Hip FracturesNCT04957251
Anterior vs Posterior Approach for Hip Hemiarthroplasty
A study testing anterior approach to the hip and posterior approach to the hip in people with Hip Fractures, run by Mount Carmel Health System.
Trial summary
Randomized trial to evaluate the role of the anterior vs posterior approach regarding hemiarthroplasty of the hip. The Investigators' hypothesis is that the muscle sparing anterior approach may result in improved function in the short term, which may allow shorter hospital stay and quicker return to prior level of… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 65 to 99 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Hip Fractures
- What is being tested?
- anterior approach to the hip and posterior approach to the hip
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 10 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 28 Sep 2015to 1 Oct 2028
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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 65 to 99 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Eligible patients will include all patients that were previously ambulatory at some level who sustain a displaced femoral neck fracture that given functional status, age, and comorbidities will require a hemi-arthroplasty for definitive treatment.
- Ages 65-99
Who cannot join
- Patients who will be excluded from the study are all patients who are non ambulatory at baseline.
About this study
Official title: Does the Anterior or Posterior Approach to the Hip Provide Superior Functional Recovery After Recovery After Performing Hip Hemiarthroplasty
Randomized trial to evaluate the role of the anterior vs posterior approach regarding hemiarthroplasty of the hip. The Investigators' hypothesis is that the muscle sparing anterior approach may result in improved function in the short term, which may allow shorter hospital stay and quicker return to prior level of function.
Read the detailed description
Background
In patients who sustain a displaced femoral neck fracture, who do not meet criteria for total hip arthroplasty, the recommendations are made for a hemi-arthroplasty of the hip. There are multiple surgical approaches that can be used including the anterior approach to the hip and the posterior approach to the hip. The most widely performed approach to the hip when performing a total hip arthroplasty or hemi-arthroplasty has been the posterior approach. However, multiple approaches exist including posterior approach, direct lateral approach, anterolateral approach and direct anterior approach. There is not a consensus about which approach is the most appropriate or best for patients. The decision for approach is widely decided by the surgeon and is based on experience and preference of the surgeon. Recent advances in the anterior approach to the hip have found improved results with regards to functional status and decreased complications when compared to the posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. There have been several retrospective studies comparing the anterior vs. posterior approach for hemi-arthroplasty with regards to treatment of femoral neck fractures. These studies have shown conflicting results with regards to which approach is superior. Retrospective studies have shown decreased dislocation rate with the anterior approach, but increased operative time and increased rate of infection with anterior approach as well. To date, there have been two prospective studies performed comparing the anterior and posterior approach for hemi-arthroplasty, one in Japan and one in France, both of which showed decreased dislocation rates but did not display long term functional improvement comparing the two approaches. Both of these studies' patient population and protocol differ greatly from standard of care in the United States. To date, there have been no prospective randomized controlled trials evaluating the functional advantage of the anterior vs. the posterior approach when performing hip hemi-arthroplasty procedure for femoral neck fractures in the United States. It is our hypothesis that the anterior approach will provide superior functional results as a product of the decreased damage to soft tissue and restoration of normal anatomy.
Objectives:
There are several objectives of this study.
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the functional status of each patient using a Harris Hip Score to evaluate both function and pain comparing the anterior vs. the posterior approach for hemi-arthroplasty at 6 months.
Secondary objectives of this study include:
- time to ambulation post operatively
- rate of complications including infection, nerve palsy, and DVT/PE
- operative time
- rate of dislocation
- periprosthetic fracture
- mortality
- return to preoperative mobility status
- blood loss
Significance:
The results of this study would either confirm the retrospective data that currently exists showing no difference in functional outcomes between the two approaches or demonstrate a superior functional status with either the anterior or posterior approach for hip hemi-arthroplasty. Of which, logically and anecdotally, the Investigators' believe will be the anterior approach. With this research, theInvestigators' believe the anterior approach can become the standard of care for the surgical technique with regards to hemi-arthroplasty for hip fractures
Eligible patients:
Eligible patients will include all patients that were previously ambulatory at some level who sustain a displaced femoral neck fracture that given functional status, age, and comorbidities will require a hemi-arthroplasty for definitive treatment. Ages 65-99
Patients who will be excluded from the study are all patients who are non ambulatory at baseline.
