Anatomic Total Shoulder ArthroplastyNCT03035318
Comparison of Glenoid Position Using SmartBones
A study testing DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid Instrumentation, DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Instrumentation with SmartBone™ and IRI with SmartBone™ in people with Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, run by The Cleveland Clinic at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The investigators propose a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the accuracy of glenoid implant placement comparing four groups of patients. Group 1 consists of 3D imaging and computer-generated surgical planning using standard DePuy instrumentation for placement of the glenoid implant. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
- What is being tested?
- DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid Instrumentation, DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Instrumentation with SmartBone™ and IRI with SmartBone™
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 126 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Sep 2014to Dec 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
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 18 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis
- Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Who cannot join
- Age < 18 or > 80
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Comparison of Glenoid Position Using SmartBones: A Randomized Clinical Trial
The investigators propose a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the accuracy of glenoid implant placement comparing four groups of patients. Group 1 consists of 3D imaging and computer-generated surgical planning using standard DePuy instrumentation for placement of the glenoid implant. This group is considered the standard of care. Group 2 consists of 3D imaging and computer-generated surgical planning, with use of a SmartBone to trial the standard DePuy instrumentation. (Group 2 is Group 1 with addition of the use of a SmartBone.) Group 3 consists of 3D imaging and computer-generated surgical planning, with use of the IRI technology including a SmartBone, but with metal legs instead of plastic legs in the IRB#13-652 study. Group 4 consists of 3D imaging and computer-generated surgical planning, with use of the RTI technology including a SmartBone.
We will measure implant placement based on 3D CT imaging. We will measure pre-operative bone quality using quantitative CT scan to measure trabecular bone volume and correlate these findings with bone samples removed from the humeral head and measured by microCT and mechanical testing of the bone samples. These bone samples will be obtained as part of the routine preparation of the humeral head for implant placement. This bone tissue is normally removed and discarded as part of the standard of care for preparation of the bone for placement of the humeral stem.
By comparing a computer generated pre-operative plan to the post-operative glenoid component placement, we will be looking at three outcomes. First, we will determine the overall difference in glenoid component placement between the four treatment groups. Second, we will compare the placement between the technologies within and among surgeons. Third, we will evaluate the difference in implant position between technologies based on severity of pathology. The quality of the humeral head sample will be correlated to the possible loosening of the implants.
Read the detailed description
The proposed clinical study will enroll patients indicated for standard of care anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Participants will receive all pre-operative testing, intra-operative care including all implants and post-operative care that is standard of care and specific to the surgeon's and patient's decisions for care. The only change for Groups 2, 3 and 4 will be the type of surgical instruments used to place the glenoid guide pin, retention of the humeral head to obtain bone tissue, placement of the beads and post-operative CT scanning. In all cases the surgeon is able and allowed to use their own surgical judgment to place the guide pin, prepare the bone and place the desired implant. In all cases, the surgeon can use any and all of the standard instruments or guides provided by the implant manufacturer as the surgeon would use if the patient was not enrolled in the study. If the surgeon chooses not to use the IRI or RTI technology, then this would be noted as a deviation in plan, the reasons recorded and the patient would be excluded from the study without post-operative imaging and their pre-operative and intra-operative data would be analyzed for the purpose of understanding the reasons for failure of the IRI or RTI technology to provide assistance for refinement of the technology.
The participating surgeons will be Dr. Joseph Iannotti, Dr. Eric Ricchetti and Dr. Peter Evans. Patients may have surgery at either Cleveland Clinic main campus or at Euclid Hospital. If the procedure is performed at Euclid Hospital, post-operative CT scan and RSA (if chosen), will be performed at main campus within 3 weeks after surgery. The patient will be made aware of this at the time of enrollment and consent.
Using manufacturer (RSA biomedical, Umsa Sweden) provided beads and injector gun, four to five 1 mm tantalum beads will be placed in the coracoid, acromion and glenoid. Exact placement of these beads is at the discretion of the surgeon. Patient anatomy and operative exposure will guide the surgeon to the best places to inject the beads; however the surgeon will not be confined to a specific amount of beads in a specific location. The beads just need to be spread out amongst the coracoid, acromion, and glenoid to establish reference points for the RSA imaging. Prior studies looking at shoulder joint kinematics and implant position have used this methodology of bead placement with successful study related outcomes. Investigators have successfully placed bone beads in 22 patients currently treated in the ongoing IRI clinical study without any difficulty or adverse events during or after surgery.
