Study Comparing Marathon Polyethylene and Enduron Polyethylene Acetabular Liners Used in Total Hip Arthroplasty

November 3, 2014 updated by: C. Anderson Engh, Jr., MD, Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute

A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Study Comparing Marathon Polyethylene and Enduron Polyethylene Acetabular Liners Used in Total Hip Arthroplasty

The purpose of the study is to determine whether crosslinked Marathon and standard Enduron polyethylene liners show differences in bone loss around the hip implant.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Several institutions report very low wear rates with highly crosslinked polyethylene based on early clinical data. However, since bone loss typically appears after 5-year follow-up, the reduction in the incidence and extent of bone loss among total hip replacement patients with crosslinked Marathon liners, compared to those with standard Enduron liners, has not been as dramatic as the wear reduction. Despite the substantial reduction in wear that we observed at 5-year follow-up, the patients' perceptions of their outcomes remained similar among the Marathon and Enduron groups. This study will evaluate outcome at a minimum of 10-years after surgery among the same group of patients whose outcome was previously reported at 5-year follow-up. At 10-year follow-up, we anticipate that the reduction in wear associated with Marathon polyethylene will be associated with significant reductions in bone loss when compared to the Enduron polyethylene.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

236

Phase

  • Not Applicable

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

    • Virginia
      • Alexandria, Virginia, United States, 22306
        • Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute

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

  • ADULT
  • OLDER_ADULT
  • CHILD

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

(from original study)

-Elective total hip replacement patient

(from 10-year follow-up)

  • Consented to the original study.
  • Received a Duraloc 100 cup with either a crosslinked Marathon or standard Enduron liner.
  • Received an AML/Solution or a Prodigy stem with 28mm cobalt chrome femoral head.

Exclusion Criteria:

(from original study)

-None

(from 10-year follow-up)

  • Patient did not receive device as specified in inclusion criteria.
  • Patient refused to consent to the 10-year follow-up.

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

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Crosslinked Marathon polyethylene
Comparison of Marathon and Enduron polyethylene
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Standard Enduron polyethylene
Comparison of Marathon and Enduron polyethylene

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Incidence of Clinically Significant Osteolysis
Time Frame: Minimum 9-year radiographic follow-up
The incidence of clinically significant osteolysis was based on the number of unrevised THAs (total hip arthroplasties) with at least 1.5 square centimeters of pelvic and/or femoral osteolysis. Osteolysis was defined as an area of localized loss of trabecular bone or cortical erosion that was not apparent on the pre-operative or immediate postoperative radiograph. To obtain lesion sizes, the defects were outlined on the anteroposterior pelvic radiograph and the area of the lesion was measured using Martell's Hip Analysis Suite software. Lesions were considered clinically important if the total area of osteolysis around a hip replacement was at least 1.5 square centimeters.
Minimum 9-year radiographic follow-up

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Polyethylene Wear
Time Frame: Minimum 9-year radiographic follow-up
A single reviewer, who was blinded to the type of polyethylene liner, evaluated femoral head penetration among all unrevised hips with minimum 9-year radiographic follow-up using serial anteroposterior pelvic radiographs. Two-dimensional head penetration was determined for each follow-up radiograph relative to the immediate post-operative (nominal 6-week follow-up) reference view using Hip Suite Analysis version 8.0 with elliptical correction, a validated, computer-assisted technique. A linear wear rate was evaluated for each hip that had a minimum of three follow-up radiographs by using a least-squares linear regression to calculate the slope of the best-fit line for the wear vector magnitude versus time in situ data. The slope from this regression represented the steady-state linear wear rate. The steady-state linear wear rate data from all hips in a group was used to compute a mean polyethylene wear value.
Minimum 9-year radiographic follow-up
Rate of Reoperation
Time Frame: 10-year follow-up
The rate of reoperation was based on the number of reoperations in each group. Any additional surgery after a participant's initial hip replacement was considered a reoperation.
10-year follow-up
Harris Hip Score
Time Frame: Minimum 9-year follow-up
The Harris Hip Score measures outcome after hip replacement and is based on a scale from 0 (worst) to 100 (best).
Minimum 9-year follow-up
Patient Satisfaction
Time Frame: Minimum 9-year follow-up
Patient satisfaction was quantified by asking participants to respond "yes" or "no" to the question, "Are you satisfied with the results of your hip operation?"
Minimum 9-year follow-up

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Collaborators

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Charles A. Engh, Sr., MD, Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute

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.

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

December 1, 1998

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

March 1, 2012

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

March 1, 2012

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 10, 2010

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 11, 2010

First Posted (ESTIMATE)

May 12, 2010

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ESTIMATE)

November 5, 2014

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 3, 2014

Last Verified

November 1, 2014

More Information

Terms related to this study

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 Arthritis

Clinical Trials on Total Hip Replacement

3
Subscribe