ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07520721Poly vs hybridUpdated Apr 9, 2026

Poly vs Hybrid Glenoid in Stemless aTSA

An interventional study of Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with cemented all-polyethylene pegged glenoid and Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with hybrid trabecular titanium central-peg glenoid in Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis, sponsored by Spaarne Gasthuis. Recruiting at 1 site in Netherlands. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-04-09.

Sponsored by Spaarne Gasthuis · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 8 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Jun 2025, registered Mar 2026).
  • Started Jun 2025; still recruiting 1 year 4 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
94
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Participants are randomized 1:1 to receive either a cemented all-polyethylene pegged glenoid or a hybrid trabecular titanium-pegged glenoid during anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Multicentre, stratified block randomization with variable block sizes; patient- and assessor-blinded.

02

Conditions studied

  • Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis

Keywords

  • Osteoarthritis
  • Shoulder Joint
  • Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder
  • Shoulder Prosthesis
  • Prostheses and Implants
  • Prosthesis Fixation
  • Prosthesis Failure
  • Prosthesis Loosening
  • Bone Cements
  • Polyethylene
  • Titanium
  • Osseointegration
  • Radiography
03

In context

Osteoarthritis

2,974 studies on the registry are indexed under Osteoarthritis; 438 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 94 is above the median of 80 across 2,240 interventional studies indexed under Osteoarthritis.

Browse Osteoarthritis studies →

Lead sponsor

Spaarne Gasthuis is the lead sponsor of 11 studies on the registry; 7 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

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

-

In order to be eligible to participate in this study, a subject must meet all of the following criteria:

  1. Both genders;
  2. Age 18 years old;
  3. over 5 years;
  4. Patient has symptomatic shoulder osteoarthritis for more than 1 year and is submitted to previous conservative non-surgical treatments;
  5. Patient is requiring primary unilateral or staged bilateral anatomic arthroplasty based on physical examination, medical history and X ray examination. (In cases where bilateral aTSA's are indicated, the patient will be included for the second aTSA again when the patient meets the inclusion criteria);
  6. Good bone quality evaluated by the investigator on the basis of a risk factors analysis and the intraoperative estimation;
  7. A diagnosis in the target shoulder of osteoarthritis; according to the classification of Walch, the glenoid should be a type A1, A2 or B1. Retroversion should not exceed 15 degrees.
  8. Patient is willing and able to complete scheduled follow-up evaluations as described in the ;
  9. Patient has participated in the Informed Consent process and has signed the Informed Consent form previously approved by the Ethics Committee.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Patient requiring revision shoulder arthroplasty;
  2. Osteoporosis with a history of non-traumatic fractures;
  3. injections within the previous 6 months;
  4. Contralateral shoulder replacement within the previous 3 months;
  5. Meta-epiphyseal bony defect (including large cysts);
  6. Significant proven or suspicious infection of the target shoulder or any serious infectious disease
  7. Significant neurological or musculoskeletal disorders that may compromise functional recovery;
  8. Known or suspicious to the metal or other materials of the implant;
  9. Unwillingness or inability (i.e. alcoholism, infirmity) to comply with rehabilitation and to return for follow-up visits and any psychiatric illness that would prevent comprehension of the details and nature of the study;
  10. Any systemic disease which may affect outcome.
  11. Active or neoplastic disease
  12. Chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy within the last 6 months
  13. Previous organ transplant
  14. Participation in any clinical research study that may interfere with this study
  15. A current or prior diagnosis of schizophrenia, delusional disorder, schizoaffective disorder, psychotic disorder or bipolar disorder.
  16. Current substance use disorder (excluding nicotine/tabacco use disorder) or moderate or severe alcohol use disorder.
  17. Imminent suicide risk.
  18. Any other psychiatric condition that renders the individual unsuitable for the study according to the study physicians judgment
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(6)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Life expectancy

The study doctor’s estimate of how long someone is likely to live. Criteria use it so that people can stay in the study long enough for it to answer its question.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

Corticosteroids (steroids)

Anti-inflammatory medicines such as prednisone, prednisolone and dexamethasone — not the anabolic steroids used for muscle.

Studies differ in what they allow: check which steroid medicines, routes (tablets, injections, creams, inhalers, eye drops) and doses this study accepts.

Hypersensitivity

An allergy, or another reaction of the immune system, to a substance. “Hypersensitivity to the study drug” means a known allergic reaction to it — not every side effect a medicine can have.

Metastases

Cancer that has spread from where it began to other parts of the body. “Metastatic” cancer is cancer that has spread this way.

DSM diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association’s manual of mental health diagnoses. DSM-5 (2013, revised as DSM-5-TR in 2022) replaced DSM-IV, and some studies still name the older edition. “Meets DSM criteria for …” means diagnosed by that edition’s diagnostic criteria, usually by a clinician in an interview.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
94 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Standard cemented all-polyethylene pegged glenoid

    Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (SMR stemless) with a cemented all-polyethylene pegged glenoid.