Postoperatively, all patients will receive a CT with Metal Artifact Reduction (MAR)and RSA (if chosen) within 3 weeks of surgery. This will be a CT Scan performed with the patient's arm by the side in a supine position using metal artifact reduction techniques. In addition patients will receive a second CT scan and RSA imaging, provided they originally got RSA, performed 1 year (± 1 month) from surgery. The second CT scan will be performed with MAR techniques and with the patient in the lateral decubitus position with their arm in the overhead position, again using metal artifact reduction techniques. The second set of images, produced with a different body and arm position, also decreases metal artifact than those obtained with the arm placed by the side. This position cannot be comfortably obtained until 3- 6 months after surgery and require healing of the tissues and rehabilitation of the shoulder. Investigators have shown that in a small number of patients the glenoid component can shift in position within the first 3-6 months after surgery making the first CT Scan more accurate for implant position. The images obtained from the postoperative CT scans are placed back into the surgical software and the 3D reconstruction of the postoperative scapula with the implants is compared to the preoperative plan. Using measurement tools within the software, developed at the Cleveland Clinic, investigators will compare the position of the actual glenoid component placed in the patient with the desired position specified by the plan. The use and validation of these imaging methods to precisely measure implant position has been performed at the Cleveland Clinic in a prior IRB approved clinical trial (IRB 10-582).
Preoperatively, the high resolution quantitative CT will measure volumetric bone mineral density and the trabecular network of the glenoid. When available, this will be applied to the preoperative CT for those patients at Cleveland Clinic, Main Campus. Patients who have their preoperative CT completed at non Main Campus facilities will have the standard of care preoperative CT. This will be done at the same visit for the standard of care preoperative CT. Micro CT imaging, which creates a 3D reconstruction of the fine bone structure, in addition to microarchitecture analysis and mechanical testing, will allow assessment of the bone tissue taken from the bone core sample. Between the preoperative imaging and the bone tissue analysis, investigators will have data to properly determine the quality of the bone stock surrounding the implant. Further correlating these data with RSA and 3D CT imaging of implant movement, investigators can fully develop cause and effect of bone quality on glenoid component loosening.
Study Statistics and Analysis:
Our goal is to have 20 subjects in each of the 4 treatment groups for a total of 80 subjects. To control for subject withdrawal for various reasons after enrollment, we will enroll up to 120 subjects.
Statistical analysis plan:
Average deviations from plan for the 4 treatment groups will be compared using mixed-effects ANOVA methods. Random effects will be included to account for correlation between observations introduced as a consequence of multiple observations of deviation being taken on a particular surgeon. If significant differences are found, multiple comparisons based on the ANOVA model will be made to compare each pair of groups, and will use Holm's step-down procedure to control the family-wise error rate of the tests.
All analyses will be done by Colin O'Rourke of Quantitative Health Sciences at Cleveland Clinic using R software (version 3.0.0, Vienna, Austria). A significance level of 5% will be used for all testing.
- Conditions
- Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
- Being tested
- DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid Instrumentation, DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Instrumentation with SmartBone™, IRI with SmartBone™, RTI with SmartBone™, IRI with SmartBase
- Keywords
- Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, Glenoid, Patient-specific instrumentation, Computer simulation, Computer assisted tomography
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid InstrumentationDevice
Placement of glenoid component will be performed using DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid Instrumentation.
DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Instrumentation with SmartBone™Device
Placement of glenoid component will be performed using DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Instrumentation with SmartBone™.
IRI with SmartBone™Device
Placement of glenoid component will be performed using Intelligent Reusable Instrumentation (IRI) with SmartBone™.
RTI with SmartBone™Device
Placement of glenoid component will be performed using Real Time Instrumentation (RTI) with SmartBone™.
