- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT02798432
Hybrid Versus Cemented TKA Using the NexGen LPS Prosthesis
Comparing Hybrid and Cemented TKA Using the NexGen LPS Prosthesis
Early total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implant systems most frequently used an all-polyethylene cemented tibial component1. Based on finite-element analysis studies reporting superior force distribution compared with conventional all-polyethylene components, metal-backed tibial baseplates have dominated the TKA implant market since the middle of the 1980's2. These modular implants provided excellent long-term implant survivorship3.
As TKA became increasingly successful, younger patients increasingly became eligible. Increasing life expectancy has raised the concern that cemented TKAs may not withstand prolonged use, particularly in younger patients4. Patients younger than 65 years are projected to account for more than 50% of patients undergoing TKA by 2016 and to more than 50% of patients undergoing revision surgery by 2011. The number of total knee revisions in the United States is expected to increase from 38,300 in 2005 to 268,200 in 20305.
Many authors have reported excellent and equivalent results of cemented and cementless TKA6-8. Despite these encouraging reports, the major concern with cementless TKA has been the tibial component, and, therefore, the preference for many surgeons still remains to cement the tibial component9,10. The femoral component may be the most suitable for cementless fixation11-13. However, the best femoral method of fixation is still being discussed. Currently, the decision to cement or not to cement the femoral component is based on the surgeon's preference14.
The current study was designed to compare the hybrid NexGen LPS (Zimmer Inc, Warsaw, IN) and the cemented NexGen LPS. The purpose of this study is to establish whether the hybrid NexGen LPS leads to equally successful results as the cemented TKA gold standard
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Bizkaia
-
Galdakao, Bizkaia, Spain, 48980
- Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
Patients may be included in the study only if they meet the following criteria:
- Patient is able to provide informed consent.
- Patient is between 18 and 75 years of age.
- Patients are willing and able to attend all follow-up visits and complete all study requirements. They must agree to comply with all study related procedure, including understanding and adhering to the rehabilitation protocol.
- Patient has primary or secondary knee osteoarthritis.
- Patient has sufficient bone quality for total knee arthroplasty.
- Patient is in stable health.
- Female patients are not pregnant at times of surgery and do not plan on becoming pregnant during the study.
Note: patient can only enter the project with one knee
Exclusion Criteria:
- Neuromuscular or vascular disease in the affected leg.
- Patients with osteoporosis based on former diagnosis or preoperative DEXA-scan.
- Fracture sequelae or previous HTO or previous extensive knee surgery.
- Patients with need of a stem-elongation.
- Patients who cannot refrain from taking NSAID post-operatively.
- Patients with metabolic bone disease.
- Patients with renal disease.
- Patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
- Postmenopausal women in estrogenic hormone substitution
- Patients with a continuous need of systemic cortisone treatment.
- Non-Spanish citizenship.
- Patients who do not comprehend the Spanish language (read and speak).
- Senile dementia.
- Alcohol abuse - defined as men drinking more than 21 units a week and women drinking more than 14 units a week.
- Drug abuse.
- Major psychiatric disease.
- Metastatic cancer disease and treatment with radiation therapy or chemotherapy
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Double
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Hybrid NEXGEN LPS
Noncemented femoral component with cemented tibial component with the NexGen LPS Total Knee Arthroplasty
|
Use of an uncemented femoral component or a cemented femoral component randomly assigned.
Hybrid (non cemented femoral component, cemented tibial component) NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty versus Cemented NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty (both components are cemented).
|
|
Sham Comparator: Cemented NEXGEN LPS
Cemented femoral component with cemented tibial component with the NexGen LPS Total Knee Arthroplasty
|
Use of an uncemented femoral component or a cemented femoral component randomly assigned.
Hybrid (non cemented femoral component, cemented tibial component) NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty versus Cemented NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty (both components are cemented).
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Postoperative functional outcome as measured by the Knee and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and compare if hybrid NexGen LPS TKA leads to equally successful results as the cemented NexGen LPS TKA.
Time Frame: 1 year
|
The current study will be designed as equivalence trial. The amount of allowable difference is the margin that defines the "zone of indifference" within which the interventions are considered equivalent. The KOOS has a Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of 8 - 10 points, and the standard deviation in a cohort of TKA patients is ca. 15 points. The null hypothesis (of non-equivalence) of the study is that functional outcome at 10 years of follow-up in the hybrid group is not equal to the functional outcome at 10 years of follow-up in the cemented group, or: H: ϑ ≤ ϑ0 - δ1 or ϑ ≥ ϑ0 + δ1, versus the equivalence assumption that functional outcome at 10 years of follow-up in the hybrid group is equivalent to the functional outcome at 10 years of follow-up in the cemented group: K: ϑ0 - δ1 < ϑ < ϑ0 + δ1. |
1 year
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Incidence and extend of radiolucent lines (RLL) as measured by standard radiography.
Time Frame: Up to 10 years.
|
Radiography: x-rays will be taken during visit 4 and visits 7-10.
