Comparative Evaluation of Minimally Invasive "Tibial Tuberoplasty" Surgical Technique Versus Conventional Open Surgery for Tibial Plateau Fractures (TUBERIMPACT)

Comparative Evaluation of Minimally Invasive "Tibial Tuberoplasty" Surgical Technique Versus Conventional Open Surgery for Tibial Plateau Fractures (TUBERIMPACT Study)

PMSI (French Medico-Administrative Database) data shows more than 10000 proximal tibial fractures diagnosed in 2014 and 4055 lateral tibial plateau fractures operated in 2013 in France. 50% of these surgical fractures is related to the lateral condyle and causes split/depression (Schatzker 2) or pure depression (Schatzker 3). This high rate results from the recent democratization of high-risk sports, as well as an aging population with increased risks of falling. Aside from the resulting reduced physical activity, the social and professional impact of these fractures is undeniable and represents significant costs for our health care system. A recently published prospective case series reports 28 job losses out of 41 patients treated.

The clinical outcome of these patients depends mainly on the primary stability provided by the surgical treatment, after the greatest anatomical reduction possible. Indeed, Giannoudis and al. have demonstrated that under simple X-rays, the smaller the detected step-off, the better the outcome.The aim is to allow for recovery of good joint mobility to promote rapid resumption of activity and to limit the onset of early osteoarthritis.

The classical technique used for reduction and osteosynthesis of tibial plateau fractures (open surgical technique using a bone tamp) has several pitfalls : devascularization of the bone and skin, risks of infection and functional rehabilitation difficulties with delayed recovery of weight bearing. Moreover, this technique does not allow for the simultaneous diagnosis and treatment of other possible lesions, such as meniscal injuries in particular.

Since 2011, Poitiers University Hospital is offering to its patients a new minimally invasive technique for the reduction and stabilization of tibial plateau fractures, baptized "Tibial Tuberoplasty". The concept derives from the divergent use of vertebral kyphoplasty, initially dedicated for spinal injuries and transposed here to the tibial plateau. This technique involves expansion of the tibial plateau through inflation of a kyphoplasty balloon, filling of the created cavity with cement (PMMA, calcium phosphate) and percutaneous screw fixation.

Orthopaedic surgeons of Poitiers University Hospital performed the first tibial tuberoplasties through a feasibility study on 36 cadaveric subjects and then transposed the technique to human. Surgeons identified major advantages such as minimal skin damage, possible treatment of posterior and multi-fragmented compressions (lifting in a single block by the balloon), reinforcement of the stability of the assembly using cement, possible use of combined arthroscopy (for concomitant meniscal injuries treatment).

This technique allows for optimization of the fracture reduction by elevating the posterior fragments with the inflatable bone tamp through an anterior approach. The reduction is made possible thanks to the specificity of the inflatable bone tamp which inflates and reduces the area of least resistance.

The aim of this innovative technique is focused on the anatomical reduction in order to restore the convexity of the tibial plateau which is similar to the balloon convexity.

The results from the first 40 patients operated since 2011 are promising and show a proportion of 70% presenting less than 5 mm step-off reduction. A larger scale multicenter randomized controlled trial is now requested to further demonstrate the superiority of the "Tibial Tuberoplasty" to the standard treatment.

The coordinator investigator designed this study to evaluate the quality of tibial fracture reduction offered by percutaneous "Tibial Tuberoplasty" versus conventional open surgery for tibial plateau fracture but also its impact on clinical outcome.

Study Overview

• Status: Active, not recruiting
• Conditions: Schatzker Type 2 or 3 Tibial Plateau Fracture
• Intervention / Treatment: Device: Open technique; Device: Tibial Tuberoplasty

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Anticipated): 140
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

• Study Contact: Name: Manuel ROULAUD; Phone Number: +33 549443223; Email: manuel.roulaud@chu-poitiers.fr

Study Locations

• France
  • Amiens, France
    • CHU d'Amiens
  • Angers, France
    • CHU Angers
  • Boulogne-Billancourt, France
    • AP-HP / Hopital Ambroise Paré
  • Brest, France
    • CHU de Brest
  • Dijon, France
    • CHU Dijon
  • Nantes, France
    • CHU de Nantes
  • Poitiers, France
    • Chu de Poitiers
  • Rennes, France
    • Chu de Rennes
  • Rouen, France
    • CHU Rouen
  • Tours, France
    • CHRU Tours
  • Versailles, France
    • CH Versailles
• Martinique
  • Fort de France, Martinique
    • CHU de Martinique

Participation Criteria

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:

1. Age ≥ 18 years old.
2. Patients with a Schatzker type 2 or 3 tibial plateau fracture (compression with or without split) demonstrated on CT-scan and located in the lateral or medial condyle of tibia.
3. Patients with fractures caused by trauma.
4. Patients with fractures 10 days old maximum.
5. Understand and accept the constraints of the study.
6. Be a beneficiary or affiliated member of a Health Insurance plan.
7. Give written consent for the study after having received clear information.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Age < 18 years old.
2. Patients with fractures resulting from osteolysis.
3. Patients with open fractures.
4. Patients with fractures more than 10 days old.
5. Patients with concomitant fracture(s) or condition(s) during the trauma reducing the range of motion.
6. Patients unable to walk before the injury.
7. History of sepsis in the injured knee.
8. Contraindications to anesthesia, contrast agent, medical devices or cement.
9. History of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media, bone filler or metal.
10. Patients with a degenerative joint disease (polyarthritis, etc.).
11. Absence of signature of the informed consent form.
12. Patients not covered by French national health insurance.
13. Subjects requiring closer protection, i.e. minors, pregnant women, nursing mothers, subjects deprived of their freedom by a court or administrative decision, subjects admitted to a health or social welfare establishment, major subjects under legal protection, and finally patients in an emergency setting.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Control group; The patients will be treated with an open technique: cutaneous incision with submeniscal arthrotomy under guidance of a fluoroscope. The reduction will be performed using a spatula, a bone tamp or open reduction internal fixation. The osteosynthesis and filling of the cavity will be performed by the same surgical access.	Device: Open technique; Cutaneous incision with submeniscal arthrotomy under guidance of a fluoroscope.
Experimental: Experimental group; The patients will be treated with the "Tibial Tuberoplasty" technique under fluoroscopic guidance with or without arthroscopy. The reduction will be performed by an anterior approach using a kyphoplasty balloon. The combined osteosynthesis including cannulated screws and cementoplasty will both be performed by a percutaneous technique.	Device: Tibial Tuberoplasty; Kyphoplasty ballon

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Post-operative radiological step-off reduction blindly measured by high resolution CT-scan	Compare step-off anatomical reduction of tibial plateau fracture by "Tibial Tuberoplasty" versus conventional open surgery using CT-scan	Day 2

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Knee range of motion (degrees)	Knee range of motion	Day 21, Day 45, Month 3, Month 6, Month 12 and Month 24
Numeric Pain Rating Scale	The NPRS is an 11-point scale from 0-10 ("0" = no pain and "10" = the most intense pain imaginable). Patients verbally select a value that is most in line with the intensity of pain that they have experienced in the last 24 hours.	Inclusion, Day 2, Day 21, Day 45, Month 3, Month 6, Month 12 and Month 24
Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score	The KOOS questionnaire is a functional score validated in the French language and one of the only validated in knee trauma. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was developed as an extension of the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index with the purpose of evaluating short-term and long-term symptoms and function in subjects with knee injury and osteoarthritis. The KOOS holds five separately scored subscales: Pain, other Symptoms, Function in daily living (ADL), Function in Sport and Recreation (Sport/Rec), and knee-related Quality of Life (QOL). The KOOS has been validated for several orthopaedic interventions such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, meniscectomy and total knee replacement.	Inclusion, Day 21, Day 45, Month 3, Month 6, Month 12 and Month 24
Score on Euro Quality of Life-5 Dimension Health questionnaire	The EQ-5D-5L is a standardized instrument used to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) which comprises a descriptive system and a visual analogue scale. The descriptive system is composed of 5 questions assessing mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression with 5 possible responses for each item: 1- no problems, 2- slight problems, 3- moderate problems, 4- severe problems and 5- extreme problems). A global index with a maximum score of 1 is calculated from the responses to these 5 dimensions by means of normograms. The maximum score of 1 indicates the best possible quality of life. The visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 100 also allows the patient to rate his/her perceived quality of life, where 100 indicates the best possible quality of life.	Inclusion, Day 45, Month 3, Month 6, Month 12 and Month 24
Description of Adverse events	Adverse events	from Inclusion to Month 24 (End Of Study)
Time to partial and full weight-bearing	Time to partial and full weight-bearing	from Day 0 (surgery) to Month 24 (End Of Study)

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Poitiers University Hospital
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Tanguy VENDEUVRE, Dr, Poitiers Hospital University

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Vendeuvre T, Monlezun O, Brandet C, Ingrand P, Durand-Zaleski I, Gayet LE, Germaneau A, Khiami F, Roulaud M, Herpe G, Rigoard P. Comparative evaluation of minimally invasive 'tibial tuberoplasty' surgical technique versus conventional open surgery for Schatzker II-III tibial plateau fractures: design of a multicentre, randomised, controlled and blinded trial (TUBERIMPACT study). BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 3;9(8):e026962. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026962.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): October 26, 2018
• Primary Completion (Actual): October 26, 2022
• Study Completion (Anticipated): October 1, 2024

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: February 2, 2018
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: February 19, 2018
• First Posted (Actual): February 23, 2018

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Estimate): January 13, 2023
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: January 12, 2023
• Last Verified: January 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: tibial plateau fracture; minimally invasive surgery; ballon reduction
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Wounds and Injuries; Fractures, Bone
• Other Study ID Numbers: 2018-A01027-48

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No
• product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.: No