Design:
Patients who meet eligibility criteria will be offered to participate in the study. Once the patient consents, the participants will be randomized to receive either the anterior or posterior approach for hemi-arthroplasty of the hip. After surgery, the participant will undergo standard postoperative care (hip precautions) with data collected from the electronic health record and from standard hospital care including rounding. The participant will then follow up at appropriate standard interval with the main endpoint of 6 months where Harris Hip Scores will be used to judge the participant's functional status as well as pain relief.
Analysis of the collected data will occur at intervals of 50 patients to evaluate trends or statistical significance.
Monitoring Participants:
If at any time during this study the participant or medical decision maker decides to no longer participate in the study, the participant will be removed from the study and will continue to undergo standard treatment for their condition.
Consent:
Consent will be obtained so long as the participant meets the appropriate criteria listed above and will be given a detailed informed consent document outlining the purpose of the study and associated risks and benefits.
Human Subject Protections:
There is currently no widely accepted technique based on outcomes with regards to operative approach for hip hemi-arthroplasty, nor is there a standard approach for total hip arthroplasty. Therefore, the participant will not have to do anything different from an intervention standpoint and therefore are not at any increased risk based on our study protocol. All participants will receive treatment of hip fracture in an appropriate fashion. They will be asked standard postoperative questions during their stay and will undergo standard follow up. The only change from current standard of care in follow up will include the primary investigator performing a Harris Hip questionnaire and assessment at each postoperative visit.
With regards to selection, the only criteria will be a baseline ambulatory status prior to sustaining a displaced femoral neck fracture. The participants who are demented will be included in the study because a large percentage of patients who sustain femoral neck fractures and require a hemi-arthroplasty have some baseline dementia. These participants will only be included if a medical power of attorney or appropriate medical decision maker is available.
Analysis
Data will be collected and analyzed after 50 participants using a student t-test analysis to evaluate for statistical significance or tends. The goal of 200 patients is to obtain the largest prospective controlled trial to date. Analysis every 50 is based off of previous literature that showed statistical significance near 50 patients in some categories including dislocation.
Adverse Events Reporting
This study is a single surgeon study that is not blinded and all adverse events outside of the expected complications associated with hip hemi-arthroplasty will be reported immediately to the IRB board.
Patient confidentiality
The only PHI data that will be kept will be the FIN number to pull information from the electronic health record during analysis. This is necessary as a means to be able to accurately report lab values, operative times, and other pertinent information from their hospital stay. Otherwise, all hard copy data will be locked in a safe location, and all electronic data will be password protected.
- Conditions
- Hip Fractures
- Being tested
- anterior approach to the hip, posterior approach to the hip
- Medical subject headings
- Hip Fractures
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
anterior approach to the hipProcedure or surgery
anterior hip hemiarthroplasty
posterior approach to the hipProcedure or surgery
posterior hip hemiarthroplasty
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Anterior approach | Experimental | Patient's undergoing an anterior approach to the hip Receives: Procedure: anterior approach to the hip |
| Posterior Approach | Active comparator | Patient's undergoing an posterior approach to the hip Receives: Procedure: posterior approach to the hip |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Functional outcomes
Harris Hip Score. Score ranges from 0-100 The higher the HHS, the less dysfunction. A total score of <70 is considered a poor result; 70-80 is considered fair, 80-90 is good, and 90-100 is an excellent result
Measured: 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted12 Jul 2021
- Study start28 Sep 2015
- Primary completion1 Oct 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Oct 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Hip FracturesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 10 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mount Carmel Health System
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04957251
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB 150819-1
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 23 Mar 2018
- Last updated
- 13 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Database that is kept on site that may be reviewed.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Does the Anterior or Posterior Approach to the Hip Provide Superior Functional Recovery After Recovery After Performing Hip Hemiarthroplasty
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04957251
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB 150819-1
- Conditions
- Hip Fractures
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 10 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mount Carmel Health SystemUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 28 Sep 2015 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Oct 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Oct 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 12 Jul 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Randomized trial to evaluate the role of the anterior vs posterior approach regarding hemiarthroplasty of the hip. The Investigators' hypothesis is that the muscle sparing anterior approach may result in improved function in the short term, which may allow shorter hospital stay and quicker return to prior level of function.