    Procedure: Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with cemented all-polyethylene pegged glenoid

  • Experimental
    Hybrid trabecular titanium central-peg glenoid

    Hybrid trabecular titanium central-peg glenoid

    Procedure: Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with hybrid trabecular titanium central-peg glenoid

Interventions

  • ProcedureAnatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with cemented all-polyethylene pegged glenoid

    Stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (SMR system) with a cemented pegged all-polyethylene glenoid (standard fixation concept).

    Also known as: Cemented polyethylene glenoid component

  • ProcedureAnatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with hybrid trabecular titanium central-peg glenoid

    Stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (SMR system) with a hybrid polyethylene glenoid: porous trabecular titanium central peg intended for bone ingrowth plus cemented peripheral pegs.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Constant-Murley Score (shoulder function)

    Clinical shoulder function assessed with the Constant-Murley Score (absolute and age/sex-adjusted) comparing hybrid versus standard glenoid fixation after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. The Constant-Murley Score ranges from 0 to 100 points, with 0 indicating the worst outcome and 100 indicating the best shoulder function.

    Time frame: Preoperatively, 3 months; 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperatively.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Shoulder range of motion

    Active shoulder range of motion (e.g., forward flexion, abduction, external/internal rotation) assessed clinically to compare recovery between glenoid groups.

    Time frame: Preoperatively, 3 months; 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperatively.

  2. Oxford Shoulder Score questionnaire

    Patient-reported shoulder pain and function measured with the Oxford Shoulder Score, comparing both glenoid fixation concepts. The Oxford Shoulder Score ranges from 0 to 48 points, with higher scores indicating a better outcome / better shoulder function. This is inferred from the 12-item questionnaire with 5 response options per item shown in the uploaded form.

    Time frame: Preoperatively; 3 months; 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperatively.

  3. Hospital Anxiety subscale questionnaire

    Anxiety symptoms assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Anxiety subscale (HADS-D), a 7-item subscale of the full questionnaire. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale is generally interpreted per subscale rather than as a single total score. The Anxiety and Depression subscales are assessed separately, each ranging from 0 to 21 points, with higher scores indicating more symptoms and therefore a worse outcome.

    Time frame: Preoperatively; 3 months; 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperatively.

  4. Hospital Depression subscale questionnaire

    Depressive symptoms assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression subscale (HADS-D), a 7-item subscale of the full questionnaire. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale is generally interpreted per subscale rather than as a single total score. The Anxiety and Depression subscales are assessed separately, each ranging from 0 to 21 points, with higher scores indicating more symptoms and therefore a worse outcome.

    Time frame: Preoperatively; 3 months; 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperatively.

  5. Subjective Shoulder Value Scale

    Patient-rated shoulder function as a percentage of normal (0-100%), comparing treatment arms. The Subjective Shoulder Value ranges from 0% to 100%, with higher percentages indicating better perceived shoulder function.

    Time frame: Preoperatively; 3 months; 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperatively.

  6. Health-related quality of life - EuroQol-5D descriptive system

    Health-related quality of life assessed with the EuroQol-5D descriptive system, which includes five domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Each domain is rated on a 5-level scale ranging from no problems to extreme problems. The combination of responses across the five domains is used to generate one overall health-state profile rather than a simple summed total score.

    Time frame: Preoperatively; 3 months, 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperatively.

  7. Health-related quality of life - EuroQol-5D Visual Analogue Scal

    Generic quality-of-life measured with the EQ-5D to compare overall health status between study arms.The EQ-5D visual analogue scale ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better self-rated health.

    Time frame: Preoperatively; 3 months, 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperatively.

  8. Work-Related Questionnaire for Upper Extremity Disorders

    Work limitations related to upper-extremity function assessed with the WRFQ-UE. The WorkQ-up consists of 17 items scored from 0 to 5 (or marked not applicable), resulting in a total score range of 0 to 85 if all items are applicable, with higher scores indicating more difficulty at work and therefore a worse outcome.

    Time frame: Preoperatively, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperatively.

  9. Work Ability (single-item Work Ability Score) numeric scale

    Self-rated work ability assessed with a single-item Work Ability Score to evaluate work capacity over time. The Work Ability Score ranges from 0 to 10 points, with higher scores indicating better work ability and therefore a better outcome.

    Time frame: Preoperatively, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperatively.

  10. Implant survival (radiographic loosening endpoint)

    Time-to-event implant survival where failure is defined as radiographic loosening and/or revision as specified in the protocol; compared between arms.

    Time frame: Up to 10 years postoperatively.

