Acetabular Dysplasia Clinical Trial
— TILT-FAIOfficial title:
A Prospective Cohort Study on Targeted Exercise and Changes in Femoroacetabular Impingement in Symptomatic Patients With Acetabular Retroversion (TILT-FAI)
Verified date | December 2019 |
Source | University of Southern Denmark |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | |
Study type | Interventional |
The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of an 8-week home-based targeted training intervention aiming at reducing FAI related pain, anterior pelvic tilt and improve hip joint function in a cohort of 40 patients (18 to 40 years), with acetabular retroversion and anterior pelvic tilt not eligible for surgery (Ganz osteotomy) from the hospital outpatient clinic.
Status | Completed |
Enrollment | 42 |
Est. completion date | December 17, 2019 |
Est. primary completion date | December 17, 2019 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
Gender | All |
Age group | 18 Years to 40 Years |
Eligibility |
Inclusion Criteria: - Diagnosed from a standard standing anterior-posterior pelvic radiograph with acetabular retroversion due to cross-over-sign and posterior-wall-sign - Not eligible for Ganz osteotomy - Ability to take part in the intervention Exclusion Criteria: - Having a Pelvic Tilt Ratio greater than 0.5, (the height of the obturator foramen divided by the height of the lesser pelvis) indicating posterior pelvic tilt, assessed from a standard standing AP-pelvic radiograph - Radiographic sign of hip osteoarthritis (< 2mm. joint space), - Previous lumbar, pelvic or hip related operations - Conditions not allowing exercise therapy - Body mass index (BMI) above 35 - Not understanding spoken and/or written Danish language |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
Denmark | University of Southern Denmark - Odense University Hospital | Odense C. |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
University of Southern Denmark | Odense University Hospital, The Danish Rheumatism Association, University College Absalon. Region of Zealand, Denmark, Vanfoerefonden, Denmark |
Denmark,
Clohisy JC, Baca G, Beaulé PE, Kim YJ, Larson CM, Millis MB, Podeszwa DA, Schoenecker PL, Sierra RJ, Sink EL, Sucato DJ, Trousdale RT, Zaltz I; ANCHOR Study Group. Descriptive epidemiology of femoroacetabular impingement: a North American cohort of patients undergoing surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2013 Jun;41(6):1348-56. doi: 10.1177/0363546513488861. Epub 2013 May 13. — View Citation
Ezoe M, Naito M, Inoue T. The prevalence of acetabular retroversion among various disorders of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Feb;88(2):372-9. — View Citation
Ganz R, Klaue K, Vinh TS, Mast JW. A new periacetabular osteotomy for the treatment of hip dysplasias. Technique and preliminary results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Jul;(232):26-36. — View Citation
Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Nötzli H, Siebenrock KA. Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Dec;(417):112-20. Review. — View Citation
Langlais F, Lambotte JC, Lannou R, Gédouin JE, Belot N, Thomazeau H, Frieh JM, Gouin F, Hulet C, Marin F, Migaud H, Sadri H, Vielpeau C, Richter D. Hip pain from impingement and dysplasia in patients aged 20-50 years. Workup and role for reconstruction. Joint Bone Spine. 2006 Dec;73(6):614-23. Epub 2006 Oct 25. Review. — View Citation
Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999 Mar;81(2):281-8. — View Citation
Rivière C, Hardijzer A, Lazennec JY, Beaulé P, Muirhead-Allwood S, Cobb J. Spine-hip relations add understandings to the pathophysiology of femoro-acetabular impingement: A systematic review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Jun;103(4):549-557. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.03.010. Epub 2017 Apr 1. Review. — View Citation
Ross JR, Nepple JJ, Philippon MJ, Kelly BT, Larson CM, Bedi A. Effect of changes in pelvic tilt on range of motion to impingement and radiographic parameters of acetabular morphologic characteristics. Am J Sports Med. 2014 Oct;42(10):2402-9. doi: 10.1177/0363546514541229. Epub 2014 Jul 24. — View Citation
Rylander JH, Shu B, Andriacchi TP, Safran MR. Preoperative and postoperative sagittal plane hip kinematics in patients with femoroacetabular impingement during level walking. Am J Sports Med. 2011 Jul;39 Suppl:36S-42S. doi: 10.1177/0363546511413993. — View Citation
Schwarz T, Benditz A, Springorum HR, Matussek J, Heers G, Weber M, Renkawitz T, Grifka J, Craiovan B. Assessment of pelvic tilt in anteroposterior radiographs by means of tilt ratios. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018 Aug;138(8):1045-1052. doi: 10.1007/s00402-018-2931-z. Epub 2018 Apr 12. — View Citation
Werner CM, Copeland CE, Ruckstuhl T, Stromberg J, Seifert B, Turen CH. Prevalence of acetabular dome retroversion in a mixed race adult trauma patient population. Acta Orthop Belg. 2008 Dec;74(6):766-72. — View Citation
