- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT03290170
Radiostereometric Analysis of Gap Balancing Versus Measured Resection for the Journey II Total Knee Replacement
April 26, 2019 updated by: Douglas Naudie, Lawson Health Research Institute
This is a randomized study comparing the measured resection and gap-balancing surgical techniques for total knee replacement (TKR) using a cemented Journey II TKR implant system.
We will be comparing the two surgical methods by evaluating implant migration using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) imaging, evaluating contact kinematics (knee mechanics) through RSA under dynamic conditions and comparing patient knee outcome scores.
Study Overview
Status
Unknown
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
The stability of a total knee replacement (TKR) surgery depends on soft tissue balance (i.e.
balance of supporting ligaments) and bony cuts made during surgery that dictate the rotation of the femoral (thigh bone) component.
Two main techniques predominate for execution of the bone cuts and soft tissue balance in TKR.
In measured resection, pre-determined bony cuts are made and appropriate balance is obtained by judicious soft tissue releases as required.
In gap balancing, the bony cuts for femoral rotation are driven by the native soft tissues.
How these two surgical approaches affects the biomechanics of the knee invivo is unclear.
The purpose of this study is to examine the patello-femoral articulation as well as coronal balance of the respective techniques under dynamic conditions.
Secondary goals will be to examine the impact on femoral component position on changes to coronal plane position through a range of flexion/extension.
As patellofemoral symptoms and flexion instability are two of the most common causes of patient dissatisfaction and revision in the short term, this study has the potential to have significant patient impact.
The study also has the potential to provide information on long term wear potential if articular incongruity is found.
TKA is a procedure that has good results in most patients, however, up to 20% of patients are not satisfied with their outcome.
(1) Some of these dissatisfied patients require early revision.
Early revisions are often attributed to technical issues, such as revisions required for instability, patellofemoral symptoms, stiffness or aseptic loosening (2).
This highlights the impact of surgical technique on clinical outcomes.
There are two main philosophies on how to complete bone resections and achieve a balanced TKA.
The measured resection technique utilizes a standard set of bony cuts based on bony landmarks and then balances the knee by making judicious soft tissue releases.
Component position, particularly femoral rotation, is fairly constant with using this technique.
Gap balancing adjusts the bony cuts for femoral rotation to balance the soft tissues of the knee in flexion, potentially avoiding the necessity of soft tissue releases.
In contrast to the measured resection technique, gap balancing allows for variable rotation of the femoral component.
This variability in femoral rotation has the potential to impacts the coronal plane motion as well as tracking at the patellofemoral articulation.
Surgeons have strong opinions that both the gap balanced (3) and measured resection techniques (4) provide superior results.
However, in spite of a variety of literature in support of each technique, little has been done to compare the biomechanics of each technique.
There is a lack of scientifically rigorous assessment of the impact of surgical technique on femoral rotation, with resultant changes to coronal plane motion.
This prevents the elucidation of potential sources of clinical outcome differences both in the short term and the long term.
The impact of femoral component rotation will be examined by examining the coronal plane motion.
An area impacted by the two TKA techniques is how they impact coronal plane motion in flexion.
There has only been one paper written utilizing dynamic fluoroscopy to examine the differences in techniques (7).
This study examined lift-off of the lateral component in a comparative study of the two techniques using dynamic fluoroscopy.
This study was limited in nature, with only the ability to quantify the amount of separation of the femoral component from the tibial component in flexion.
It did not examine the impact of femoral rotation on flexion alignment, or correlate patient satisfaction scores to the dynamic fluoroscopy findings.
With the combination of advanced imaging to determine component position with respect to bony landmarks (8) as well as dynamic fluoroscopy, a large area of new information can be gathered.
Examination of the impact of surgical technique with the use of cement to femoral component rotation, and how this impacts coronal plane motion are achievable goals, with potential for a significant impact on patient outcomes.
Study Type
Interventional
Enrollment (Actual)
56
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.
