Evaluation of Fixation Achievable in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Implementing Latest-Generation Implant Technology

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

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

12 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2018-04-20

Study Completion Date

2022-12-12

Brief Summary

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

This is a prospective randomized control trial that aims to investigate fixation of implants after revision total knee replacement. The investigators are comparing long-stemmed revision implants with hybrid cementation to short-stemmed primary implants with augment using a special type of x-ray imaging (radiostereometric analysis) to assess implant movement over time. The investigators are also comparing costs and patient-reported outcomes between the groups.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Comparison Between Fixed- Versus Mobile-bearing TKA

NCT00435357

Knee Arthritis

COMPLETED NA

Radiostereometric Analysis of Gap Balancing Versus Measured Resection for the Journey II Total Knee Replacement

NCT03290170

Knee Osteoarthritis Knee Arthroplasty

UNKNOWN NA

Total Knee Arthroplasty: Comparison of Fixed and Mobile Bearings

NCT00417859

Knee Osteoarthritis

COMPLETED NA

Study of the Clinical and Radiographic Results of a Fixed Polyethylene Posteriorly Stabilized Cemented Total Knee Prosthesis With a Minimum Follow-up of 1 Year.

NCT07313449

Hip Osteoarthritis

RECRUITING

Impact of Component Design and Fixation in Total Knee Arthroplasty

NCT03272178

Arthroplasties, Knee Replacement

COMPLETED

Detailed Description

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

The demand for total knee replacement (TKR) continues to grow, especially for younger patients who are at a greater risk of outliving the useful lifetime of their implants, thus requiring revision surgery (Aggarwal et al., 2014; Stambough et al., 2014). Rates of revision TKR are growing at an even faster rate than primary TKR. Between 2009-10, the incidence of primary TKR grew by 9.4% in the U.S., while revision TKR grew by 17.1% (Kurtz et al., 2014). Revision occurs for failures such as loosening, infection, or wear. Unfortunately, patients undergoing revision TKR are roughly 6 times more likely to require re-revision compared to patients undergoing primary TKR, further increasing the revision burden. Standard of care for revision TKR has evolved, in search of long-lasting fixation and improved patient outcomes. In many centres, the current standard of care is to use revision TKR implants with long stems for enhanced fixation. Surgeon preference is variable, however, as to whether these stems will be fully cemented, or whether only the most proximal aspect of the baseplate will be cemented (hybrid fixation). While most common, these long-stemmed revision implants have suffered from poor survivorship, are technically demanding to implant, and can result in poor patient outcomes, including ongoing pain. Over the past decade porous metal augments have gained favour. These devices interface between the defective bone and the implant, aiding fixation. The first augment of its kind are the Trabecular Metal cone augments from Zimmer. Although an improvement in principle, they have a number of drawbacks including poor fit with most implant systems, increasing technical challenge and requiring intra-operative customization, which lengthens the surgery. More recently, Stryker Tritanium augments have been introduced that offer a closer fit with Triathlon revision implants, decreasing operative time. This closeness of fit also provides an opportunity to rethink the utilization of long stems when porous augments are used. Ultimately, the goal would be for porous metal augments to completely fill all bone defects, essentially enabling a more primary-like TKR to be performed, enhancing patient outcomes. The gold standard for measurement of implant fixation over time is radiostereometric analysis (RSA). At the time of surgery, 0.8-1.0 mm Tantalum beads (typically n = 6-8 per region of interest) are inserted into the bone surrounding the implant of interest, and occasionally also into the polyethylene liner or insert of the implant. RSA exams are then acquired within the first 2 weeks post-operation, and again at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Each exam involves a stereo x-ray acquisition with a calibration unit to reconstruct the 3D location of the implant relative to the marker beads. Across each exam, the migration of the implant relative to the marker beads is tracked compared to the baseline exam acquired within the first 2 weeks. RSA is extremely precise and accurate, and is able to track migrations on the order of 10's of microns. Large early migrations within the first 1-2 years post-operation are predictive of eventual implant loosening and failure. RSA can also be used to measure inducible displacement of implants to assess instantaneous fixation of implanted components. These RSA exams compare a supine, unloaded image of the patient's joint to a standing, loaded image of their joint, to determine whether any movement occurs between the implant and marker beads with loading. To our knowledge, only three published RSA studies of revision TKR exist in the literature. Jensen et al. (2012) published a 2-year study with 40 patients comparing cement reconstruction to Trabecular Metal cones. They found no significant difference between groups for migration at 2 years, and determined that use of the Trabecular Metal cones resulted in better early stability with reduced irregular motion patterns compared to using hybrid cement reconstruction. Heesterbeek et al. (2016) published a 2-year study with 32 patients that compared hybrid to fully cemented stem fixation using the Legion revision system, which was followed up to 6.5 years by Kosse et al. (2017). At both follow-up time points, there was no difference in overall migration between the hybrid and fully cemented stem groups. Taken together, these studies do not reflect the latest thinking in revision knee surgery, do not account for the current generation of augment design, do not directly compare augments with hybrid and fully cemented fixation, and do not correlate fixation and patient outcome scores.

Conditions

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

Knee Osteoarthritis 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

Patients will be randomized to one of the two groups by block randomization using concealed envelopes, with the randomization and group assignment performed by a study coordinator at the time of surgery.

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants

Patients will be blinded so that they do not know what type of implant construct they received. It will not be possible to blind the surgeon or the individual performing the RSA image processing.

Study Groups

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

Long-Stemmed with Hybrid Fixation

Participants will receive the Long-Stemmed revision implant with Hybrid Fixation during their surgery.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Long-Stemmed with Hybrid Fixation

Intervention Type DEVICE

Long-stemmed revision implant with hybrid fixation for total knee arthroplasty

Short-Stemmed with Augmented Fixation

Participants will receive the Short-Stemmed primary implant with Augmented Fixation during their surgery.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Short-Stemmed with Augmented Fixation

Intervention Type DEVICE

Short-stemmed primary implant with augmented fixation for total knee arthroplasty

Interventions

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

Long-Stemmed with Hybrid Fixation

Long-stemmed revision implant with hybrid fixation for total knee arthroplasty

Intervention Type DEVICE

Short-Stemmed with Augmented Fixation

Short-stemmed primary implant with augmented fixation for total knee arthroplasty

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 undergoing a first total knee revision surgery

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients who have previously undergone revision knee surgery
* Patients that require a hinged revision implant
* Patients that do not speak or understand English (questionnaires provided in English)
* Patients with any active or suspected latent infection in or about the knee joint
* Patients with bone stock compromised by disease, infection or prior implantation which cannot provide adequate support and/or fixation to the prosthesis
* Patients that live \>100km from our centre (as such individuals are less likely to be available for the required follow-up appointments)

Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No