Detailed description
Background
In patients who sustain a displaced femoral neck fracture, who do not meet criteria for total hip arthroplasty, the recommendations are made for a hemi-arthroplasty of the hip. There are multiple surgical approaches that can be used including the anterior approach to the hip and the posterior approach to the hip. The most widely performed approach to the hip when performing a total hip arthroplasty or hemi-arthroplasty has been the posterior approach. However, multiple approaches exist including posterior approach, direct lateral approach, anterolateral approach and direct anterior approach. There is not a consensus about which approach is the most appropriate or best for patients. The decision for approach is widely decided by the surgeon and is based on experience and preference of the surgeon. Recent advances in the anterior approach to the hip have found improved results with regards to functional status and decreased complications when compared to the posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. There have been several retrospective studies comparing the anterior vs. posterior approach for hemi-arthroplasty with regards to treatment of femoral neck fractures. These studies have shown conflicting results with regards to which approach is superior. Retrospective studies have shown decreased dislocation rate with the anterior approach, but increased operative time and increased rate of infection with anterior approach as well. To date, there have been two prospective studies performed comparing the anterior and posterior approach for hemi-arthroplasty, one in Japan and one in France, both of which showed decreased dislocation rates but did not display long term functional improvement comparing the two approaches. Both of these studies' patient population and protocol differ greatly from standard of care in the United States. To date, there have been no prospective randomized controlled trials evaluating the functional advantage of the anterior vs. the posterior approach when performing hip hemi-arthroplasty procedure for femoral neck fractures in the United States. It is our hypothesis that the anterior approach will provide superior functional results as a product of the decreased damage to soft tissue and restoration of normal anatomy.
Objectives:
There are several objectives of this study.
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the functional status of each patient using a Harris Hip Score to evaluate both function and pain comparing the anterior vs. the posterior approach for hemi-arthroplasty at 6 months.
Secondary objectives of this study include:
- time to ambulation post operatively
- rate of complications including infection, nerve palsy, and DVT/PE
- operative time
- rate of dislocation
- periprosthetic fracture
- mortality
- return to preoperative mobility status
- blood loss
Significance:
The results of this study would either confirm the retrospective data that currently exists showing no difference in functional outcomes between the two approaches or demonstrate a superior functional status with either the anterior or posterior approach for hip hemi-arthroplasty. Of which, logically and anecdotally, the Investigators' believe will be the anterior approach. With this research, theInvestigators' believe the anterior approach can become the standard of care for the surgical technique with regards to hemi-arthroplasty for hip fractures
Eligible patients:
Eligible patients will include all patients that were previously ambulatory at some level who sustain a displaced femoral neck fracture that given functional status, age, and comorbidities will require a hemi-arthroplasty for definitive treatment. Ages 65-99
Patients who will be excluded from the study are all patients who are non ambulatory at baseline.
Design:
Patients who meet eligibility criteria will be offered to participate in the study. Once the patient consents, the participants will be randomized to receive either the anterior or posterior approach for hemi-arthroplasty of the hip. After surgery, the participant will undergo standard postoperative care (hip precautions) with data collected from the electronic health record and from standard hospital care including rounding. The participant will then follow up at appropriate standard interval with the main endpoint of 6 months where Harris Hip Scores will be used to judge the participant's functional status as well as pain relief.
Analysis of the collected data will occur at intervals of 50 patients to evaluate trends or statistical significance.
Monitoring Participants:
If at any time during this study the participant or medical decision maker decides to no longer participate in the study, the participant will be removed from the study and will continue to undergo standard treatment for their condition.
