OsteoarthritisNCT00678236
A Migration and Bone Density Study Comparing 2 Types of Bone Cement in the OptiPac Bone Cement Mixing System
A study testing Refobacin Bone Cement R and Refobacin Plus Bone Cement in people with Osteoarthritis, run by University of Aarhus at 1 site in Denmark.
Trial summary
The goal of this scientific study is to determine whether there are differences in early migration and prosthesis-near bone density when a standard knee prosthesis is fixed with Refobacin Bone Cement R or with Refobacin Plus Bone Cement. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 70 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Osteoarthritis
- What is being tested?
- Refobacin Bone Cement R and Refobacin Plus Bone Cement
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 54 participants
- Where
- 1 siteDenmark
- Study dates
- Jun 2008to Jun 2012
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 70 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Older adult
Who may be able to join
- primary or secondary knee osteoarthritis
- sufficient bone quality for total knee arthroplasty
- age above 70 years
- no upper age limit if the patient is capable
- informed and written consent
- patient can only enter the project with one knee
Who cannot join
- neuromuscular or vascular disease in the affected leg
- preoperatively not found suitable for a knee arthroplasty
- patients with osteoporosis based on former diagnosis or preoperative DEXA-scan
- fracture sequelae or previous PTO or previous extensive knee surgery
- patients with need of a stem-elongation
- patients who cannot refrain from taking NSAID post-operatively
Show all 23Show fewer
- continuous medical treatment with vitamin K antagonists (Warfarin) which is known to reduce the bon emineral density by a factor of 5
- patients with metabolic bone disease
- patients with rheumatoid arthritis
- postmenopausal women in estrogenic hormone substitution
- patients with a continuous need of systemic cortisone treatment
- non-Danish citizenship
- patients who do not comprehend the Danish language (read and speak)
- senile dementia
- alcoholism - 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
- severe systemic disease (e.g. hemi paresis and Parkinson disease)
- systemic hip and spine disease
- employee at the orthopaedic department, Aarhus University Hospital
- ongoing case regarding industrial injury insurance of the knee
- patients with poor dental status (risk of infection)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: A Migration and Bone Density Study Comparing Refobacin Bone Cement R vs. Refobacin Plus Bone Cement in the OptiPac Bone Cement Mixing System. A Prospective Randomized Study on Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty
The goal of this scientific study is to determine whether there are differences in early migration and prosthesis-near bone density when a standard knee prosthesis is fixed with Refobacin Bone Cement R or with Refobacin Plus Bone Cement. Migration will be evaluated with RSA and bone density around the prosthesis with DEXA. The study will be successful if the prosthesis is fixed and remains in place throughout the entire period of the study, that is, that there is no increasing migration as measured by RSA. The cement type that ensures the largest number of solidly fixed prostheses during the two-year evaluation period will be "the best".
Read the detailed description
Loosening of prosthetic components continues to play a large role in total knee alloplasty (TKA) and need for revision. Osteolysis is an important part of prosthesis loosening, but we still do not completely understand the mechanism. Research has shown that mechanical factors such as weak bone cement and poor contact between cement/bone or cement/implant interphase contribute to loosening of implants. Survival of cemented TKA components also depend on a careful balancing of soft tissues around the knee, repair of lower extremity dislocations, design of the prosthesis and the level of patients' activities. Sclerosis of the proximal tibia can present a problem with regard to getting the cement to penetrate into the bone. Poor operative technique, such as high volume or high pressure lavage of the prepared bone surface, can result in reduced penetration of cement into the spongiosa and early failure of the prosthesis, measured as progressive radiolucent lines (RLLs). En tourniquet counter acts bleeding at the implant site and provides for better penetration of cement into the trabeculae of the bone. If the bone surface at the implantation site is contaminated with blood before the cement is applied, the shear strength in the bone/cement interphase can be reduced by up to 50%.
In prosthesis used in this study includes a tibial plateau with a central stem with stabilizing wings, the bottom surface of which is recessed by about 1 mm, so that a pocket is formed surrounded by a lip that provides for an even thickness of the cement layer beneath the tibial plateau. This assures that the cement is pressed down into the spongiosa during fixation of the implant. This design doubles the penetration of the cement compared with prostheses without a depressed baseplate. The company behind this design has had a successful follow-up of this system for more than 15 years. A good cement/implant interphase lessens the risk of penetration of debris into the interphase and thus reduces the risk for the development of osteolysis and aseptic loosening of the implant.