Other outcomes

  1. Number of implant-related complications

    Number of implant-related complications recorded from surgery through 10 years postoperatively.

    Time frame: From surgery through 10 years postoperatively.

  2. Number of non-implant-related complications

    Number of non-implant-related complications recorded from surgery through 10 years postoperatively.

    Time frame: From surgery through 10 years postoperatively.

  3. Number of implant-related adverse events

    Number of implant-related adverse events recorded from surgery through 10 years postoperatively.

    Time frame: From surgery through 10 years postoperatively.

  4. Number of non-implant-related adverse events

    Number of non-implant-related adverse events recorded from surgery through 10 years postoperatively.

    Time frame: From surgery through 10 years postoperatively.

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Sheikhzadeh A, Wertli MM, Weiner SS, Rasmussen-Barr E, Weiser S. Do psychological factors affect outcomes in musculoskeletal shoulder disorders? A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Jun 19;22(1):560. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04359-6. PubMed 34147071 ↗
  • Lazarus MD, Jensen KL, Southworth C, Matsen FA 3rd. The radiographic evaluation of keeled and pegged glenoid component insertion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Jul;84(7):1174-82. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200207000-00013. PubMed 12107318 ↗
  • Youderian AR, Ricchetti ET, Drews M, Iannotti JP. Determination of humeral head size in anatomic shoulder replacement for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jul;23(7):955-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.005. Epub 2013 Dec 8. PubMed 24321169 ↗
  • Beck S, Martin RJ, Patsalis T, Burggraf M, Busch A, Landgraeber S, Alexander W. Determination of humeral inclination in stemless shoulder arthroplasty using plain radiographs. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2019 Dec 2;11(4):8194. doi: 10.4081/or.2019.8194. eCollection 2019 Dec 2. PubMed 31897278 ↗
  • Werthel JD, Boux de Casson F, Burdin V, Athwal GS, Favard L, Chaoui J, Walch G. CT-based volumetric assessment of rotator cuff muscle in shoulder arthroplasty preoperative planning. Bone Jt Open. 2021 Jul;2(7):552-561. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.27.BJO-2021-0081.R1. PubMed 34315280 ↗
  • Bercik MJ, Kruse K 2nd, Yalizis M, Gauci MO, Chaoui J, Walch G. A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Oct;25(10):1601-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.03.010. Epub 2016 Jun 6. PubMed 27282738 ↗
  • Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999 Sep;14(6):756-60. doi: 10.1016/s0883-5403(99)90232-2. PubMed 10512449 ↗
  • Levin JM, Rodriguez K, Polascik BA, Zeng S, Warren E Jr, Rechenmacher A, Helmkamp J, Goltz DE, Wickman J, Klifto CS, Lassiter TE, Anakwenze O. Simple preoperative radiographic and computed tomography measurements predict adequate bone quality for stemless total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022 Dec;31(12):2481-2487. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.05.008. Epub 2022 Jun 4. PubMed 35671925 ↗
  • Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. Quality of life and illness perception in working and sick-listed chronic RSI patients. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008 Feb;81(4):495-501. doi: 10.1007/s00420-007-0222-z. Epub 2007 Jul 19. PubMed 17638005 ↗
  • El Fassi M, Bocquet V, Majery N, Lair ML, Couffignal S, Mairiaux P. Work ability assessment in a worker population: comparison and determinants of Work Ability Index and Work Ability score. BMC Public Health. 2013 Apr 8;13:305. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-305. PubMed 23565883 ↗
  • Ilmarinen J, Tuomi K. Work ability of aging workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1992;18 Suppl 2:8-10. No abstract available. PubMed 1514096 ↗
  • Aerts BR, Kuijer PP, Beumer A, Eygendaal D, Frings-Dresen MH. WOrk-Related Questionnaire for UPper extremity disorders (WORQ-UP): Factor Analysis and Internal Consistency. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Sep;99(9):1818-1826. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.03.013. Epub 2018 Apr 17. PubMed 29678451 ↗
  • Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x. PubMed 6880820 ↗
  • EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. PubMed 10109801 ↗
  • Jost B, Pfirrmann CW, Gerber C, Switzerland Z. Clinical outcome after structural failure of rotator cuff repairs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Mar;82(3):304-14. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200003000-00002. PubMed 10724223 ↗
  • Berendes T, Pilot P, Willems J, Verburg H, te Slaa R. Validation of the Dutch version of the Oxford Shoulder Score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Sep;19(6):829-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.01.017. Epub 2010 Apr 24. PubMed 20421170 ↗
  • Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Jul;78(4):593-600. PubMed 8682827 ↗
  • Katolik LI, Romeo AA, Cole BJ, Verma NN, Hayden JK, Bach BR. Normalization of the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 May-Jun;14(3):279-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.009. PubMed 15889027 ↗
  • Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jan;(214):160-4. PubMed 3791738 ↗
  • Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 May-Jun;10(3):217-24. doi: 10.1067/mse.2001.113961. PubMed 11408901 ↗