Consent:
Consent will be obtained so long as the participant meets the appropriate criteria listed above and will be given a detailed informed consent document outlining the purpose of the study and associated risks and benefits.
Human Subject Protections:
There is currently no widely accepted technique based on outcomes with regards to operative approach for hip hemi-arthroplasty, nor is there a standard approach for total hip arthroplasty. Therefore, the participant will not have to do anything different from an intervention standpoint and therefore are not at any increased risk based on our study protocol. All participants will receive treatment of hip fracture in an appropriate fashion. They will be asked standard postoperative questions during their stay and will undergo standard follow up. The only change from current standard of care in follow up will include the primary investigator performing a Harris Hip questionnaire and assessment at each postoperative visit.
With regards to selection, the only criteria will be a baseline ambulatory status prior to sustaining a displaced femoral neck fracture. The participants who are demented will be included in the study because a large percentage of patients who sustain femoral neck fractures and require a hemi-arthroplasty have some baseline dementia. These participants will only be included if a medical power of attorney or appropriate medical decision maker is available.
Analysis
Data will be collected and analyzed after 50 participants using a student t-test analysis to evaluate for statistical significance or tends. The goal of 200 patients is to obtain the largest prospective controlled trial to date. Analysis every 50 is based off of previous literature that showed statistical significance near 50 patients in some categories including dislocation.
Adverse Events Reporting
This study is a single surgeon study that is not blinded and all adverse events outside of the expected complications associated with hip hemi-arthroplasty will be reported immediately to the IRB board.
Patient confidentiality
The only PHI data that will be kept will be the FIN number to pull information from the electronic health record during analysis. This is necessary as a means to be able to accurately report lab values, operative times, and other pertinent information from their hospital stay. Otherwise, all hard copy data will be locked in a safe location, and all electronic data will be password protected.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Anterior approach | Experimental | Procedure: anterior approach to the hipPatient's undergoing an anterior approach to the hip |
| Posterior Approach | Active comparator | Procedure: posterior approach to the hipPatient's undergoing an posterior approach to the hip |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 65 to 99 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Eligible patients will include all patients that were previously ambulatory at some level who sustain a displaced femoral neck fracture that given functional status, age, and comorbidities will require a hemi-arthroplasty for definitive treatment.
- Ages 65-99
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients who will be excluded from the study are all patients who are non ambulatory at baseline.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| anterior approach to the hipanterior hip hemiarthroplasty | Procedure or surgery | Anterior approach |
| posterior approach to the hipposterior hip hemiarthroplasty | Procedure or surgery | Posterior Approach |
Primary outcome
Functional outcomes
Time frame: 1 year
Harris Hip Score. Score ranges from 0-100 The higher the HHS, the less dysfunction. A total score of <70 is considered a poor result; 70-80 is considered fair, 80-90 is good, and 90-100 is an excellent result
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Oct 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Database that is kept on site that may be reviewed.
Related trials for Hip Fractures
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Effect of Ondansetron on the Incidence of Spinal Anaesthesia-Induced Hypotension in Elderly Patients Undergoing Fracture Hip Surgery
Spinal Anaesthesia Induced Hypotension
Not yet recruiting
Lumbar Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus PENG Block for Hip Fracture Surgery
Femur Neck Fracture, Hip Fractures
Active, not recruiting
Lumbar-Sacral Plexus Block vs Fascia Iliaca Block Plus Low-Dose Spinal Anesthesia for Femoral Neck Fracture Surgery
Femoral Neck Fractures, Nerve Block
RecruitingObservational study
Real World Evidence of SI-BONE's iFuse TORQ TNT Advancing Treatment of Pelvic Ring Fractures
Fracture; Pelvic, Insufficiency Fractures
Not yet recruiting
A Decision Support Tool for Common Surgical Fixations of Hip Fractures
Hip Fracture Surgeries, High Risk Population of Hip Fractures
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing anterior approach to the hip and posterior approach to the hip in people with Hip Fractures, run by Mount Carmel Health System.
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 2 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: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Oct 2026. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
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?
Functional outcomes (time frame: 1 year). 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 13 Oct 2026.