* Note: There are 11 references in all — Click here to view all references
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Other | Global Perceived Effect anchor-question | Changed from baseline on a 7-point Likert scale: ´much better, better, little better, unchanged, little worse, worse, much worse`. | 8-weeks (post-intervention) and 26 weeks (follow up from baseline) | |
Other | Oxford 12-item Hip Score (OHS) questionnaire, Danish version | Change in Oxford Hip Score (OHS) questionnaire. Standardized answer options are given (5 Likert boxes) and each question gets a score from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates no problem. The score is calculated as the sum of the 12 questions. The score can therefore be 12-60. The higher the score, the lower the function level. | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) and 26 weeks (follow up from baseline) | |
Other | UCLA activity scale | Change in the University of California Los Angeles activity-level rating (UCLA activity scale), Danish version. On a 10-point scale, the option is marked that matches the level of intensity and frequency of physical activity best, where 1 ="Wholly inactive: depend on others, cannot leave residence, and 10 =" Regularly participates in impact sports". | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) and 26 weeks (follow up from baseline). | |
Other | Radiographic measurement of pelvic tilt (pelvic tilt ratio) | Change in pelvic tilt ratio measured in the frontal plane (standing EOS scanning) and calculated as the centrally height (in mm) of the obturator foramens divided by the centrally height (in mm) of the lesser pelvis (the distance from the two lower margins of the sacroiliac joint to the upper border of the two obturator foramens). | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Radiographic measurement of pelvic tilt (sagittal plane) | Change in pelvic tilt (in degrees) measured in the sagittal plane (standing EOS scanning) as the angle between a horizontal line and a line connecting the upper border of the symphysis with the sacral promontory. | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Radiographic measurements of pelvic parameters (Pelvic Incidence) | Change in Pelvic Incidence (in degrees) measured as the angle between the line joining the hip axis and the center of the S1 end-plate and the line orthogonal to the S1 end-plate (standing EOS scanning) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Radiographic measurements of pelvic parameters (Pelvic Tilt) | Change in Pelvic Tilt (in degrees) measured as the angle between the line joining the hip axis and the center of the S1 end-plate and a reference vertical line (standing EOS scanning) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Radiographic measurements of pelvic parameters (Sacral Slope) | Change in Sacral Slope (in degrees) measured as the angle between the line along the S1 end-plate and a reference horizontal line (standing EOS scanning) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Radiographic parameters of acetabular retroversion (Cross-Over Sign) | Change in Cross-Over Sign (yes/no) (standing EOS scanning) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Radiographic parameters of acetabular retroversion (Cross-Over Ratio) | Change in Acetabular Cross-Over Ratio (percent) (standing EOS scanning) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Radiographic parameters of acetabular retroversion (Posterior Wall Sign) | Change in Posterior Wall Sign (yes/no) (standing EOS scanning) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Radiographic parameters of acetabular retroversion (Posterior Wall Ratio) | Change in Posterior Wall Ratio (percent) (standing EOS scanning) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Radiographic parameters of acetabular retroversion (Ischial Spine Sign) | Change in Ischial Spine Sign (yes/no) (standing EOS scanning) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Physical performance (hip muscle strength) | Change in maximal isometric hip extension, flexion and abduction muscle strength (in Nm using dynamometry) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Physical performance (abdominal muscle strength) | Change in maximal isometric abdominal muscle strength (in Nm using dynamometry) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Physical performance (hip ROM) | Change in hip extension range-of-motion (in degrees using goniometry) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Physical performance (lumbar spine ROM) | Change in lumbar spine flexion range-of-motion (in cm. using Schobers test) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Physical performance (Single-leg hop for distance) | Change in the horizontal single-leg hop distance (in cm) from the toe in the starting position to the heel in the landing position. | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention). | |