IRI with SmartBaseDevice
Placement of glenoid component will be performed using Intelligent Reusable Instrumentation (IRI) with SmartBase.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid | Active comparator | In the setting of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, this arm uses DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid Instrumentation to position the glenoid component. Receives: Device: DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid Instrumentation |
| DePuy Instrumentation with SmartBone™ | Experimental | In the setting of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, this arm uses DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Instrumentation with SmartBone™, to position the glenoid component. Receives: Device: DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Instrumentation with SmartBone™ |
| IRI with SmartBone™ | Experimental | In the setting of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, this arm uses an Intelligent Reusable Instrumentation (IRI), with a SmartBone™, to position the glenoid component. Receives: Device: IRI with SmartBone™ |
| RTI with SmartBone™ | Experimental | In the setting of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, this arm uses Real Time Instrumentation (RTI), with a SmartBone™, to position the glenoid component. Receives: Device: RTI with SmartBone™ |
| IRI with SmartBase | Experimental | In the setting of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, this arm uses an Intelligent Reusable Instrumentation (IRI), with a SmartBase™, to position the glenoid component. Receives: Device: IRI with SmartBase |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Difference in Glenoid Component Position (Inclination and Version)
The overall distance between glenoid component placement between Standard Manufacturer Instrumentation and Patient Specific Instrumentation will be compared (Inclination and Version).
Measured: Four months post surgery
Difference in Glenoid Component Position (AP and IP)
The overall distance between glenoid component placement between Standard Manufacturer Instrumentation and Patient Specific Instrumentation will be compared (Anteroposterior Position and Superoinferior Position).
Measured: Four months post surgery
Secondary outcomes (1)
Accuracy of Glenoid Component Placement Based on Severity of Glenoid Morphology
Accuracy of glenoid component placement based on severity of glenoid morphology. Each shoulder was classified according to a modified Walch classification. The Walch classification of glenoid morphology is the most commonly used system describing glenohumeral pathology in primary osteoarthritis. Glenoids were classified as asymmetric moderate-to severe posterior glenoid bone loss (Walch type-C or moderate to-severe type-B2 and B3 glenoids), without bone loss (Walch type-A1 glenoid), posterior bone loss requiring <10 degrees of correction (Walch type-B1 or mild type-B2 and B3 glenoids), or symmetric glenoid bone loss (Walch type-A2 glenoid).
Measured: Four months post surgery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Jan 2017 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2014
- Primary completionDec 2016
- Study completionDec 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for Anatomic Total Shoulder ArthroplastyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by The Cleveland ClinicThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 126 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The Cleveland Clinic
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Joseph Iannotti, The Cleveland Clinic
- Investigators
- Joseph P Iannotti, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, The Cleveland Clinic
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03035318
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 14-789
- Status last verified
- Apr 2021
- First submitted
- 18 Jan 2017
- Last updated
- 18 Jun 2021
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No: There is no plan to share IPD with other researchers.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Jun 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Glenoid Position Using SmartBones: A Randomized Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03035318
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 14-789
- Conditions
- Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
- Keywords
- Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, Glenoid, Patient-specific instrumentation, Computer simulation, Computer assisted tomography
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 126 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The Cleveland ClinicUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Sep 2014 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Jan 2017 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 18 Jun 2021
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The investigators propose a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the accuracy of glenoid implant placement comparing four groups of patients. Group 1 consists of 3D imaging and computer-generated surgical planning using standard DePuy instrumentation for placement of the glenoid implant. This group is considered the standard of care. Group 2 consists of 3D imaging and computer-generated surgical planning, with use of a SmartBone to trial the standard DePuy instrumentation. (Group 2 is Group 1 with addition of the use of a SmartBone.) Group 3 consists of 3D imaging and computer-generated surgical planning, with use of the IRI technology including a SmartBone, but with metal legs instead of plastic legs in the IRB#13-652 study. Group 4 consists of 3D imaging and computer-generated surgical planning, with use of the RTI technology including a SmartBone.
We will measure implant placement based on 3D CT imaging. We will measure pre-operative bone quality using quantitative CT scan to measure trabecular bone volume and correlate these findings with bone samples removed from the humeral head and measured by microCT and mechanical testing of the bone samples. These bone samples will be obtained as part of the routine preparation of the humeral head for implant placement. This bone tissue is normally removed and discarded as part of the standard of care for preparation of the bone for placement of the humeral stem.
By comparing a computer generated pre-operative plan to the post-operative glenoid component placement, we will be looking at three outcomes. First, we will determine the overall difference in glenoid component placement between the four treatment groups. Second, we will compare the placement between the technologies within and among surgeons. Third, we will evaluate the difference in implant position between technologies based on severity of pathology. The quality of the humeral head sample will be correlated to the possible loosening of the implants.