Fixation of knee alloplasties is done in 70% of cases with use of cement. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the long-term survival of knee prostheses with the two types of cement used in this project. Both types of cement in this study are used today in knee surgery with good, short-term clinical results. It is important to investigate new types of cement in order to assure future patients the best possible results after knee alloplasty and fewer re-operations.
The goal of this scientific study is to determine whether there are differences in early migration and prosthesis-near bone density when a standard knee prosthesis is fixed with Refobacin Bone Cement R or with Refobacin Plus Bone Cement. Migration will be evaluated with RSA and bone density around the prosthesis with DEXA. The study will be successful if the prosthesis is fixed and remains in place throughout the entire period of the study, that is, that there is no increasing migration as measured by RSA. The cement type that ensures the largest number of solidly fixed prostheses during the two-year evaluation period will be "the best".
- Conditions
- Osteoarthritis
- Being tested
- Refobacin Bone Cement R, Refobacin Plus Bone Cement
- Keywords
- RSA, Gonarthritis, Bone Cement
- Medical subject headings
- Osteoarthritis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Refobacin Bone Cement ROther
Also called Biomet Europe: Refobacin Bone Cement R
Insertion of a knee prosthesis fixed by Refobacin Bone Cement R
Refobacin Plus Bone CementOther
Also called Biomet Europe: Refobacin Plus Bone Cement
Insertion of a knee prosthesis fixed by Refobacin Plus Bone Cement
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Active comparator | Refobacin Bone Cement R Receives: Other: Refobacin Bone Cement R |
| 2 | Active comparator | Refobacin Plus Bone Cement Receives: Other: Refobacin Plus Bone Cement |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Tibial implant migration evaluated by RSA
Measured: 2013
Secondary outcomes (1)
Comparison of Refobacin Bone Cement R vs. Refobacin Plus Bone Cement
Measured: 2013
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted15 May 2008 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2008
- Primary completionJun 2012
- Study completionJun 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for OsteoarthritisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Aarhus
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Aarhus University Hospital, Zimmer Biomet
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Kjeld Soballe, MD, Prof., Principal investigator, Orthopaedic Center, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage-Hansens Gade 2, 8000 Århus C, Denmark
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00678236
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 20070237
- Status last verified
- Aug 2013
- First submitted
- 8 May 2008
- Last updated
- 20 Aug 2013
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 20 Aug 2013. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Migration and Bone Density Study Comparing Refobacin Bone Cement R vs. Refobacin Plus Bone Cement in the OptiPac Bone Cement Mixing System. A Prospective Randomized Study on Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00678236
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 20070237
- Conditions
- Osteoarthritis
- Keywords
- RSA, Gonarthritis, Bone Cement
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of AarhusUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Aarhus University Hospital, Zimmer Biomet
- Study start
- Jun 2008
- Primary completion
- Jun 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 15 May 2008 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this scientific study is to determine whether there are differences in early migration and prosthesis-near bone density when a standard knee prosthesis is fixed with Refobacin Bone Cement R or with Refobacin Plus Bone Cement. Migration will be evaluated with RSA and bone density around the prosthesis with DEXA. The study will be successful if the prosthesis is fixed and remains in place throughout the entire period of the study, that is, that there is no increasing migration as measured by RSA. The cement type that ensures the largest number of solidly fixed prostheses during the two-year evaluation period will be "the best".
Detailed description
Loosening of prosthetic components continues to play a large role in total knee alloplasty (TKA) and need for revision. Osteolysis is an important part of prosthesis loosening, but we still do not completely understand the mechanism. Research has shown that mechanical factors such as weak bone cement and poor contact between cement/bone or cement/implant interphase contribute to loosening of implants. Survival of cemented TKA components also depend on a careful balancing of soft tissues around the knee, repair of lower extremity dislocations, design of the prosthesis and the level of patients' activities. Sclerosis of the proximal tibia can present a problem with regard to getting the cement to penetrate into the bone. Poor operative technique, such as high volume or high pressure lavage of the prepared bone surface, can result in reduced penetration of cement into the spongiosa and early failure of the prosthesis, measured as progressive radiolucent lines (RLLs). En tourniquet counter acts bleeding at the implant site and provides for better penetration of cement into the trabeculae of the bone. If the bone surface at the implantation site is contaminated with blood before the cement is applied, the shear strength in the bone/cement interphase can be reduced by up to 50%.
In prosthesis used in this study includes a tibial plateau with a central stem with stabilizing wings, the bottom surface of which is recessed by about 1 mm, so that a pocket is formed surrounded by a lip that provides for an even thickness of the cement layer beneath the tibial plateau. This assures that the cement is pressed down into the spongiosa during fixation of the implant. This design doubles the penetration of the cement compared with prostheses without a depressed baseplate. The company behind this design has had a successful follow-up of this system for more than 15 years. A good cement/implant interphase lessens the risk of penetration of debris into the interphase and thus reduces the risk for the development of osteolysis and aseptic loosening of the implant.
Fixation of knee alloplasties is done in 70% of cases with use of cement. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the long-term survival of knee prostheses with the two types of cement used in this project. Both types of cement in this study are used today in knee surgery with good, short-term clinical results. It is important to investigate new types of cement in order to assure future patients the best possible results after knee alloplasty and fewer re-operations.
The goal of this scientific study is to determine whether there are differences in early migration and prosthesis-near bone density when a standard knee prosthesis is fixed with Refobacin Bone Cement R or with Refobacin Plus Bone Cement. Migration will be evaluated with RSA and bone density around the prosthesis with DEXA. The study will be successful if the prosthesis is fixed and remains in place throughout the entire period of the study, that is, that there is no increasing migration as measured by RSA. The cement type that ensures the largest number of solidly fixed prostheses during the two-year evaluation period will be "the best".
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Active comparator | Other: Refobacin Bone Cement RRefobacin Bone Cement R |
| 2 | Active comparator | Other: Refobacin Plus Bone CementRefobacin Plus Bone Cement |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 70 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- primary or secondary knee osteoarthritis
- sufficient bone quality for total knee arthroplasty
- age above 70 years
- no upper age limit if the patient is capable
- informed and written consent
Key exclusion criteria (23 listed)
- neuromuscular or vascular disease in the affected leg
- preoperatively not found suitable for a knee arthroplasty
- patients with osteoporosis based on former diagnosis or preoperative DEXA-scan
- fracture sequelae or previous PTO or previous extensive knee surgery
- patients with need of a stem-elongation
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Refobacin Bone Cement RAlso: Biomet Europe: Refobacin Bone Cement RInsertion of a knee prosthesis fixed by Refobacin Bone Cement R | Other | 1 |
| Refobacin Plus Bone CementAlso: Biomet Europe: Refobacin Plus Bone CementInsertion of a knee prosthesis fixed by Refobacin Plus Bone Cement | Other | 2 |
Primary outcome
Tibial implant migration evaluated by RSA
Time frame: 2013
1 secondary outcome
Comparison of Refobacin Bone Cement R vs. Refobacin Plus Bone Cement
Time frame: 2013
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 20 Aug 2013.
Related trials for Osteoarthritis
Not yet recruiting
Study Comparing Osteoarthritis Programs
Osteoarthritis
Recruiting
Daily Knee Sleeve Use Versus No Use in Older Adults With Chronic Knee Pain
Knee Arthritis, Osteoarthritis
RecruitingObservational study
SVF Cellular Composition, Secretome, and Responses in Knee Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis, Knee
Recruiting
Pharmacist-physiotherapist Collaborative Management for Early Knee Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis (OA) of the Knee, Physiotherapy
Recruiting
Outpatient Physiotherapy vs. mHealth Exercise and Self-Management for Knee Osteoarthritis (MOKneeTOR)
Knee Osteoarthristis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Kjeld Soballe, MD, Prof. principal investigator
Orthopaedic Center, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage-Hansens Gade 2, 8000 Århus C, Denmark
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Refobacin Bone Cement R and Refobacin Plus Bone Cement in people with Osteoarthritis, run by University of Aarhus at 1 site in Denmark.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 23 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 20 Aug 2013. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Denmark. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Tibial implant migration evaluated by RSA (time frame: 2013). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 20 Aug 2013.