Orthosensor vs Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty

NCT ID: NCT03628378

Last Updated: 2024-09-24

Study Results

Results available

Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.

View full results

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

130 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2017-12-20

Study Completion Date

2022-06-22

Brief Summary

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

In a randomized-controlled fashion, this investigation will evaluate the use of the Verasense technology to achieve optimal TKA balance. Patients will be randomized to either: 1) undergo manual soft tissue balancing or 2) soft tissue balancing with the Verasense. The primary outcomes of interest will include patient-reported outcomes as well knee range of motion at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Secondary outcomes of interest will include pain level as assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS) in the acute post-operative and follow up periods, ambulation distance during inpatient physical therapy postoperatively, surgical time, tourniquet time, amount of opioid consumption, length of hospital stay, incidence of arthrofibrosis and subsequent manipulation under anesthesia. The investigators hypothesize that the use of the Verasense technology will lead to improved soft tissue balancing in TKA and ultimately result in favorable patient-reported outcomes and postoperative knee range of motion.

Detailed Description

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

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most successful surgical procedures performed worldwide, and if conducted properly, has proven to improve pain, knee range of motion, and ultimately quality of life. Approximately 700,000 TKAs are performed annually in the United States, and this number is projected to increase to 3.48 million annually by 2030. Unfortunately, roughly 20% of patients who undergo TKA are dissatisfied with their outcome and this number has remained stagnant for the past decade.Patient satisfaction after TKA is predominantly driven by postoperative pain and function.

Outcomes in TKA are influenced by multiple factors, stemming from patient-specific factors and surgically modifiable factors. Patient specific factors include body mass index (BMI), preoperative range of motion (ROM), psychological status, and other comorbidities; examples of surgically modifiable factors include the type of prosthesis utilized, posterior condylar offset, posterior tibial slope, and soft tissue balancing. Knee arthritis is a disease not only of the condylar surfaces, but of the soft tissues as well. As such, the success of a TKA depends on the ultimate restoration of the integrity of the knee articular surfaces,necessitating two critical elements, beginning with precise osteotomies and ending with soft tissue balancing to realign the lower extremity to a neutral mechanical axis.

In the last three decades, this first element has been addressed by major technological advances to perform precise and reproducible osteotomies, most recently with the development of computer-assisted navigation and validation techniques and modalities that allow osteotomies based on anatomical jigs created by CT imaging of the patient's knee.

Despite these advances, little advancement has been appreciated by the second element-soft tissue balancing.While precise osteotomies are critical to the success of a TKA, they do not address ligamentous stability and balance, which if absent, leads to knee instability, stiffness, accelerated prosthetic wear, aseptic loosening, and premature implant failure. Soft tissue imbalance accounts for 35% of early TKA revisions in the United States. Soft tissue balancing in TKA has traditionally been more of an art than a science, relying exclusively on the surgeon's subjective assessment based on nebulous tactile feedback after completion of the osteotomies. The diseased soft tissues (i.e. ligaments) may be lengthened, tightened, or released to achieve balance, range of motion, and functional stability. However, these methods are numerous, variable, and above all, highly subjective. The individual experience of the surgeon, including fellowship training and procedural volume play a role in their ability to balance a knee properly.

Typically, it is only after many years of experience does the surgeon develop the ability to accurately assess stability in varus, valgus, anterior and posterior planes.Objective balancing of soft tissues in TKA may contribute to a decrease in pain, improve function, patient satisfaction, and ultimately decrease the rate of revision. The need for the transformation of TKA soft tissue balancing from an art to a science has been realized by a technology that allows surgeons to objectively quantify ligament balance by offering real-time, evidence-based data during TKA. The Verasense (Orthosensor Inc., Dania, FL) is a disposable wireless device embedded with force sensors and inserted into the tibial component during the trialing phase of surgery after gross balancing, allowing real-time loading values in the medial and lateral compartments of the knee and fine-tuning of the end result by further soft tissue releases to improve balance and stability.

Balance in TKA is defined as stability in the sagittal plane and less than 15 pounds difference in the medial and lateral compartments of the knee. In a multicenter study, intraoperative sensors were utilized to define balance and to correlate it with improved clinical outcomes. TKAs that had undergone said balancing were compared to unbalanced TKAs, with results showing improved Knee Society Score (KSS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) between balanced (172, 14.5 points) and unbalanced (145.3, 23.8 points), respectively. The authors concluded that a well-balanced TKA was the most significant contributing factor to improved postoperative outcomes.

Similarly, Chow et al. investigated six-month patient-reported outcomes in a small retrospective cohort study with short-term follow up of six months comparing sensor-assisted to non-sensor-assisted TKA balancing. They reported that the KSS, Oxford Knee Score, and knee range of motion was significantly higher in the sensor-assisted cohort and that the rate of arthrofibrosis was lower in the sensor-assisted group, however, not statistically significant.

Further, Geller et al. retrospectively compared the incidence of arthrofibrosis before and after the implementation of the Verasense technology to assist with ligament balancing and reported a 5% rate of arthrofibrosis prior to implementation versus 1.6% after. In this same report, median length of surgery was 83 minutes before implementation compared to 115 minutes after. The authors reported that while the implantation of the sensor increased operative time, this additional time does not have a clinical impact and that the benefits outweigh this potential increase in operative time. Multiple reports in the literature have suggested that a well-balanced TKA, which leads to increased activity levels may be part of a cascade effect, which ultimately results in higher patient-reported outcome scores.