Detailed description
The proposed clinical study will enroll patients indicated for standard of care anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Participants will receive all pre-operative testing, intra-operative care including all implants and post-operative care that is standard of care and specific to the surgeon's and patient's decisions for care. The only change for Groups 2, 3 and 4 will be the type of surgical instruments used to place the glenoid guide pin, retention of the humeral head to obtain bone tissue, placement of the beads and post-operative CT scanning. In all cases the surgeon is able and allowed to use their own surgical judgment to place the guide pin, prepare the bone and place the desired implant. In all cases, the surgeon can use any and all of the standard instruments or guides provided by the implant manufacturer as the surgeon would use if the patient was not enrolled in the study. If the surgeon chooses not to use the IRI or RTI technology, then this would be noted as a deviation in plan, the reasons recorded and the patient would be excluded from the study without post-operative imaging and their pre-operative and intra-operative data would be analyzed for the purpose of understanding the reasons for failure of the IRI or RTI technology to provide assistance for refinement of the technology.
The participating surgeons will be Dr. Joseph Iannotti, Dr. Eric Ricchetti and Dr. Peter Evans. Patients may have surgery at either Cleveland Clinic main campus or at Euclid Hospital. If the procedure is performed at Euclid Hospital, post-operative CT scan and RSA (if chosen), will be performed at main campus within 3 weeks after surgery. The patient will be made aware of this at the time of enrollment and consent.
Using manufacturer (RSA biomedical, Umsa Sweden) provided beads and injector gun, four to five 1 mm tantalum beads will be placed in the coracoid, acromion and glenoid. Exact placement of these beads is at the discretion of the surgeon. Patient anatomy and operative exposure will guide the surgeon to the best places to inject the beads; however the surgeon will not be confined to a specific amount of beads in a specific location. The beads just need to be spread out amongst the coracoid, acromion, and glenoid to establish reference points for the RSA imaging. Prior studies looking at shoulder joint kinematics and implant position have used this methodology of bead placement with successful study related outcomes. Investigators have successfully placed bone beads in 22 patients currently treated in the ongoing IRI clinical study without any difficulty or adverse events during or after surgery.
Postoperatively, all patients will receive a CT with Metal Artifact Reduction (MAR)and RSA (if chosen) within 3 weeks of surgery. This will be a CT Scan performed with the patient's arm by the side in a supine position using metal artifact reduction techniques. In addition patients will receive a second CT scan and RSA imaging, provided they originally got RSA, performed 1 year (± 1 month) from surgery. The second CT scan will be performed with MAR techniques and with the patient in the lateral decubitus position with their arm in the overhead position, again using metal artifact reduction techniques. The second set of images, produced with a different body and arm position, also decreases metal artifact than those obtained with the arm placed by the side. This position cannot be comfortably obtained until 3- 6 months after surgery and require healing of the tissues and rehabilitation of the shoulder. Investigators have shown that in a small number of patients the glenoid component can shift in position within the first 3-6 months after surgery making the first CT Scan more accurate for implant position. The images obtained from the postoperative CT scans are placed back into the surgical software and the 3D reconstruction of the postoperative scapula with the implants is compared to the preoperative plan. Using measurement tools within the software, developed at the Cleveland Clinic, investigators will compare the position of the actual glenoid component placed in the patient with the desired position specified by the plan. The use and validation of these imaging methods to precisely measure implant position has been performed at the Cleveland Clinic in a prior IRB approved clinical trial (IRB 10-582).
Preoperatively, the high resolution quantitative CT will measure volumetric bone mineral density and the trabecular network of the glenoid. When available, this will be applied to the preoperative CT for those patients at Cleveland Clinic, Main Campus. Patients who have their preoperative CT completed at non Main Campus facilities will have the standard of care preoperative CT. This will be done at the same visit for the standard of care preoperative CT. Micro CT imaging, which creates a 3D reconstruction of the fine bone structure, in addition to microarchitecture analysis and mechanical testing, will allow assessment of the bone tissue taken from the bone core sample. Between the preoperative imaging and the bone tissue analysis, investigators will have data to properly determine the quality of the bone stock surrounding the implant. Further correlating these data with RSA and 3D CT imaging of implant movement, investigators can fully develop cause and effect of bone quality on glenoid component loosening.