Other | Functional test (3D Gait analysis - kinetics) | Change in peak- and mean hip joint moments (in Nm) using 3D Vicon motion capture analysis | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Functional test (3D Gait analysis - kinematics) | Change in hip joint range-of-motion (in degrees) using 3D Vicon motion capture analysis | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Functional test (3D deep squat analysis - kinetics) | Change in peak- and mean hip joint moments (in Nm) using 3D Vicon motion capture analysis | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Functional test (3D deep squat analysis - kinematics) | Change in hip joint range-of-motion (in degrees) using 3D Vicon motion capture analysis | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Functional test (3D deep squat analysis, with heel support - kinetics) | Change in peak- and mean hip joint moments (in Nm) using 3D Vicon motion capture analysis | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Functional test (3D deep squat analysis, with heel support - kinematics) | Change in hip joint range-of-motion (in degrees) using 3D Vicon motion capture analysis | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Functional test (3D counter movement jump analysis, unilateral - kinetics) | Change in peak- and mean hip joint moments (in Nm) using 3D Vicon motion capture analysis | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Functional test (3D counter movement jump analysis, unilateral - kinematics) | Change in hip joint range-of-motion (in degrees) using 3D Vicon motion capture analysis | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Functional test (3D counter movement jump analysis, bilateral - kinetics) | Change in peak- and mean hip joint moments (in Nm) using 3D Vicon motion capture analysis | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Other | Functional test (3D counter movement jump analysis, bilateral - kinematics) | Change in hip joint range-of-motion (in degrees) using 3D Vicon motion capture analysis | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) | |
Primary | HAGOS questionnaire (pain subscale) | Change in The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) questionnaire pain subscale. Standardized answer options are given (5 Likert boxes) and each question gets a score from 0 to 4, where 0 indicates no problem. The scores from each subscale are calculated as the sum of the items included. Raw scores are then transformed to a 0-100 scale, with zero representing extreme hip and/or groin problems and 100 representing no hip and/or groin problems. |
Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) and 26 weeks (follow up from baseline) | |
Secondary | HAGOS questionnaire (the remaining five subscales) | Change in the remaining five HAGOS-subscales (Symptoms, Physical function in daily living, Physical function in Sport and Recreation, Participation in Physical Activities and hip and/or groin-related Quality of Life). Standardized answer options are given (5 Likert boxes) and each question gets a score from 0 to 4, where 0 indicates no problem. The scores from each subscale are calculated as the sum of the items included. Raw scores are then transformed to a 0-100 scale, with zero representing extreme hip and/or groin problems and 100 representing no hip and/or groin problems. |
Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) and 26 weeks (follow up from baseline) | |
Secondary | EQ-5D-3Levels questionnaire | Change in the European Quality of Life - 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-3Levels) questionnaire, Danish version. For each dimension (Mobility, Self-Care, Usual Activities, Pain/Discomfort, Anxiety/Depression) standardized answer options are divided in levels of perceived problems (3 Likert boxes): Level 1: indicating no problem, Level 2: indicating some problems, Level 3: indicating extreme problems. A unique health state is defined by combining the selected level from each of the 5 dimensions. In addition, the overall health state the actual day is marked on a numeric scale on which the best state is marked 100 and the worst state is marked 0. | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) and 26 weeks (follow up from baseline). | |
Secondary | Radiographic measurement of pelvic tilt (SCJ - Symphysis distance) | Change in the degree of pelvic tilt measured in the frontal plane as the distance (in mm) from the sacro-coccygeal joint (SCJ) to the upper border of the pubic symphysis (standing EOS scanning) | Minus 8-weeks (control), baseline, 8-weeks (post-intervention) |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Active, not recruiting |
NCT04069507 -
Healthy Hip Study: Conservative Management for Pre-arthritic Hip Disorders
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT06037278 -
Patient Specific Guides and Surgical Planning for Periacetabular Osteotomy; Post Marketing Evaluation Study
|
N/A | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT03541122 -
Three Novel Radiological Indicators for Diagnosis of Adult Acetabular Dysplasia
|