LIBRE (Ligamys, Internal Bracing, REconstruction) Study: Comparing Three Surgery Techniques After an Acute ACL Rupture.

NCT ID: NCT03441295

Last Updated: 2024-05-16

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

95 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2018-02-15

Study Completion Date

2025-08-30

Brief Summary

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

Single-blind, multi-centre, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing Ligamys Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) repair, Internal Bracing ACL repair and conventional ACL reconstruction for relative clinical efficacy and economic benefit.

Patients with a primary proximal acute ACL rupture will be included in either study 1 (0-4 weeks post rupture) or study 2 (5-12 weeks post rupture) of the LIBRE study.

Detailed Description

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

Rationale The conventional operative treatment of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is an ACL reconstruction, whereby the residual ruptured ACL is removed and replaced by an autograft hamstring tendon.

Recently, two alternative natural healing techniques have been developed and proof of concept have been established. The two repair techniques are: Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization (DIS) and Internal Brace Ligament Augmentation (IBLA). Both DIS and IBLA allow the rupture to heal by itself. The biggest difference between the two techniques is that the DIS system consists of a polyethylene suture and a spring screw system, which stabilizes the knee joint with the same force during flexion and extension of the knee, and the IBLA system consists of a 2mm high molecular weight polyethylene FiberTape®.

Objective The aim is to identify the optimal ACL technique for treating an acute ACL injury that can deliver an enhanced clinical efficacy and economic benefit for two time frames (0-4 weeks and 5-12 weeks) following ACL rupture.

Study design Two separate, interventional, single-blind, comparative, multi-centre, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be conducted. The University Hospital of Antwerp (UHA), University Hospital of Brussels (UHB) and OLV Hospital (OLVH) are the three participating sites. A total of 96 patients will be included in the study, 48 for study 1 and 48 for study 2.

The anticipated study duration is 72 months which will include a five month starting-up phase, 40 month recruitment period, a 24 month follow-up period and three months for final analysis. The study data will be collected over three periods: pre-operative, per-operative and post-operative.

To meet the aim the time-dependent nature of ACL repair surgery has to be taken into account. As the DIS should be performed within a short period after the ACL rupture, study 1 is limited to 4 weeks after ACL rupture. IBLA can be performed up to 12 weeks after ACL rupture, therefore the time limit for study 2 is 12 weeks after ACL rupture. ACL reconstruction is preferably performed when the knee has 'cooled down', and this is from 5 weeks post-rupture. There is no time limit for the ACL reconstruction, since this can be performed up to several years post-rupture.

• Study 1: RCT 1 DIS versus IBLA within 4 weeks after the ACL rupture.

• Study 2: RCT 2 IBLA versus the conventional ACL reconstruction between 5-12 weeks after the ACL rupture.

Study population Patients with a primary acute proximal ACL rupture, below the age of 50 years. The ACL remnant must be suitable for repair.

Intervention The conventional ACL reconstruction, DIS or IBLA surgery.

Main study objectives Primary outcome: Difference of 13 points in IKDC score between the reconstruction technique and the repair techniques (DIS/IBLA) 6 months postoperatively.

Main secondary outcomes: Failure/re-rupture, Tegner score, Lysholm score, EQ-5D-5L, return to work/sport, Lachman test, Pivot Shift test and complications.

Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, and benefit Proof of concept have been established and the expected complications are similar in the three treatment arms. The major benefit of the alternative repair techniques is the preservation of the native ACL and its own proprioceptors possibly leading to a faster recovery time.

Conditions

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

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture

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

Study 1 comparing Ligamys (DIS) and Internal Bracing (N=48). Study 2 comparing Internal Bracing and ACL Reconstruction (N=48).
Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants
Also the treating physiotherapist is blinded to the treatment the participant received.

Study Groups

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

Study 1 Ligamys

Repair Surgery.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

DIS, Ligamys

Study 1 Internal Bracing

Repair Surgery.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Internal Brace Ligament Augmentation

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

IBLA

Study 2 Internal Bracing

Repair Surgery.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Internal Brace Ligament Augmentation

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

IBLA

Study 2 Reconstruction

Reconstructive Surgery.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

ACL Reconstruction

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Conventional

Interventions

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

Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization

DIS, Ligamys

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Internal Brace Ligament Augmentation

IBLA

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

ACL Reconstruction

Conventional

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* • Primary acute proximal ACL rupture (MRI and per-operative confirmation): 3-digit ACL rupture classification, type A (supplement 1)

* Between 18-50 years, male or female
* Randomization and surgery within 4 weeks after the ACL rupture (Study 1)
* Randomization and surgery between 5-12 weeks after the ACL rupture (Study 2)
* The ACL remnant is suitable for repair in the three treatment groups: the distal ACL remnant must be in contact with the proximal remnant/femoral condyle for at least 75% (per-operative confirmation)
* The patient is mentally and verbally capable of participating in the study.
* Written informed consent (according to the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH)-GCP Guidelines).

Exclusion Criteria

* • Known posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) and/or posterolateral ligamentous complex (PLC), lateral collateral ligament (LCL) or medial collateral ligament (MCL) grade 3 injury.

* Known osseous fractures that could impair revalidation and/or ACL repair
* Patients with neurological disorders or systemic diseases
* Patients with trauma/fractures in the lower limb in the past 6 months that could influence rehabilitation
* Non-sportive patients with a Tegner score of \<3: these patients could probably counteract instability complaints with intensive physiotherapy.
* Any inflammatory disease, Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Spondyloarthropathy (SpA), active malignancy
* Patient not suited for intervention due to lack of mobility, meaning not achieving 90° of flexion before surgery.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

50 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

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

Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

University Hospital, Antwerp

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Christiaan Heusdens

Dr.

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

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

Christiaan Heusdens

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

UH, Antwerp

Locations

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

University Hospital, Antwerp

Edegem, Antwerp, Belgium

Site Status

University Hospital, Brussels

Jette, Brussels Capital, Belgium

Site Status

OLV Hospital

Aalst, Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgium

Site Status

Countries

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

Belgium

References

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

Heusdens CHW, Zazulia K, Roelant E, Dossche L, van Tiggelen D, Roeykens J, Smits E, Vanlauwe J, Van Dyck P. Study protocol: a single-blind, multi-center, randomized controlled trial comparing dynamic intraligamentary stabilization, internal brace ligament augmentation and reconstruction in individuals with an acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture: LIBRƎ study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Nov 18;20(1):547. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2926-0.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 31739784 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

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

T001017N

Identifier Type: OTHER_GRANT

Identifier Source: secondary_id

B300201835253

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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