Study Statistics and Analysis:
Our goal is to have 20 subjects in each of the 4 treatment groups for a total of 80 subjects. To control for subject withdrawal for various reasons after enrollment, we will enroll up to 120 subjects.
Statistical analysis plan:
Average deviations from plan for the 4 treatment groups will be compared using mixed-effects ANOVA methods. Random effects will be included to account for correlation between observations introduced as a consequence of multiple observations of deviation being taken on a particular surgeon. If significant differences are found, multiple comparisons based on the ANOVA model will be made to compare each pair of groups, and will use Holm's step-down procedure to control the family-wise error rate of the tests.
All analyses will be done by Colin O'Rourke of Quantitative Health Sciences at Cleveland Clinic using R software (version 3.0.0, Vienna, Austria). A significance level of 5% will be used for all testing.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 5
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid | Active comparator | Device: DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid InstrumentationIn the setting of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, this arm uses DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid Instrumentation to position the glenoid component. |
| DePuy Instrumentation with SmartBone™ | Experimental | Device: DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Instrumentation with SmartBone™In the setting of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, this arm uses DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Instrumentation with SmartBone™, to position the glenoid component. |
| IRI with SmartBone™ | Experimental | Device: IRI with SmartBone™In the setting of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, this arm uses an Intelligent Reusable Instrumentation (IRI), with a SmartBone™, to position the glenoid component. |
| RTI with SmartBone™ | Experimental | Device: RTI with SmartBone™In the setting of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, this arm uses Real Time Instrumentation (RTI), with a SmartBone™, to position the glenoid component. |
| IRI with SmartBase | Experimental | Device: IRI with SmartBaseIn the setting of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, this arm uses an Intelligent Reusable Instrumentation (IRI), with a SmartBase™, to position the glenoid component. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis
- Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Age < 18 or > 80
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 |
|---|---|---|
| DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid InstrumentationPlacement of glenoid component will be performed using DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid Instrumentation. | Device | DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid |
| DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Instrumentation with SmartBone™Placement of glenoid component will be performed using DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Instrumentation with SmartBone™. | Device | DePuy Instrumentation with SmartBone™ |
| IRI with SmartBone™Placement of glenoid component will be performed using Intelligent Reusable Instrumentation (IRI) with SmartBone™. | Device | IRI with SmartBone™ |
| RTI with SmartBone™Placement of glenoid component will be performed using Real Time Instrumentation (RTI) with SmartBone™. | Device | RTI with SmartBone™ |
| IRI with SmartBasePlacement of glenoid component will be performed using Intelligent Reusable Instrumentation (IRI) with SmartBase. | Device | IRI with SmartBase |
Primary outcome
Difference in Glenoid Component Position (Inclination and Version)
Time frame: Four months post surgery
The overall distance between glenoid component placement between Standard Manufacturer Instrumentation and Patient Specific Instrumentation will be compared (Inclination and Version).
Difference in Glenoid Component Position (AP and IP)
Time frame: Four months post surgery
The overall distance between glenoid component placement between Standard Manufacturer Instrumentation and Patient Specific Instrumentation will be compared (Anteroposterior Position and Superoinferior Position).
1 secondary outcome
Accuracy of Glenoid Component Placement Based on Severity of Glenoid Morphology
Time frame: Four months post surgery
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Jun 2021.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. There is no plan to share IPD with other researchers.
Related trials for Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Recruiting
Innovating Physical Therapy: A Pilot Study on Band Connect's Impact on Compliance, Satisfaction, and Revenue
Rotator Cuff Tears, Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
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.
Joseph P Iannotti, MD, PhD principal investigator
The Cleveland Clinic
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Glenoid Instrumentation, DePuy Global® Anchor Peg Instrumentation with SmartBone™ and IRI with SmartBone™ in people with Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty, run by The Cleveland Clinic at 1 site in United States.
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 2 inclusion and 1 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 18 Jun 2021. 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 United States. 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?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 18 Jun 2021). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
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?
Difference in Glenoid Component Position (Inclination and Version) (time frame: Four months post surgery). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 18 Jun 2021; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.