ClinicalTrials.gg
Active, not recruitingNCT04957251Updated Oct 13, 2026

Anterior vs Posterior Approach for Hip Hemiarthroplasty

An interventional study of anterior approach to the hip and posterior approach to the hip in Hip Fractures, sponsored by Mount Carmel Health System. Active, not recruiting. Open to participants aged 65 Years to 99 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-13.

Sponsored by Mount Carmel Health System · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 2 years 5 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Sep 2015, registered Mar 2018).
Updated Oct 13, 2026Primary completion movedStudy completion movedGo to Updates ↓
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
10
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
65 Years to 99 Years
Sex
All
01

Study 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 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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Hip Fractures

Browse trials for

03

In context

Hip Fractures

842 studies on the registry are indexed under Hip Fractures; 165 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 10 is below the median of 86 across 533 interventional studies indexed under Hip Fractures.

Browse Hip Fractures studies →

Lead sponsor

Mount Carmel Health System is the lead sponsor of 12 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
65 Years to 99 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • 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

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who will be excluded from the study are all patients who are non ambulatory at baseline.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
10 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Anterior approach

    Patient's undergoing an anterior approach to the hip

    Procedure: anterior approach to the hip

  • Active comparator
    Posterior Approach

    Patient's undergoing an posterior approach to the hip

    Procedure: posterior approach to the hip

Interventions

  • Procedureanterior approach to the hip

    anterior hip hemiarthroplasty

  • Procedureposterior approach to the hip

    posterior hip hemiarthroplasty

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. 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

    Time frame: 1 year

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — Database that is kept on site that may be reviewed.

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

1 registry update since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedDate before it movedWhere the date was before it movedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Sep 2015 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Oct 2027, 144 months after the start.

Of 221 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Hip Fractures, half reached primary completion within 27 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 10 and three quarters within 55. This study's planned 144 months is above that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 237 studies reached it within 29 months; a quarter within 10 and three quarters within 57.

Since we started tracking on Sep 25, 2026, the dates moved once, on Oct 13, 2026: primary completion Oct 2025 → Oct 2027 and completion Oct 2025 → Oct 2028.

Earlier changes are on the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Mar 23, 2018
First posted
Jul 12, 2021
StartActual
Sep 28, 2015
Primary completionEst.
Oct 1, 2027was Oct 2025
CompletionEst.
Oct 1, 2028was Oct 2025
Last update
Oct 13, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
Primary completion
Oct 1, 2025→Oct 1, 2027
Oct 13, 2026
Study completion
Oct 1, 2025→Oct 1, 2028
Oct 13, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Oct 13, 2026
    Primary completion Oct 1, 2025→Oct 1, 2027
    Study completion Oct 1, 2025→Oct 1, 2028
    + 3 other changes: index terms, verification date and oversight details

From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04957251
Lead sponsor
Mount Carmel Health System
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jul 12, 2021
Start date
Sep 28, 2015
Primary completion
Oct 1, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Oct 1, 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Oct 13, 2026

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is active, not recruiting, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion