Femoral BMD Change Following Cemented or Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT ID: NCT06733597
Last Updated: 2025-03-18
Study Results
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.
RECRUITING
NA
100 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2025-03-06
2026-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Periprosthetic Bone Mineral Density Changes After Implantation Of A Short Hip Stem Compared To A Straight Stem
NCT03147131
Assessment of Periprosthetic Bone Mineral Density in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Prosthesis of Different Design
NCT06309433
Stem Cells Predicting Orthopedic Outcomes
NCT01366911
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
Total Knee Arthroplasty Comparing Cementless to Cemented Fixation
NCT01335438
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Specific Aim 1: In the entire study cohort, our primary endpoint is to estimate percent BMD change 12 months after TKA at the distal femur 25% region of interest (ROI).
Specific Aim 1a: To compare percent BMD change 12 months after TKA at the distal femur 25% ROI in cemented vs uncemented implants.
Specific Aim 1b: To compare percent BMD change 12 months after TKA at the distal femur 25% ROI in those receiving robotic vs manual implants.
Specific Aim 2: In the entire study cohort, our secondary endpoints are to estimate percent BMD change 12 months after TKA at a.) the distal femur 15% ROI and b.) a proximal tibial ROI Specific Aim 2a: To compare percent BMD change 12 months after TKA at the distal femur 15% ROI and proximal tibial ROI in cemented vs uncemented implants.
Specific Aim 2b: To compare percent BMD change 12 months after TKA at the distal femur 15% ROI and proximal tibial ROI in in those receiving robotic vs manual implants.
Exploratory Aim 1: Compare patient reported pain and function at 2 weeks, 3 and 12 months:
1. in those receiving cemented and cementless implants.
2. in those receiving robotic vs manual implants.
Exploratory Aim 2: Evaluate leg lean mass change as measured by DXA and BIS at 2 weeks, 3 and 12 months over time.
1. In the entire cohort
2. in those receiving cemented and cementless implants.
3. in those receiving robotic vs manual implants.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
BASIC_SCIENCE
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Cemented and Manual
Cement
The cemented approach includes inserting cement into the femur and tibia prior to setting the prosthetic.
Manual Surgery
The manual approach is the surgeon determining prosthetic placement using techniques developed during training.
Cemented and Robotic
Cement
The cemented approach includes inserting cement into the femur and tibia prior to setting the prosthetic.
Robotic Surgery
The haptic robotic assisted approach uses a computer and robot to determine specific placement of the prosthetic.
Cementless and Manual
Cementless
The non-cement approach uses a different type of prosthetic that is placed tight against the bone and requires no other fixation material.
Manual Surgery
The manual approach is the surgeon determining prosthetic placement using techniques developed during training.
Cementless and Robotic
Cementless
The non-cement approach uses a different type of prosthetic that is placed tight against the bone and requires no other fixation material.
Robotic Surgery
The haptic robotic assisted approach uses a computer and robot to determine specific placement of the prosthetic.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Cement
The cemented approach includes inserting cement into the femur and tibia prior to setting the prosthetic.
Cementless
The non-cement approach uses a different type of prosthetic that is placed tight against the bone and requires no other fixation material.
Manual Surgery
The manual approach is the surgeon determining prosthetic placement using techniques developed during training.
Robotic Surgery
The haptic robotic assisted approach uses a computer and robot to determine specific placement of the prosthetic.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Normal BMD or osteopenia with Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) not meeting Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation (BHOF) treatment recommendations, i.e., 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk greater then or equal to 20 percent or hip fracture risk greater than or equal to 3 percent.
Exclusion Criteria
* Hip or spine T-score less than or equal to -2.5
* History of low trauma fracture after age 50
* FRAX fracture risk calculation greater than or equal to 20 percent for major osteoporotic fracture or greater than or equal to 3 percent for hip fracture
* Prior or current use of osteoporosis medications
* Current use of systemic glucocorticoids or bone-active medications
* Rheumatoid arthritis
* Laboratory abnormalities that in the opinion of study investigators may impact bone mineral density; including calcium, creatinine, albumin and parathyroid hormone (PTH)
* 25(OH)D less than 20 ng/mL
* Not suitable for study participation due to other reasons at the investigator's discretion
55 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Brian Nickel, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
UW School of Medicine and Public Health
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
UW School of Medicine and Public Health
Madison, Wisconsin, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Protocol Version 10/31/24
Identifier Type: OTHER
Identifier Source: secondary_id
A536110
Identifier Type: OTHER
Identifier Source: secondary_id
2024-0197
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.