Unfortunately, soft tissue balancing is one of the only remaining aspects of TKA that has not benefited from a consensus based on quantitative measures and objective data. As the economic environment changes in medicine, coupled with a five-fold increase in TKAs performed and the subsequent need for less experienced surgeons to perform TKAs, it is imperative that the traditional subjectivity once relied upon be replaced by more empirical and clinical data to construct a scientific consensus of what balance is. In so doing, clinical outcomes may be improved, with a resultant decrease in the rate of early revisions, and ultimately significant savings in healthcare expenditures.While the literature has demonstrated a clear advantage by technology like the Verasense, previous studies have predominantly been underpowered, with short-term follow up, and unstandardized TKAs, including surgical approach, prosthetic designs, manufacturer, and above all, not randomized and controlled.

Conditions

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

Osteoarthritis, Knee

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

SINGLE

Participants

Study Groups

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

Non-Sensor Group

Patients will undergo standard total knee replacement surgery without Verasense assisted balancing technology.

Group Type NO_INTERVENTION

No interventions assigned to this group

Sensor Group

Patients will undergo total knee replacement surgery with Verasense assisted balancing technology.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Verasense

Intervention Type DEVICE

Ligamentous balancing device

Interventions

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

Verasense

Ligamentous balancing device

Intervention Type DEVICE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Orthosensor

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Primary total knee replacement

Exclusion Criteria

* Revision knee surgery
* Prior knee surgery
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

85 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

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

Columbia University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Jeffrey Geller

Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

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

Jeffrey Geller, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Columbia University

Locations

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

NewYork-Presbyterian Lawrence Hospital

Bronxville, New York, United States

Site Status

Columbia University Irving Medical Center

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Countries

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

United States

References

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

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 17403800 (View on PubMed)

Chow JC, Breslauer L. The Use of Intraoperative Sensors Significantly Increases the Patient-Reported Rate of Improvement in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2017 Jul 1;40(4):e648-e651. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20170503-01. Epub 2017 May 8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28481384 (View on PubMed)

Jacobs CA, Christensen CP, Karthikeyan T. Patient and intraoperative factors influencing satisfaction two to five years after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Aug;29(8):1576-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.022. Epub 2014 Mar 28.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24768544 (View on PubMed)

Judge A, Arden NK, Cooper C, Kassim Javaid M, Carr AJ, Field RE, Dieppe PA. Predictors of outcomes of total knee replacement surgery. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012 Oct;51(10):1804-13. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes075. Epub 2012 Apr 24.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22532699 (View on PubMed)

Kim KW, Han JW, Cho HJ, Chang CB, Park JH, Lee JJ, Lee SB, Seong SC, Kim TK. Association between comorbid depression and osteoarthritis symptom severity in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Mar 16;93(6):556-63. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01344.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 21411706 (View on PubMed)

Camarata DA. Soft tissue balance in total knee arthroplasty with a force sensor. Orthop Clin North Am. 2014 Apr;45(2):175-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2013.12.001. Epub 2014 Feb 1.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24684911 (View on PubMed)

Churchill JL, Khlopas A, Sultan AA, Harwin SF, Mont MA. Gap-Balancing versus Measured Resection Technique in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparison Study. J Knee Surg. 2018 Jan;31(1):13-16. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1608820. Epub 2017 Nov 27.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29179222 (View on PubMed)

Krackow KA. Instability in total knee arthroplasty: loose as a goose. J Arthroplasty. 2003 Apr;18(3 Suppl 1):45-7. doi: 10.1054/arth.2003.50069.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12730928 (View on PubMed)

Gustke KA, Golladay GJ, Roche MW, Elson LC, Anderson CR. A new method for defining balance: promising short-term clinical outcomes of sensor-guided TKA. J Arthroplasty. 2014 May;29(5):955-60. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.10.020. Epub 2013 Oct 24.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24269069 (View on PubMed)

Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, Mason JB, Nadaud M. Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Nov;(392):315-8. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200111000-00041.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11716402 (View on PubMed)

Meneghini RM, Ziemba-Davis MM, Lovro LR, Ireland PH, Damer BM. Can Intraoperative Sensors Determine the "Target" Ligament Balance? Early Outcomes in Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016 Oct;31(10):2181-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.03.046. Epub 2016 Apr 4.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 27155997 (View on PubMed)

Incavo SJ, Wild JJ, Coughlin KM, Beynnon BD. Early revision for component malrotation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 May;458:131-6. doi: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e3180332d97.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 17224835 (View on PubMed)

Walker PS, Meere PA, Bell CP. Effects of surgical variables in balancing of total knee replacements using an instrumented tibial trial. Knee. 2014 Jan;21(1):156-61. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2013.09.002. Epub 2013 Sep 19.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24103411 (View on PubMed)

Geller JA, Lakra A, Murtaugh T. The Use of Electronic Sensor Device to Augment Ligament Balancing Leads to a Lower Rate of Arthrofibrosis After Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017 May;32(5):1502-1504. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.019. Epub 2016 Dec 24.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28109758 (View on PubMed)

Sarpong NO, Held MB, Grosso MJ, Herndon CL, Santos W, Lakra A, Shah RP, Cooper HJ, Geller JA. No Benefit to Sensor-guided Balancing Compared With Freehand Balancing in TKA: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022 Aug 1;480(8):1535-1544. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002168. Epub 2022 Apr 7.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 35394462 (View on PubMed)

Provided Documents

Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.

Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan

View Document

Other Identifiers

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

AAAR6137

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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

Robotic Assisted TKA
NCT06062615 COMPLETED NA
TracPatch in Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT03466476 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING NA