AzTrials
AzTrials

Knee OsteoarthritisNCT03290170

Radiostereometric Analysis of Gap Balancing Versus Measured Resection for the Journey II Total Knee Replacement

A study testing Measured Resection and Gap Balancing in people with Knee Osteoarthritis and Knee Arthroplasty, run by London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's at 1 site in Canada.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This is a randomized study comparing the measured resection and gap-balancing surgical techniques for total knee replacement (TKR) using a cemented Journey II TKR implant system. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Knee Osteoarthritis, Knee Arthroplasty
What is being tested?
Measured Resection and Gap Balancing
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
56 participants
Where
1 siteCanada
Study dates
20 Dec 2017to 31 Aug 2019
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 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Over the age of 18 years
  • Primary, unilateral total knee arthroplasty

Who cannot join

  • History of alcoholism
  • Inability to speak or read English (questionnaires are only provided in English)
  • Pregnant women and women with plans to begin a family
  • Inflammatory arthritis -Bilateral total knee arthroplasty
  • Revision total knee arthroplasty

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Canada1 site
  • London Health Sciences Centre - University Hospital

    London, Ontario, N6A5A5

Other trials in Canada

About this study

This is a randomized study comparing the measured resection and gap-balancing surgical techniques for total knee replacement (TKR) using a cemented Journey II TKR implant system. We will be comparing the two surgical methods by evaluating implant migration using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) imaging, evaluating contact kinematics (knee mechanics) through RSA under dynamic conditions and comparing patient knee outcome scores.

Read the detailed description

The stability of a total knee replacement (TKR) surgery depends on soft tissue balance (i.e. balance of supporting ligaments) and bony cuts made during surgery that dictate the rotation of the femoral (thigh bone) component. Two main techniques predominate for execution of the bone cuts and soft tissue balance in TKR. In measured resection, pre-determined bony cuts are made and appropriate balance is obtained by judicious soft tissue releases as required. In gap balancing, the bony cuts for femoral rotation are driven by the native soft tissues. How these two surgical approaches affects the biomechanics of the knee invivo is unclear. The purpose of this study is to examine the patello-femoral articulation as well as coronal balance of the respective techniques under dynamic conditions. Secondary goals will be to examine the impact on femoral component position on changes to coronal plane position through a range of flexion/extension. As patellofemoral symptoms and flexion instability are two of the most common causes of patient dissatisfaction and revision in the short term, this study has the potential to have significant patient impact. The study also has the potential to provide information on long term wear potential if articular incongruity is found. TKA is a procedure that has good results in most patients, however, up to 20% of patients are not satisfied with their outcome. (1) Some of these dissatisfied patients require early revision. Early revisions are often attributed to technical issues, such as revisions required for instability, patellofemoral symptoms, stiffness or aseptic loosening (2). This highlights the impact of surgical technique on clinical outcomes. There are two main philosophies on how to complete bone resections and achieve a balanced TKA. The measured resection technique utilizes a standard set of bony cuts based on bony landmarks and then balances the knee by making judicious soft tissue releases. Component position, particularly femoral rotation, is fairly constant with using this technique. Gap balancing adjusts the bony cuts for femoral rotation to balance the soft tissues of the knee in flexion, potentially avoiding the necessity of soft tissue releases. In contrast to the measured resection technique, gap balancing allows for variable rotation of the femoral component. This variability in femoral rotation has the potential to impacts the coronal plane motion as well as tracking at the patellofemoral articulation. Surgeons have strong opinions that both the gap balanced (3) and measured resection techniques (4) provide superior results. However, in spite of a variety of literature in support of each technique, little has been done to compare the biomechanics of each technique. There is a lack of scientifically rigorous assessment of the impact of surgical technique on femoral rotation, with resultant changes to coronal plane motion. This prevents the elucidation of potential sources of clinical outcome differences both in the short term and the long term. The impact of femoral component rotation will be examined by examining the coronal plane motion. An area impacted by the two TKA techniques is how they impact coronal plane motion in flexion. There has only been one paper written utilizing dynamic fluoroscopy to examine the differences in techniques (7). This study examined lift-off of the lateral component in a comparative study of the two techniques using dynamic fluoroscopy. This study was limited in nature, with only the ability to quantify the amount of separation of the femoral component from the tibial component in flexion. It did not examine the impact of femoral rotation on flexion alignment, or correlate patient satisfaction scores to the dynamic fluoroscopy findings. With the combination of advanced imaging to determine component position with respect to bony landmarks (8) as well as dynamic fluoroscopy, a large area of new information can be gathered. Examination of the impact of surgical technique with the use of cement to femoral component rotation, and how this impacts coronal plane motion are achievable goals, with potential for a significant impact on patient outcomes.

Being tested
Measured Resection, Gap Balancing
Medical subject headings
Osteoarthritis, Knee

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Measured ResectionProcedure or surgery

    Bony landmarks are used to set femoral component rotation.

  • Gap BalancingProcedure or surgery

    Relies on ligament releases prior to bone cuts.

Study groups in NCT03290170
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Measured resection techniqueExperimentalMeasured resection surgical technique
Receives: Procedure: Measured Resection
Gap Balancing TechniqueExperimentalGap Balancing surgical technique
Receives: Procedure: Gap Balancing

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Implant migration

    Comparison of the two surgical techniques using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) imaging

    Measured: 2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months and 2 years post-operatively

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Contact Kinematics Under Dynamic Conditions

    Comparison of the two surgical techniques using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) imaging

    Measured: 3 and 12 months post-operatively

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted21 Sep 2017
  2. Study start20 Dec 2017
  3. Primary completion31 Aug 2019 (estimated)
  4. Study completion31 Aug 2019 (estimated)

Resources

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
None (open label)
Enrolment
56 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03290170
Sponsor's protocol ID
109512
Status last verified
Apr 2019
First submitted
19 Sep 2017
Last updated
29 Apr 2019
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No

Publications

  • Broberg JS, Naudie DDR, Howard JL, Lanting BA, Vasarhelyi EM, Teeter MG. Effect of Surgical Technique, Implant Design, and Time of Examination on Contact Kinematics: A Study of Bicruciate-Stabilized and Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2024 Aug;39(8):2111-2115. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.03.040. Epub 2024 Mar 22.

    PubMed 38522799

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Measured Resection and Gap Balancing in people with Knee Osteoarthritis and Knee Arthroplasty, run by London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's at 1 site in Canada.

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 5 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 Apr 2019. 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 Canada. 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?

Results are not available in the source record.

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?

Implant migration (time frame: 2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months and 2 years post-operatively). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03290170, which also lists 1 linked publication.

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 29 Apr 2019.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in