Conventional anteroposterior and lateral radiographs will be taken at designated time-points.
In order to obtain "true orthogonal" radiographs and to reduce the probability of false-negative findings, the lateral image will be obtained under fluoroscopic control.
Postoperative radiographs will assess component position and alignment, the incidence and location of radiolucent lines using the Knee Society TKA radiographic evaluation system.
|
Up to 10 years.
|
|
Postoperative functional outcome as measured by Knee Society Score.
Time Frame: up until 10 years of follow up
|
The KSS is a questionnaire validate in Spanish.The study regimen for each patient will consist of a screening / baseline phase (Visit 1), follow-up visits (Visits 3 - 9) and a conclusion visit (Visit 10).
All procedures specified in this protocol must be documented in the patient's record and on the corresponding Case Report Form (CRF).
|
up until 10 years of follow up
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Jesus Moreta, MD, FEBOT, Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Nilsson KG, Karrholm J, Carlsson L, Dalen T. Hydroxyapatite coating versus cemented fixation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty: prospective randomized comparison of hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented tibial components with 5-year follow-up using radiostereometry. J Arthroplasty. 1999 Jan;14(1):9-20. doi: 10.1016/s0883-5403(99)90196-1.
- Carlsson A, Bjorkman A, Besjakov J, Onsten I. Cemented tibial component fixation performs better than cementless fixation: a randomized radiostereometric study comparing porous-coated, hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented tibial components over 5 years. Acta Orthop. 2005 Jun;76(3):362-9.
- Huddleston JI, Wiley JW, Scott RD. Zone 4 femoral radiolucent lines in hybrid versus cemented total knee arthroplasties: are they clinically significant? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec;441:334-9. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000180452.11048.b8.
- Uvehammer J, Karrholm J, Carlsson L. Cemented versus hydroxyapatite fixation of the femoral component of the Freeman-Samuelson total knee replacement: a radiostereometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Jan;89(1):39-44. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B1.17974.
- Illgen R, Tueting J, Enright T, Schreibman K, McBeath A, Heiner J. Hybrid total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes at average 10 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2004 Oct;19(7 Suppl 2):95-100. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2004.06.022.
- Dunbar MJ, Wilson DA, Hennigar AW, Amirault JD, Gross M, Reardon GP. Fixation of a trabecular metal knee arthroplasty component. A prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jul;91(7):1578-86. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00282.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimate)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Other Study ID Numbers
- CSE2013-07K
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Plan Description
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Total Knee Arthroplasty
-
Cedars-Sinai Medical CenterPacira Pharmaceuticals, IncEnrolling by invitationTotal Knee Arthroplasty | Total Knee Arthroplasty RecoveryUnited States
-
Limacorporate S.p.aRecruitingTotal Knee Arthroplasty | Revision Total Knee ArthroplastyUnited Kingdom, Portugal, Slovakia
-
Northern Orthopaedic Division, DenmarkCompletedTotal Knee Arthroplasty | Total Hip ArthroplastyDenmark
-
Copenhagen University Hospital, HvidovreUniversity of Southern Denmark; University Hospital Bispebjerg and FrederiksbergNot yet recruitingKnee Arthroplasty | Total Knee Arthroplasty | Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
-
DePuy OrthopaedicsJohnson & Johnson Health and Wellness Solutions, Inc.TerminatedTotal Knee Arthroplasty; Total Hip ArthroplastyUnited States
-
DePuy OrthopaedicsJohnson & Johnson Health and Wellness Solutions, Inc.TerminatedTotal Knee Arthroplasty; Total Hip ArthroplastyUnited States
-
University of North Carolina, Chapel HillNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)CompletedKnee Arthroplasty, Total | Knee Replacement, TotalUnited States
-
The Affiliated Hospital Of Southwest Medical UniversityCompletedTotal Knee Arthroplasty | Total Hip Arthroplasty | ERASChina
-
Istanbul UniversityCompleted
-
Singapore General HospitalCompletedTotal Knee Arthroplasty | Total Knee ReplacementSingapore
Clinical Trials on Total knee arthroplasty
-
Satakunta Central HospitalNot yet recruiting
-
University of PittsburghRecruiting
-
Technische Universität DresdenMathys Ltd BettlachCompletedKnee Osteoarthritis
-
Technische Universität DresdenActive, not recruiting
-
Chang Gung Memorial HospitalUnknownComputer-assisted Navigation Versus Conventional Total Knee ReplacementTaiwan
-
Smith & Nephew, Inc.TerminatedDegenerative Arthritis of KneeUnited States, Australia
-
Istituto Ortopedico RizzoliRecruitingKnee Arthroplasty, TotalItaly
-
Technische Universität DresdenAesculap AGCompletedOsteoarthritis | Metal Ion LevelsGermany
-
University of ConnecticutCompletedOsteo Arthritis Knee | Hip Osteoarthritis | Protein-Energy Malnutrition | Orthopedic | Energy Malnutrition ProteinUnited States
-
Nova Scotia Health AuthorityRecruitingOsteo Arthritis KneeCanada