  • Habermeyer P, Lichtenberg S, Tauber M, Magosch P. Midterm results of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Sep;24(9):1463-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.02.023. Epub 2015 Apr 11. PubMed 25870114 ↗
  • Churchill RS, Chuinard C, Wiater JM, Friedman R, Freehill M, Jacobson S, Spencer E Jr, Holloway GB, Wittstein J, Lassiter T, Smith M, Blaine T, Nicholson GP. Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of the Simpliciti Canal-Sparing Shoulder Arthroplasty System: A Prospective Two-Year Multicenter Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Apr 6;98(7):552-60. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00181. PubMed 27053583 ↗
  • Simovitch R, Flurin PH, Wright T, Zuckerman JD, Roche CP. Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Feb;27(2):298-305. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.09.013. Epub 2017 Nov 20. PubMed 29162305 ↗
  • Malahias MA, Kostretzis L, Gkiatas I, Chronopoulos E, Brilakis E, Antonogiannakis E. Total shoulder arthroplasty with hybrid fixation of glenoid components consisting of cementless porous metal pegs or cage along with cemented backside polyethylene surface: a systematic review. Musculoskelet Surg. 2020 Dec;104(3):229-236. doi: 10.1007/s12306-020-00670-y. Epub 2020 Jun 11. PubMed 32529404 ↗
  • Haleem A, Sedrak P, Gohal C, Athwal GS, Khan M, Alolabi B. Hybrid Glenoid Designs in Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. HSS J. 2022 May;18(2):219-228. doi: 10.1177/15563316211040829. Epub 2021 Sep 3. PubMed 35645649 ↗
  • Sharplin PK, Frampton CMA, Hirner M. Cemented vs. uncemented glenoid fixation in total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a New Zealand Joint Registry study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Oct;29(10):2097-2103. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.03.008. Epub 2020 Jun 9. PubMed 32564898 ↗
  • Page RS, Pai V, Eng K, Bain G, Graves S, Lorimer M. Cementless versus cemented glenoid components in conventional total shoulder joint arthroplasty: analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Oct;27(10):1859-1865. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.017. Epub 2018 May 8. PubMed 29752154 ↗
  • Papadonikolakis A, Matsen FA 3rd. Metal-Backed Glenoid Components Have a Higher Rate of Failure and Fail by Different Modes in Comparison with All-Polyethylene Components: A Systematic Review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Jun 18;96(12):1041-1047. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00674. PubMed 24951741 ↗
  • Boileau P, Moineau G, Morin-Salvo N, Avidor C, Godeneche A, Levigne C, Baba M, Walch G. Metal-backed glenoid implant with polyethylene insert is not a viable long-term therapeutic option. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Oct;24(10):1534-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.02.012. Epub 2015 Jul 27. PubMed 26227769 ↗
  • Kim DM, Aldeghaither M, Alabdullatif F, Shin MJ, Kholinne E, Kim H, Jeon IH, Koh KH. Loosening and revision rates after total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of cemented all-polyethylene glenoid and three modern designs of metal-backed glenoid. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Feb 21;21(1):114. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-3135-6. PubMed 32085766 ↗
  • Bohsali KI, Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Oct;88(10):2279-92. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00125. No abstract available. PubMed 17015609 ↗
  • Gonzalez JF, Alami GB, Baque F, Walch G, Boileau P. Complications of unconstrained shoulder prostheses. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jun;20(4):666-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.11.017. Epub 2011 Mar 21. No abstract available. PubMed 21419661 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — De-identified IPD will not be shared because the protocol does not include an IPD-sharing plan and participant data are handled as coded personal data under GDPR/AVG with access restricted to authorized study personnel; any data transfer is limited to protocol-defined purposes (e.g., publication support).

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar 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 Jun 2025 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Jul 2035, 121 months after the start.

Of 578 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Osteoarthritis, half reached primary completion within 26 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 10 and three quarters within 52. This study's planned 121 months is above that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 713 studies reached it within 29 months; a quarter within 11 and three quarters within 58.

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

Registered
Mar 2, 2026
First posted
Apr 9, 2026
StartActual
Jun 30, 2025
Primary completionEst.
Jul 30, 2035
CompletionEst.
Dec 2036
Last update
Apr 9, 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.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 9, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07520721
Lead sponsor
Spaarne Gasthuis
Collaborators
Isala, Enovis
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Apr 9, 2026
Start date
Jun 30, 2025
Primary completion
Jul 30, 2035 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 2036 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 9, 2026

Oversight

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

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.

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