Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Dec 9;9(12):e033957.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033957.

Randomised controlled trial comparing hydroxyapatite coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty with cemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures: a protocol for the WHITE 5 study

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Randomised controlled trial comparing hydroxyapatite coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty with cemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures: a protocol for the WHITE 5 study

Miguel Antonio Fernandez et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Introduction: Hip fracture is a serious injury in adults, especially those aged over 60 years. The most common type of hip fracture (displaced intracapsular) is treated for the majority of patients with a partial hip replacement (hemiarthroplasty). The hemiarthroplasty implant can be fixed to the bone with or without bone cement. Cement is the current recommended technique but recently some risks have been identified, which could potentially be avoided by using uncemented implants. Controversy, therefore, remains about which type of hemiarthroplasty offers patients the best outcomes.This is the protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing cemented hemiarthroplasty versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for patients 60 years and over with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture.

Methods and analysis: Multicentre (a minimum of seven UK hospitals), multisurgeon, parallel group, two-arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Patients aged 60 years and older with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty surgery are eligible. Participants will be randomly allocated on a 1:1 basis to either a cemented hemiarthroplasty or a modern hydroxyapatite coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Otherwise all care will be in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. A minimum of 1128 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a 0.075-point difference in the primary endpoint: health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 levels) at 4 months postinjury. The treatment effect will be estimated using a two-sided t-test adjusted for age, gender and cognitive impairment based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications including revision surgery and cause, mobility status, residential status, health-related quality of life at 1 and 12 months and health resource use. A within-trial economic analysis will be conducted.

Ethics, dissemination and funding: Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 approved the feasibility phase on 2 December 2016 (16/WA/0351) and the definitive trial on 22 November 2017 (17/WA/0383). This study is sponsored by the University of Oxford and funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit (PB-PG-0215-36043 and PB-PG-1216-20021). A manuscript for a peer-reviewed journal will be prepared and the results shared with patients via local mechanisms at participating centres.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN18393176.

Keywords: hemiarthroplasty; hip fracture; randomised controlled trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: MLC is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. He has ongoing expert consultancy with several companies; none involve the development of any implant for use in hip fracture care. XG is funded by a National Institute for Health Research Clinician Scientist Grant. Further funding from industry and charitable grants are and have been made available to his institution. All decisions relating to the design, conduct, analysis, write‐up and publication of research are independent of these funders. He has ongoing expert consultancy with several companies; none involve the development of any implant for use in hip fracture care.

References

    1. Falls and fragility fracture audit programme (FFFAP). Royal College of physicians 2016.
    1. No authors listed Hip fracture: management. NICE 2017.
    1. Parker MJ, Gurusamy KS, Azegami S, et al. . Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;88-B 10.1002/14651858.CD001706.pub4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Veldman HD, Heyligers IC, Grimm B, et al. . Cemented versus cementless hemiarthroplasty for a displaced fracture of the femoral neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current generation hip stems. Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:421–31. 10.1302/0301-620X.99B4.BJJ-2016-0758.R1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Griffin XL, Achten J, Parsons N, et al. . The Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation - an abridged protocol for the WHiTE Study: A multiple embedded randomised controlled trial cohort study. Bone Joint Res 2012;1:310–4. 10.1302/2046-3758.111.2000127 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data