AzTrials
AzTrials

Hip FracturesNCT03468192

Cluster-randomized Study of 394 Patients Operated With Direct Anterolateral Approach.

A study testing Non-precaution group in people with Hip Fractures, run by Lund University.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

394 participants were cluster-randomized during 2010-2014. Depending on which ward the participants admitted to, they were allotted to free rehabilitation (non-precaution group, NPG, n=226) or our conventional regime with precautions and mandatory assistive equipment (precaution group, PG, n=168). Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Any age
Conditions the study is for
Hip Fractures
What is being tested?
Non-precaution group
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
394 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
1 Jan 2010to 31 Dec 2014
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages Any age
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • patients with Garden III-IV (20) femoral neck fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty participated in a cluster-randomised study during 2010-2014.

Who cannot join

  • -

About this study

Official title: Hip Precautions Not Meaningful After Hemiarthroplasty Due to Hip Fracture. Cluster-randomized Study of 394 Patients Operated With Direct Anterolateral Approach.

394 participants were cluster-randomized during 2010-2014. Depending on which ward the participants admitted to, they were allotted to free rehabilitation (non-precaution group, NPG, n=226) or our conventional regime with precautions and mandatory assistive equipment (precaution group, PG, n=168). The participants were followed during hospital stay, at 6 weeks (postal questionnaire), 3 month (visit) and 6 months (reading of medical records) by means of function tests, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).

Read the detailed description

394 participants with Garden III-IV (20) femoral neck fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty participated in a cluster-randomised study during 2010-2014 at Skane University Hospital, Malmö. Inclusion criteria was an acute displaced femoral neck fracture treated with a bipolar hemiarthroplasty inserted via a direct lateral approach in supine position. All such participants were considered potential study participants and invited to the study by an occupational therapist (OT), within the first postoperative days. If the participants was not capable of making decisions, relatives were asked. The study was approved by The Regional Ethical Review Board in Lund on condition that all participants, regardless of group, or their next-in-kin gave written consent (Dnr 2009/754).

The four wards managing hip fracture patients were assigned either to provide the standard postoperative hip precaution regime or the non-precaution regime during the entire study period. In two of the wards, the precaution group (PG) had standard postoperative hip precautions included limited flexion of the hip to 90° (avoid reaching down to toes or bringing knee up beyond 90°) and limited adduction of the hip (avoid sleeping on side and avoid crossing legs at knees or ankles). The mandatory assistive equipment to use for at least 3 months were reacher and stocking application aid. The participants were instructed only to use elevated chair, bed and toilet in order not to flex more than 90° in the hip. For the same reason a brace over the knee was prescribed for 6 weeks, particularly in participants with cognitive limitations.

The non-precaution group (NPG) consisted of participants treated in the other two wards. Participants in the NPG had no restrictions on mobility, i.e. they were encouraged to move freely during the recovery phase and assistive equipment were prescribed only if needed.

Admittance of a participant to either ward was only decided by any available bed, i.e. the health status of the participants or any other factors did not influence placement of participants. The investigators recruited 168 participants to the PG and 226 participants to the NPG.

The initial power analysis was directed towards dislocation rate as primary outcome. When designing the trial, the investigators had a dislocation rate of 0.5% at the department. The investigators calculated that, in order to detect an increase of 3.5%, i.e. a clinical relevant effect, the investigators needed 340 participants in each group (p<0.05). The original plan was to additionally monitor PROM in the first 400 participants, and then dislocation rate only in the remaining 400. In order to monitor the safety of the study, the investigators also calculated a non-inferiority model, with warning levels at which the investigatorswould discontinue the study. This model was based on 200 participants in each group. Due to recruitment difficulties, the study was closed after inclusion of approximately 400 participants.

Both groups had functional assessment by an OT done as part of standard-of-care, usually within the three first postoperative days. The surgical procedure was a bipolar hemiarthroplasty inserted via a direct lateral approach (Hardinge). All implants were cemented, except 5 in the NPG and 2 in the PG (2.2 and 1.2 %).

During hospital stay the investigators registered time from admission to surgery, time of surgery, type of implant, adversities during surgery, the experience of the surgeon, radiological evaluation, length of stay, any deaths and dismissal address. The work burden of the rehabilitation personnel during hospital stay was estimated by themselves as "very short", "short", "normal", "long" or "very long" work effort. No one reported "very long". "Very short" and "short" was grouped together in the analyses. The participants were followed up with postal questionnaire at 6 weeks and 3 months including EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale on pain and satisfaction (0 to 100). A physiotherapist assessed participants with functional tests at 3 months. As only half of participants chose to participate in functional testing, the investigators do not report these data.

Medical records from all somatic departments of the hospital were reviewed and all adverse events (death, dislocation, surgical site infection (SSI), periprosthetic fracture, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, falls and new fractures, stroke and ischemic heart attack) up to 6 months postoperatively were recorded. SSI was divided in to superficial incisional SSI and deep incisional SSI and were defined according to Horan et al.The follow-up cannot consider to be blinded, as some results were gathered during hospital stay were the group belonging of the participants were obvious.

Conditions
Hip Fractures
Being tested
Non-precaution group
Medical subject headings
Hip Fractures

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Non-precaution groupOther

    Patients in the NPG had no restrictions on mobility, i.e. they were encouraged to move freely during the recovery phase and assistive equipment were prescribed only if needed

Study groups in NCT03468192
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
non-precaution groupExperimentalStudy Group: Patients in the NPG had no restrictions on mobility, i.e. they were encouraged to move freely during the recovery phase and assistive equipment were prescribed only if needed.
Receives: Other: Non-precaution group
precaution groupNo interventionControl Group: the precaution group (PG) had standard postoperative hip precautions included limited flexion of the hip to 90° (avoid reaching down to toes or bringing knee up beyond 90°) and limited adduction of the hip (avoid sleeping on side and avoid crossing legs at knees or ankles). The mandatory assistive equipment to use for at least 3 months were reacher and stocking application aid. The patients were instructed only to use elevated chair, bed and toilet in order not to flex more than 90° in the hip. For the same reason a brace over the knee was prescribed for 6 weeks, particularly in patients with cognitive limitations.

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Dislocation

    Dislocation of prosthesis identifed on x-ray

    Measured: 6 months

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. PROM

    EQ5D

    Measured: 3 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted16 Mar 2018
  2. Study start1 Jan 2010
  3. Primary completion31 Dec 2014
  4. Study completion31 Dec 2014

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Model description
Cluster-randomized study of 394 patients operated with direct anterolateral approach.
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
394 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03468192
Sponsor's protocol ID
AmmarJobory
Status last verified
Mar 2018
First submitted
12 Feb 2018
Last updated
16 Mar 2018
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Undecided

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Non-precaution group in people with Hip Fractures, run by Lund University.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Mar 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Dislocation (time frame: 6 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Mar 2018.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in