Study Locations
-
-
Ontario
-
London, Ontario, Canada, N6A5A5
- London Health Sciences Centre - University Hospital
-
-
Participation Criteria
Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
18 years and older (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Genders Eligible for Study
All
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Over the age of 18 years
- Primary, unilateral total knee arthroplasty
Exclusion Criteria:
- History of alcoholism
- Inability to speak or read English (questionnaires are only provided in English)
- Pregnant women and women with plans to begin a family
- Inflammatory arthritis -Bilateral total knee arthroplasty
- Revision total knee arthroplasty
Study Plan
This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
- Allocation: RANDOMIZED
- Interventional Model: PARALLEL
- Masking: NONE
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
EXPERIMENTAL: Measured resection technique
Measured resection surgical technique
|
Bony landmarks are used to set femoral component rotation.
|
|
EXPERIMENTAL: Gap Balancing Technique
Gap Balancing surgical technique
|
Relies on ligament releases prior to bone cuts.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Implant migration
Time Frame: 2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months and 2 years post-operatively
|
Comparison of the two surgical techniques using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) imaging
|
2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months and 2 years post-operatively
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Contact Kinematics Under Dynamic Conditions
Time Frame: 3 and 12 months post-operatively
|
Comparison of the two surgical techniques using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) imaging
|
3 and 12 months post-operatively
|
Other Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs)
Time Frame: 2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months and 2 years post-operatively
|
Comparison of the two surgical techniques using PROs
|
2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months and 2 years post-operatively
|
Collaborators and Investigators
This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.
Sponsor
Study record dates
These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.
Study Major Dates
Study Start (ACTUAL)
December 20, 2017
Primary Completion (ANTICIPATED)
August 31, 2019
Study Completion (ANTICIPATED)
August 31, 2019
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
September 19, 2017
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
September 19, 2017
First Posted (ACTUAL)
September 21, 2017
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)
April 29, 2019
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
April 26, 2019
Last Verified
April 1, 2019
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- 109512
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
No
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 Knee Osteoarthritis
-
Istanbul University - CerrahpasaCompletedKnee Osteoarthritis | Knee Osteoarthritis (Knee OA)Turkey (Türkiye)
-
Edin MešanovićCompletedOsteoarthritis | Osteoarthritis of the Knee | Osteoarthritis of Knee | Osteoarthritis of the Knees | Osteoarthritis (OA) of the Knee | Osteoarthritis Knee | Osteoarthritis in the Knee | Osteoarthritis of Knee JointBosnia and Herzegovina
-
Golden Jubilee National HospitalJohnson & Johnson; DePuy OrthopaedicsNot yet recruitingOsteoarthritis | Knee Osteoarthritis | Osteoarthritis (OA) | Osteo Arthritis | Osteoarthritis in the Knee | Osteoarthritis (Knee) | Osteo Arthritis of the KneeUnited Kingdom
-
Dr. David WassersteinSunnybrook Research InstituteRecruitingKnee Osteoarthritis (Knee OA) | Knee Osteoarthritis (OA)Canada
-
LifeBridge HealthMicroPort Orthopedics Inc.; Rubin Institute for Advanced OrthopedicsRecruitingKnee Osteoarthritis | Osteoarthritis, Knee | Knee Pain Chronic | Arthropathy of Knee Joint | Knee Disease | Osteoarthritis Knees Both | Osteoarthritis Knee Left | Osteoarthritis Knee RightUnited States
-
Lucas R. Cusumano, MDNot yet recruitingKnee Osteoarthritis | Knee Discomfort | Knee Pain Chronic | Knee Swelling PainUnited States
-
VA Office of Research and DevelopmentNot yet recruitingKnee Osteoarthritis (Knee OA)United States
-
The Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityChinese University of Hong Kong; Zhujiang HospitalNot yet recruitingKnee Osteoarthritis (Knee OA)
-
University of MiamiNot yet recruiting
-
Kutahya Health Sciences UniversityActive, not recruitingKnee Osteoarthritis | Knee DiseaseTurkey (Türkiye)
Clinical Trials on Measured Resection
-
OrthoCarolina Research Institute, Inc.Completed
-
Lawson Health Research InstituteWithdrawn
-
CorinWithdrawnRheumatoid Arthritis | Osteoarthritis, Knee | Post-Traumatic Osteoarthritis of Knee | Varus Deformity, Not Elsewhere Classified, Knee | Valgus Deformity, Not Elsewhere Classified, Knee | Flexion Deformity, Knee | Fracture of Distal End of Femur | Fracture of Upper End of Tibia
-
Peking University People's HospitalUnknown
-
University of British ColumbiaCompletedBreast Cancer | LymphedemaCanada
-
The University of Texas Health Science Center,...National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)CompletedHeart Diseases | Cardiovascular Diseases
-
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, AmiensNot yet recruitingAcute Respiratory Distress Syndrome | Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury | Height | Tidal Volume | Predicted Body WeightFrance
-
AstesCompletedObstructive Sleep ApneaBelgium
-
First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen UniversityCompletedKidney Injury, AcuteChina
-
Hospital AvicenneRoche Diagnostics; ProBayes; Biorance Laboratoires RéunisCompletedBiological Markers | Inappropriate PrescribingFrance