparing them with uncemented implants. It is probably necessary to take into account the amount of cement used and kind of contrast medium.

Study Overview

Status

Unknown

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Interventional

Phase

  • Phase 2
  • Phase 1

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

  • Norway
      • Oslo, Norway, 0407
        • Recruiting
        • Ullevaal University Hospital
        • Contact:
        • Contact:

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

Ages Eligible for Study

50 years to 80 years (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

N/A

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Osteoarthritis

Exclusion Criteria:

  • more than 80 yrs
  • systemic disease

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

  • Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
  • Allocation: RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: NONE

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Sponsor

Ullevaal University Hospital

Investigators

  • Study Director: Lars Nordsletten, MD Ph.D, Ullevaal University Hospital
  • Principal Investigator: Jon Dahl, MD, Ullevaal Univerity hospital

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

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

May 1, 2007

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 14, 2007

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 14, 2007

First Posted (ESTIMATE)

May 15, 2007

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ESTIMATE)

May 15, 2007

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 14, 2007

Last Verified

May 1, 2007

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • Human sementstudie

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.

Clinical Trials on Primary and Secondary Osteoarthritis in Hip

Clinical Trials on Barium Sulphate and Zirconium Oxide

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Kyrgyzstan

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe