Hybrid Versus Cemented TKA Using the NexGen LPS Prosthesis

NCT ID: NCT02798432

Last Updated: 2018-08-02

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

200 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2015-06-30

Study Completion Date

2026-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

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

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Total Knee Arthroplasty

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Hybrid NEXGEN LPS

Noncemented femoral component with cemented tibial component with the NexGen LPS Total Knee Arthroplasty

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Total knee arthroplasty

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Use of an uncemented femoral component or a cemented femoral component randomly assigned.

NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty

Intervention Type DEVICE

Hybrid (non cemented femoral component, cemented tibial component) NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty versus Cemented NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty (both components are cemented).

Cemented NEXGEN LPS

Cemented femoral component with cemented tibial component with the NexGen LPS Total Knee Arthroplasty

Group Type SHAM_COMPARATOR

Total knee arthroplasty

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Use of an uncemented femoral component or a cemented femoral component randomly assigned.

NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty

Intervention Type DEVICE

Hybrid (non cemented femoral component, cemented tibial component) NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty versus Cemented NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty (both components are cemented).

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Total knee arthroplasty

Use of an uncemented femoral component or a cemented femoral component randomly assigned.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty

Hybrid (non cemented femoral component, cemented tibial component) NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty versus Cemented NEXGEN LPS total knee arthroplasty (both components are cemented).

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

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
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

75 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Jesus Moreta Suarez

OTHER_GOV

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Jesus Moreta Suarez

MD, FEBOT

Responsibility Role SPONSOR_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Jesus Moreta, MD, FEBOT

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo

Galdakao, Bizkaia, Spain

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Spain

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

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.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 9926947 (View on PubMed)

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.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 16156464 (View on PubMed)

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.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 16331023 (View on PubMed)

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.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 17259414 (View on PubMed)

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.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 15457426 (View on PubMed)

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.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 19571079 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

CSE2013-07K

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.